Jul 27
Affirmative action is a practice that establishes the provision of granting greater rights for particular groups of people over others which, ipso facto, is a violation of the 14th Amendment of our Constitution (unless, of course, it is interpreted as a living, changeable document by a progressive Justice). The way it has been applied in this country is to inequitably, immorally and probably unconstitutionally assign greater rights, opportunities and privileges to blacks at the expense of whites and Asian-Americans.
Is this fair?
Of course not!
This is reverse discrimination, plain and simple. People are being penalized because their skin is white (or they came from China or Japan, etc.). Such a policy fosters resentment from those who are discriminated against and exacerbates racial tensions and is counterproductive.
In the following editorial by Sen. James Webb of Virginia, a Democrat, he calls for the abolishment of this divisive, inequitable, morally wrong and unconstitutional (strictly speaking) policy. He states that:
“Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners.”
We strongly agree.
Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege
America still owes a debt to its black citizens, but government programs to help all 'people of color' are unfair. They should end.
James Webb July 22, 2010
The NAACP believes the tea party is racist. The tea party believes the NAACP is racist. And Pat Buchanan got into trouble recently by pointing out that if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will not be a single Protestant Justice, although Protestants make up half the U.S. population and dominated the court for generations.
Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.
I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.
In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.
How so?
Lyndon Johnson's initial program for affirmative action was based on the 13th Amendment and on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which authorized the federal government to take actions in order to eliminate "the badges of slavery." Affirmative action was designed to recognize the uniquely difficult journey of African-Americans. This policy was justifiable and understandable, even to those who came from white cultural groups that had also suffered in socio-economic terms from the Civil War and its aftermath.
The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all "people of color"—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup.
Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.
Contrary to assumptions in the law, white America is hardly a monolith. And the journey of white American cultures is so diverse (yes) that one strains to find the logic that could lump them together for the purpose of public policy.
The clearest example of today's misguided policies comes from examining the history of the American South.
The old South was a three-tiered society, with blacks and hard-put whites both dominated by white elites who manipulated racial tensions in order to retain power. At the height of slavery, in 1860, less than 5% of whites in the South owned slaves. The eminent black historian John Hope Franklin wrote that "fully three-fourths of the white people in the South had neither slaves nor an immediate economic interest in the maintenance of slavery."
The Civil War devastated the South, in human and economic terms. And from post-Civil War Reconstruction to the beginning of World War II, the region was a ravaged place, affecting black and white alike.
In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt created a national commission to study what he termed "the long and ironic history of the despoiling of this truly American section." At that time, most industries in the South were owned by companies outside the region. Of the South's 1.8 million sharecroppers, 1.2 million were white (a mirror of the population, which was 71% white). The illiteracy rate was five times that of the North-Central states and more than twice that of New England and the Middle Atlantic (despite the waves of European immigrants then flowing to those regions). The total endowments of all the colleges and universities in the South were less than the endowments of Harvard and Yale alone. The average schoolchild in the South had $25 a year spent on his or her education, compared to $141 for children in New York.
Generations of such deficiencies do not disappear overnight, and they affect the momentum of a culture. In 1974, a National Opinion Research Center (NORC) study of white ethnic groups showed that white Baptists nationwide averaged only 10.7 years of education, a level almost identical to blacks' average of 10.6 years, and well below that of most other white groups. A recent NORC Social Survey of white adults born after World War II showed that in the years 1980-2000, only 18.4% of white Baptists and 21.8% of Irish Protestants—the principal ethnic group that settled the South—had obtained college degrees, compared to a national average of 30.1%, a Jewish average of 73.3%, and an average among those of Chinese and Indian descent of 61.9%.
Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts.
Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end.
Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes.
Memo to my fellow politicians: Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away.
Mr. Webb, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Virginia.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html
Posted in Affirmative action Constitution Diversity policies Fourteenth Amendment Racism Reverse Racism with 1 Comment
More:
Print This Post
Jul 16
The Dept. of Justice, which should be protecting the rights of all Americans and the Constitutionally enumerated equality of all (Fourteenth Amendment), apparently is not fulfilling its mandate. Under Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, a racist bias has suffused the agency. Their ideology is that some people - blacks in particular and Democratically voting Hispanics - are "more equal" than others, specifically Whites. Some of this also stems from Obama's 20 years attending the vitriolic, racist rants of Rev. Wright in church where he preached black nationalism and supremacy. (Then again, Obama "claimed" to have heard nothing controversial. And Bill Clinton "didn't inhale" or "have sex with that woman".)
This sanctioned and enforced racism of blacks over whites is something that all Americans need to be aware of and react and respond to aggressively. If not, our rights will continue to progressively erode and we will find ourselves in a racially very hostile country that may be balkanized.
Posted in Attorney General Eric Holder Black nationalism Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Ideology New Black Panther Party Obama Political Cartoon Racism Reverse Racism with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Mar 6
By action and words on myriad occasions, Obama has indicated that the Constitution cramps his style. Exuding arrogance and narcissism, he readily indicates that he will blatantly disregard its restraints and promulgate whatever legislation he so desires, whether it be the Federal government takeover of healthcare, industries or even firearm and munitions restrictions.
Obama has shown particular disdain for and has challenged with legislation the First, Second, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments. We, the American people, need to be eternally vigilant and vigorously oppose his each and every attempt to abrogate our Constitutional rights and freedoms.
Obama must be stopped!
Obama vs. the 10th Amendment
by Chuck Norris 03/02/2010
Not surprisingly, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released last Friday revealed that 56 percent of Americans think the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to their rights and freedoms.
Particularly apropos here is the feds' health care violation of the 10th Amendment, which is part of our Bill of Rights and was ratified Dec. 15, 1791. The amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Thomas Jefferson explained the pre-eminence of this amendment in 1791: "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
The point is that based on the 10th Amendment, when it comes to legislating and controlling our health care, the federal government doesn't have a constitutional leg to stand on. And even its past violations of the 10th Amendment by implementing government health care services have proved to break more national legs than they have to mend them. The proof is in the pudding. How many times does it have to be pointed out to Washington? Medicare is going bankrupt. Medicaid is going bankrupt. Case closed.
The government is inept to run America's health care system. And now it wants to expand its programs (its health care business) to oversee what equates to one-sixth of the gross national product? What rational board anywhere in the world would rightly appoint a CEO who had a string of miserable business failures and major corporate bankruptcies in his dossier?
I agree with Dr. Scott W. Atlas, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at Stanford University Medical Center, and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who put it best in their article a few months back, titled "Alternatives to government health takeover." They said this: "We think it's critical that power shifts to the American consumer and away from government, employers and insurers, as evidence shows medical care prices come down when patients pay directly.
Government should offer tax relief, such as refundable tax credits, to encourage private health insurance purchasing -- especially for low-income families. Similar ideas, like those in the Patients' Choice Act ... are important for Americans to consider. We would do well also to consider creative ideas such as changing federal payments to state-based medicaid plans to individual vouchers or expanding health savings accounts, as has been done in South Carolina."
Returning the onus of solving health care issues to families, local communities and states would not only return a balance of power to our federal government but also help with America's economic recovery and build up communities at the same time.
The abuse of federal political power to intervene in areas such as Americans' private health care could exist only in a nation that no longer holds its leaders accountable to its constitution and that has governmental leadership that regards itself as above its people and its constitution. Sadly, I was listening to an interview the other day in which President Barack Obama described the U.S. Constitution as "an imperfect document ... a document that reflects some deep flaws ... (and) an enormous blind spot." He also said, "The Framers had that same blind spot."
In so doing, the president established a rationale and justification for disregarding the Constitution. Even worse, he placed himself above the Constitution and those "blind Framers," who just couldn't see the big picture as he does today. After all, he's the constitutional scholar, and the Framers were just, well, the creators of the document!
Our 44th president would do well to learn from America's third president, Thomas Jefferson, himself a source greater than any living constitutional lawyer. Imagine Jefferson sitting there at the health care summit, a ripe sage at roughly 80 years of age. After listening to all the clamoring of both Republicans and Democrats, he politely but sternly utters these words, which he also wrote to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson in 1823: "The States supposed that by their tenth amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers. They (did not learn from the past), nor (were they) aware of the slipperiness of the eels of the law. I ask for no straining of words against the General Government, nor yet against the States. I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, and the General Government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore, to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the constitution for the limitation of both; and never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market."
It couldn't be any clearer or wiser than that.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35858
Posted in Arrogance Constitution First Amendment Fourteenth Amendment Government Control Healthcare Reform Ideology Narcissism Obama Second Amendment Tenth Amendment with 1 Comment
More:
Print This Post
Jul 14
Americans who want to preserve what freedoms and liberties we still have need to contact their Senators on both sides of the aisle regarding the Sotomayor confirmation hearings which are being conducted this week. Her confirmation, a lifetime appointment, would impose her abominable misguided “empathetic” legal input and judgments on the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans for decades! Her long dismal track record speaks for itself – someone who consistently considers race, sex, etc. as highly influential factors when she adjudicates thereby ascribing more legal rights to these individuals than to others. As we noted before, this is a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment where all Americans are mandated to have equal protection before the law. There is no legal authority for “oppressed” or privileged minority groups.
Whatever she reveals in her testimony before the Senate will be just plain expedient, hollow rhetoric. She stated that "Many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the law - it is to apply the law." Her previous writings, judgments and statements even captured on video belie these comments, instead showing a racist, manipulative and intellectually dishonest arbiter. Just review her most recent case that was overturned by the Supreme Court, Ricci vs. The City of New Haven to understand the dangers to freedoms, liberties and impartial justice that she represents. This was the fourth out of her six cases that the Supreme Court has reversed – an ignominious record.
For a review of the first day of hearings, read: Republicans contest Obama's Supreme Court choice
The following video captures Sotomayor's comments on judicial activism that contradicts her testimony given today before the Senate. Read between this lines of her comments.
Posted in Constitutional Amendments Fourteenth Amendment Ideology Legal rights Personal rights Racism Reverse Racism Sotomayor Supreme Court Videos with 1 Comment
More:
Print This Post
Jul 12
The Fourteenth Amendment mandates that all Americans in this country have the same legal rights and no one is more equal than anyone else. Increasingly, this stipulation is being ignored by the infusion of socialist ideology and “empathy” for certain “victimized” groups into our laws that ironically will give them more rights than other Americans. Affirmative action is certainly the poster child of this but the expansion of federal hate crime laws certainly threatens further erode the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Excerpting from the article below: “As it stands, the bill criminalizes any violent act perpetrated against someone because of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.” Let’s look at the real world consequences of this bill as currently. A White man is beaten by a Black man. The Black man will be charged with assault as under current laws. Now let’s reverse this. A Black man (protected group) is beaten by a White man. Now, not only will the White man be charged with assault but he will also be federally charged with a hate crime.
This same asymmetry of rights is present in other scenarios – just select the protected group. A lesbian attacking a straight female will only be charged with assault but a heterosexual male attacking a gay man not only will be charged with assault but also a hate crime! Though the intentions of the law might have been noble, the unintended consequences on other people’s rights are not. This law should not see the light of day!
Read: Hating Hate Crimes
Posted in Constitutional Amendments Diversity policies Fourteenth Amendment Ideology Legal rights Reverse Racism with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Jul 1
Yesterday in our post, we cheered the Supreme Court correct verdict in favor of Ricci and the Firefighters versus the City of New Haven. We also noted that this case was unequivocally a blatant and abhorrent example of reverse discrimination in order to allow the city of New Haven to realize greater ethnic “diversity” in its member firefighters. It egregiously abridged the rights of a group of individuals (largely White) who were more qualified and scored better on the test but did not have the correct ethnicity yet was overturned by only a 5 to 4 margin. We may not be so lucky in the future if Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court justice vacancy and whose decision the Supreme Court overturned, is confirmed. Her decisions, opinions, speeches and background are replete with “ethnic empathy” where some people (specific minority groups) have and will be afforded more rights and leeway than others.
Read George Will’s editorial on this verdict: Four Justices Unable To See Beyond Race
Posted in Diversity policies Fourteenth Amendment Ideology Legal rights Obama Racism Reverse Racism Sotomayor Supreme Court with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Jun 30
The Supreme Court by a 5 to 4 margin overturned the decision of the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotamayor rendered and that went against Ricci and the White firefighters in their case versus the City of New Haven. In the surprisingly close ruling, the Supreme Court indicated that these firefighters were unfairly denied promotions because of their race (reverse discrimination) in order for the city of New Haven to implement their diversity plan.
Though the decision was anticipated, what we find shocking is that the vote was only 5 to 4 to reverse the Court of Appeals judgment in a case that was patently was blatantly reverse discrimination by any criteria. This case and the razor thin margin should serve as a clarion call regarding the importance of vehemently opposing the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. A similar case like this in the future could go the opposite way resulting in the discriminatory abridgement of our rights thus attributing greater inherent rights and equalities to some favored groups or individuals versus others.
Contact your representatives and voice your opposition to Sotomayor being confirmed!
See Video regarding the case and Supreme Court verdict:
Read: Supreme Court rules for white firefighters
Read: Connecticut Firefighters 'Vindicated' by Supreme Court Ruling
Posted in Diversity policies Fourteenth Amendment Ideology Legal rights Reverse Racism Sotomayor Supreme Court Videos with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Jun 16
Evidence uncovered from Sotomayor’s past reveals staunch opposition to the death penalty. Some of her reasoning is unequivocally refuted by data readily available to all thus substantiating that ideology for her trumps facts. Furthermore, it also makes quite apparent that she is both naïve and an intellectual lightweight whose empathy will pervert the law to where there will no longer be equal justice for a given crime.
Not surprisingly, like many effete liberals, she attaches greater empathy toward the perpetrator than to the victim and their family. This is not the type of empathy America needs!
Read: Sotomayor Vs. The Death Penalty
Posted in Fourteenth Amendment Ideology Legal rights Sotomayor Supreme Court with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Jun 14
Americans are getting restive and angry with the bloodless coup we find ourselves in the midst of thanks to the Obama Administration, Pelosi, Reid and other ultra-left Liberals in Congress. In every direction we turn, there are threats to our rights, freedoms and economic well-being. We have ubiquitous taxes and proposals for more taxes. Giving our fair share means taking as much as possible from those who are productive and distributing it to those who are lazy, undeserving or illegally living in this country.
Warp speed to Socialism with consolidation of power and wealth to the Big Brother Government! It is now the proud owner of GM, wants to determine pay for employees of companies even beyond those to whom it has bailed out and gives sweetheart deals to unions while illegally shafting bond holders.
In the legal department, we have a nominee (Sotomayor) that in no uncertain terms states that some individuals are more equal than others, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. She also has indicated disdain for the First Amendment (Right to Free Speech) and the Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms) as well. We haven’t yet reviewed her stance on the other Amendments.
We can go on and on enumerating more of these radical changes and confiscatory policies being implemented but you get the point. Meanwhile, where is the opposition, the Republican Party who is supposed to represent and speak out for us? They are a minority party but their influence and presence appears to be microscopic. Perception and appearance is everything and they appear to be a feckless group though this may not necessarily the case. Instead, several passionate, articulate and well-informed Conservatives in the media have effectively taken on the challenges. Like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Newt Gingrich, Thomas Sowell and many others. Conservatives in America have been active with grassroot organizations and, of course, the Tea Parties.
The Republican Party needs to be more articulate, passionate, aggressive, bold, persistent and omnipresent rather than just polite and trying to be thought of positively by the liberal media. Maybe they should seek inspiration from their New York counterparts who recently staged a coup in their State Senate.
Read: GOP Stages a Coup in New York Senate
Posted in Congress Constitution Democrat Far Left First Amendment Fourteenth Amendment Government Control Legal rights Media - Far Left Nancy Pelosi Obama Personal rights Republican Second Amendment Socialism Sotomayor Supreme Court with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Jun 7
The following editorial by Patrick Buchanan provides a more thorough analysis of who Sotamayor really is and her thought processes over time. The findings reveal consistency of attitude and thought over time but in a way that should frighten the average American who wants equal justice and not race based politics and justice (a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment). Though there are a few issues in this editorial that we take exception to, his assessment of Sotomayor is right on.
Read: Obama Crowns A Quota Queen In Sotomayor
Posted in Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Legal rights Personal rights Reverse Racism Sotomayor Supreme Court with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Jun 2
In a lucid and convincing fashion, Thomas Sowell delineates the far reaching dangers that Obama’s selection for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, presents to the average American and their rights.
Read: Hello Empathy And So Long Equal Justice
Posted in Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Legal rights Obama Personal rights Sotomayor Supreme Court with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments