November 24, 2018
General Mattis has turned the entire military into a gigantic homosexual nightclub in order to fulfill his twisted and unnatural desires for the furthest edge of sadomasochistic fetishism.
You see, the Mad Pit Bull lied when he told Congress that homosexuals would not have their status changed under his leadership.
In fact, their status would change from “rimmed” to “double-dog rimmed.”
And how about his secret meeting with Tim Cook?
Don’t even get me started.
The thing about Mad Pit Bull’s sick drives to bury himself in a body pile of transexuals is that no other country is allowing the heads of their military to push such things. The Chinese didn’t dig up some creepy old faggot, put him at the head of the military, and tell him “go nuts, buddy – now’s your chance.”
If we’re going to cripple our military by allowing trannies into it, it needs to be a mutual thing, worldwide. Like the ban on the use of chemical gas.
In yet another aggressive attempt to bypass federal appeals courts, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to hear a challenge to President Donald Trump’s policy that bars most transgender individuals from military service.
The policy, first announced by the President in July 2017 via Twitter and later officially released by Secretary of Defense James Mattis, blocks individuals who suffer from a condition known as gender dysphoria from serving with limited exceptions. It also specifies that individuals without the condition can serve but only if they do so according to the sex they were assigned at birth.
Wait wait wait.
“Suffer from a condition”?
Didn’t think you were allowed to say that. I thought they were proud women?
District courts across the country have so far blocked the policy from going into effect. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in one challenge earlier this fall and the DC Circuit will hear arguments in early December.
On Friday, Solicitor General Noel Francisco filed petitions asking the justices to take up the issue in three separate cases that are still in lower courts so it could be decided definitively this term. Francisco argues that lower court rulings imposing nationwide injunctions are wrong and warrant immediate review.
He writes because of the injunctions, “the military has been forced to maintain that prior policy for nearly a year” despite a determination by Mattis and a panel of experts that the “prior policy, adopted by (Defense Secretary Ash Carter), posed too great a risk to military effectiveness and lethality.”
Earlier in the month, the Department of Justice warned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that it planned to ask for emergency relief to lift the nationwide injunction.
I would love to see trannies kicked out of anything.
Actually what I would love is to see them getting dragged out of their homes and shot in the street.
But there are all kinds of things I would love to see, right now what I would like the Supreme Court to rule on is asylum seeking, anchor babies, et al.
But are we waiting for Ginsberg to die for that?
Is it because Roberts has gone rogue?
Was Roberts signaling that he was going to create problems when after two years of the President attacking judges for being political, Roberts decides that judges are a magical type of creature that cannot by their nature act in a political way – except for the single exception of publicly attacking the President on that specific point?
For those of you who may not be American or may just not know, Roberts is a Bush appointee, who is a suspected homosexual.
He didn’t get married until he was in his 40s – and married a woman also in her 40s (????) – and they “adopted” two white children from mother Ireland that they smuggled through South America.
Please note that “adoption” is not a real thing, and the correct term is “kidnapped” or “bought.” Raising children that are not related to you is an unnatural act. It used to be if people couldn’t have children they would get one from their relatives to raise – a niece or nephew – the real parents save a bit of money on raising the kid and the aunt and uncle are okay devoting money and energy on someone who is part of their own family stock. Raising some total stranger’s children is the parenting equivalent of sodomy.
He also looks and acts like he sucks cock.
You can say “Anglin, you speculate that every white male you disagree with is secretly a homosexual” – okay, that might well be true that I do do that, but what other reason is there to be a shill for Jews? Unless you’re like Morning Joe and you accidentally murdered an intern – what kind of other secrets could you really have? Very few people have secretly murdered anyone.
Also for those who don’t know, his attack on Trump was utterly insane. There is no single individual anywhere who actually believes what this guy said. Whenever anyone has a case anywhere, they ask “who’s the judge?” because judges have different beliefs about how to use the law, and these beliefs are fundamentally political. This is why you have “conservative judges,” who believe that the Constitution was written to be the basis of a legal system, and “liberal judges” who say the Constitution is not really a legal document, but some kind of vague utopian mandate that should be changed whenever Jews want to change the society of the goyim.
No one believes that there are not liberal and conservative judges. That is not a position that I have ever heard anyone argue, ever. And anyone from any political aisle who would look at that claim would be like “wow that is really just a totally disingeneous statement – why would someone say that, unless they were just trying to come across as a dishonest, disingeneous person on purpose?”