I have been mulling civil rights laws. The US Constitution gives people the freedom to associate, which I take to mean that individuals are free to associate (or not) with whomever they choose. However, certain entities in the United States are not supposed to "discriminate" in hiring based on race, creed, gender, etc. Earlier this week I saw a notable about a college/university employee who was suing because he discovered that black employees made far more than he did.

If there are local and national civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination then, unless they are overturned, I think it may be a good idea for whites, Christians, heterosexuals and others who are openly discriminated against to start filing suit. As I recall, some colleges or universities may already have faced actions from the Trump administration when they made it clear they would use racial preferences in admissions. Bias is bias no matter which way it flows. I know that many people probably don't want to lean on lawsuits but would rather make it based on their own attributes and pursuit of excellence. I agree that is good, but unless people are willing to take on racism and bias no matter who it is against, I wonder if we will continue to see discrimination against whites, Christians and heterosexuals.

>>13346810

>Antelope Valley,

I don't know if this is related, but I think Antelope Valley was the site of a research effort on the rollout of the chicken pox vaccine. That vaccine involves aborted fetal cells and comes at a risk of increasing the risk of shingles.

Someone has commented on the fact that those underground may not view favorably those "topside" who manage to survive the "apocalypse". Perhaps we are being intentionally weakened?

>>13346822

Sorry. The US Constitution RECOGNIZES our right to associate with the people of our choice.

>>13346862

I guess it does, though I don't remember "Time Machine" all that well. There were some effeminate weaklings topside weren't there and the ones from underground preyed upon them, correct?

Was there an obsession with vaccinating anywhere in that story? That seems a ongoing issue with today's "deep state" (deep in several sense of the word).

>>13346870

Another good point and well taken.

I don't really want to "lurk moar" atm, however.

The vaccine pogrom is shortly to become a mass casualty event and paying attention to this board and sharing info seems to be what I do.

Knowing our God given freedoms is part of that , so thanks for the reminder.

"When government fears the people that is liberty"

>>13346906

Thank you.

Freedom to associate seems very useful in overturning the concept of a "passport" based on injection status. Any US national (and really any man or woman, generally) should be free to associate with anyone they choose in a public space irrespective of their choice to be in a clinical trial for a new medical product.

Does anyone else think we should vote with our wallets on companies pushing experimental injections? Maybe even call them and critique this approach?

I am hearing some really manipulative and under the belt moves on the part of corporations to get people to take the jabs. I'm also hearing of people who (to my knowledge) didn't have illness during the fake "pandemic" but got sick once vaccinated.

One company I heard a report about is Caterpillar. Anyone else thinking it might be good to call out employers that are pushing the jabs?