The Court’s False Flag Attack on the Heterosexual Populace

Much can and should be said about the US appeals court of New York and its ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. But we shouldn’t miss the fact that the decision is an obvious ploy to distract us from the immorality of taxation by the pretense of a fake kind of sexual “justice.”

Just imagine that you were single and childless, but had a good friend whom you loved. So you wrote him into your will, leaving him your estate. After you died, imagine that the Federal Government swooped in and ravaged your heir for $363,000 of what you left him. Depending on the nature of your estate, such grave-robbing could cost your heir a great deal more since the assets might have to be liquidated fast. And the other word for assets that must be sold fast is “cheap.”

I submit that such grave-robbing is morally perverse and against nature People who have paid taxes all their lives, and only want to leave what they have earned to those whom they love, should not have to deal with these revenue predators.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Chicago Reveals Sweetheart Deal of $10 for 99-Year Lease on Land for Fake Obama ‘Library’

So, even though I don’t believe in a homosexual “orientation,” and I recognize that same-sex practice is sinful, I find it easy to sympathize with the plaintiff who objected to DOMA. She shouldn’t be attacking marriage, or living in sin, but no one—no matter what their professed sexual orientation—likes being raped by the government.

This reveals just how perverse the court’s ruling really is. The court simply assumed as beyond question that plundering and looting people is an eternal natural right of the state. Marriage can be redefined into a self-parody but taxes are set in stone.

What I have written will be treated as “right wing,” but it is really established thought on the nature of totalitarianism. Even at this late date students are still encouraged to read George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. In both those famous dystopian novels of Totalitarianism, the state was hostile to normal families and children. In Brave New World, the state conditioned everyone to be disgusted by birth and provided for mechanical fertilization and artificial wombs so that no one had parents. In Orwell’s world, the youth were conditioned to join the “anti-sex league” and lobby for artificial insemination as the only way to get pregnant.

The basic tenet of both books the state fights the family. It is happening now before our eyes.

The court claimed, “Homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public.” But the majority doesn’t want to see people plundered of their legacy when they try to leave it to others after they die. That witch’s brew was served up by professional politicians. Whatever offenses homosexuals attribute to heterosexuals, the government is not the same as the populace. The populace in general has not been taxing anyone.

Previous Chicago Figures Out Cause of Homicides: Untaxed Bullets
Next Taser-Happy Cops?


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.