WSJ: “Arizona’s Interference with White Genocide Faces Supreme Court Test”

The legal team defending Arizona’s statute will not base its case on the fact that only White countries are being forced to “solve the race problem” by flooding themselves with non-Whites with whom Whites are legally forced to assimilate and be blended out of existence.

Former Arizona state attorney general “Grant Woods…said the state has an ‘enormous White Genocide problem,’ but ‘that does not mean that the solution is for Arizona or any other state to adopt its own White Genocide policy.’” [Slightly edited]

Mr. Woods says he’s anti-racist. What he is is anti-White.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

Arizona’s Interference with White Genocide Faces Supreme Court Test

Share

4 comments for “WSJ: “Arizona’s Interference with White Genocide Faces Supreme Court Test”

  1. John Randolph
    April 23, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    By restraining myself, I was able to post the below to the WSJ article. I figured anything with more Mantra in it than this would likely get removed.

    The legal team defending Arizona’s statute will not base its case on the fact that only White countries are being forced to “solve the race problem” by flooding themselves with non-Whites with whom Whites are legally forced to assimilate and be blended out of existence.

    The fact will not be raised that African countries are not being flooded with non-Africans and Africans legally forced to assimilate with them and be blended out of existence.

    The fact will not be raised that Asian countries are not being flooded with non-Asians and Asians legally forced to assimilate with them and be blended out of existence.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303978104577359763191050888.html?mod=googlenews_wsj&_nocache=1335199171329articleTabs=comments&user=welcome&mg=id-wsj#articleTabs%3Dcomments

    View Comment
  2. SparklingBrownEyes
    April 23, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    From the WSJ article:

    “Regardless, the government says, Arizona’s immigration policy conflicts with the policy legislated by Congress, which it says aims to balance a host of competing concerns rather than focusing ‘solely on maximum enforcement.’”

    Ah, and would one of those “competing concerns” be the completion of White Genocide?

    White GeNOcide!
    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White!

    View Comment
    • ringo_the_gringo
      April 23, 2012 at 12:54 pm

      “The court will do so without Justice Elena Kagan, who was solicitor general when the Obama administration filed its challenge to SB 1070 and has recused herself.”

      Her stated reason is that her previous support of White Genocide might influence her to support White Genocide again? I didn’t know anti-Whites cared.

      View Comment
  3. Ryan O'Malley
    April 23, 2012 at 8:58 pm

    LOL, I love the title HD. I’m glad you joined our team.

    View Comment

Something on your mind? Have your say!