Tag Archives: affirmative action

Is Voting Rights Act Protection a legal entitlement Supreme Court Must Overturn

Black Conservatives  rally against continued use of  Section 5 reverse discriminatory Voting Rights Act current use

Black Conservatives rally against continued use of Section 5 reverse discriminatory Voting Rights Act current use

The images of vicious bombings that once littered the landscape of the civil rights movement in the 1950’s and 1960’s in America are now a distant memory. Cities like Birmingham, Alabama which were at the epicenter and caught the brunt force of the segregationist fury to deprive black voters of their voting rights have been replaced by a vast number of local and federal minority public officials throughout states and in congress. And of course we cannot forget the two times elected Barack Obama, as president!

So this week, Shelby County, Alabama made the case before the U.S. Supreme Court that the federal Voting Rights Act has seen its day and that Section Five should be overturned. Conservatives have long held that in states and localities like Shelby County where voting rights suppression no longer exists, it makes little legal or moral sense to continue to list a community as being engaged in racist voting practices where none exist.

In reality this case has much deeper significance for the other communities across the country which are also similarly weighted down with this federal mandate. The purpose of the bill is well intended and was needed in its day to protect the rights of minority voters who were systematically deprived of their constitutional right to vote. Now, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, without the presence of racism this law seems to favor racial entitlement, reports Fox News

Yet, in the 21st century, where those same states which bore the mark of racism in their practices regarding minority voting rights, no longer practice those tactics. So should they continue to be marred with the title and legal penalty?

That is essentially what Shelby County has presented in its legal arguments before the justices of the Supreme Court. It is an argument which can be cross-tied with the similar Affirmative Action inequality which has burdened America more recently with imbalanced racial favoritism where racism may no longer exist.

There are many detractors on the left and in civil rights communities who have made a living off of crying falsely crying racism. Their behavior can be likened to the famous fictional Chicken Little character, who claimed, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!” Well if you remember the rest of the story, Chicken Little finally meets Foxey Loxey, who welcomes Chicken Little and Henny Penny into his den, and, “They never, never come out again.”

Well, this is what is happening to America with this law as well as with continued use of Affirmative Action application and enforcement. Much like Chicken Little, there are those liberal leaders like Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson and President Obama and even the NAACP who insists the sky is still falling. Unfortunately they still continue to lead America into the fox den, where justice and equality under the law for all Americans will never emerge again.

A central question that the court must answer, is when does justice arrive for all Americans if institutional injustice does not exist any longer? If racism in voting practices no longer exists, then what is being monitored?

Some civil rights officials on the left have attempted to use poverty, lack of jobs and even illegal immigration attitudes as an indication of why voting rights for minorities must continue to be monitored. This is a red herring that has no legal connection to the purpose and intent of Section Five of the Voting Rights Act.

The case in Shelby County, Alabama does bear witness to the fact that voting injustice, once wide ranging, is no longer present. Therefore, this law must not continue to be used as a hammer to pound local officials into submission for legal infractions that no longer exist. Is it truly a racial entitlement to voting protection that is now punitively used against cities, counties and states?

If Shelby County and other communities across the nation have moved beyond any measurable discriminatory practices against minority voters then, the U.S. Justice Department has no alternative but to remove them from the list. The U.S. Supreme Court must instruct the justice department to do so.

In conclusion, the U.S. Supreme Court must move with all deliberate speed to put an end to this continued imbalance of equal justice for all Americans. Equal justice under the law does not mean more justice for some and less for others. The court must remove this law as a useful tool for liberals who seek office and want to drum up the ghosts of past injustices long buried.

Racism in America is not the issue of the 21st century. A united country where race is color neutral and justice and equality does not play favorites is what the bottom line must be for the nation.

There is no place for reverse racism in America. This is the conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court must arrive at in reaching a decision to overturn the irrelevant section of the law.

( Click -Let me know what you think )

Tutoring Program For Colored Only? School Changes Mind.

homework

Ouch. This doesn’t help race relations.

A Colorado school wanted to offer a bridge program to students who needed academic assistance. But when they sent out advertisements to families the program was listed as only open to minority children. A point which was reiterated by the principal. However, following backlash from parents and the media, the district changed it mind and the program is now open to all students who need help.

A few years ago my daughter was involved as teacher in a bridge program also designed to help minority students transition into college. The first year the program quickly filled with outstanding students (mostly white) who were looking for a jump start at the university. The program wasn’t reaching it’s designated target. But instead of offering the program to only minorities the administration opened it to those with specific academic recommendations from teachers. One wonders if this Colorado district shouldn’t have done the same.

Is Black History Month Outdated with Obama’s Re-election as President

Is Black History Month still necessary with Barack Obama Election

Is Black History Month still necessary with Barack Obama Election

Has Black History Month met its end with the re-election of Barack Obama? One could make a solid case for calling a halt to the month of February as an official celebration of the achievements of Black Americans, since many of the injustices of the past have died away along with the perpetrators. In the 21st Century should not the focus be on a unified America that celebrates and acknowledges the achievements of all Americans throughout the year?

The advent of Black History month began in 1926 as the second week in February, and was known as Negro History Week. Its creator, black historian Carter G. Woodson was clear about its purpose and eventual end. He insisted at the time that the holiday be eliminated, when “black history became fundamental to American history.”

Last year, noted international author Maya Angelou appeared to agree when she explained in an interview, “We want to reach a time when there won’t be Black History Month, when black history will be so integrated into American history that we study it along with every other history,” according to Fox News.

Well, it appears apparent that the jury is in and the verdict is clear, the need for Black History Month has met it original purpose. Woodson’s edict was that the need for the month to continue into perpetuity was not its purpose. Black history has been mainstreamed into what it always has been, and that is; part of America’s history. Even Academy Award winning actor Morgan Freeman strongly asserted in a Sixty Minutes interview, “Black History Month is ridiculous… Black History is American History!”

Well it seems that Barack Obama’s election has sealed the deal on that, considering that February was chosen as the official month to honor Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. Lincoln freed the black slaves and, is it not fitting that the end of this holiday has indeed run its natural course with the election and re-election of the first black president of the United States?

Americans have an opportunity to move on and stop reliving the practices and outrages of racism which once permeated every aspect of the nation’s culture. Blacks have been elected governors, and congress has growing numbers of black elected leaders. Now with a president who is black, where again is the need for Black History Month?

It is unnecessary to keep track of black achievement in areas of professionalism and other fields of achievement. These achievements are American achievements, and should not continue to be segregated or celebrated by racial designation.

The nation should be focused on celebrating the future of a united nation where racial designations have no purpose or place. If America is to truly become one nation, indivisible with justice for all, then it must do away with the categories and the special designations which continue to keep Americans separate and apart. Is this not now the spirit and practice of reverse racism?

If one were to scan the landscape of America, can anyone honestly say that the vestiges of slavery are still in existence in America? Certainly one can still find crushing poverty, spiraling joblessness, as well as growing gun violence and gang activity in large cities.

But those problems which plague large urban centers where blacks live in great majorities are not problems related to racism. In these cities blacks are in control of the reins of power, and unless one believes that blacks are discriminating against their own, racism is indeed dead.

So how long can Americans continue to be held hostage to a notion that a black person who has reached the summit of political power in this nation means Whites are perpetrating large scale racism?

How long can children in America’s classrooms be subjected to speeches and plays and political diatribes from teachers about “White Racism.” And should those children be exposed to lessons that focus on those ‘bad white people’ who used whips, hoses and dogs to attacks blacks, as if those practices still occur? Many black leaders and liberals would love to continue this pointless indoctrination in order to justify continuing affirmative action.

There is no need to promote a month that gives black children a reason to point fingers at white children and act as if they are being victimized. There is no reason for white children to duck their heads and feel unearned guilt for practices they were not responsible for and that no longer exist.

This month which fosters a false premise of continued racial suffering and separatism by a non-white society is untrue and unnecessary. Racial preferences based upon these continued falsehoods must cease. No child in America should be saddled with the notion that they have to give up their place in line for a job, a career or for justice based on race. This month has reached its saturation point and even its original creator Carter G. Woodson would say, “Enough is enough!”

America is a nation where justice must be color blind. The lessons of the past have given us a wonderful road map to the future. This is a future where special designated months for African Americans, Hispanics or any other racial preference group is not necessary or needed. We are all Americans, no subtitles are necessary.

How about next February 2014, at the beginning of the month each day becomes a reflection of what is good, great and outstanding in the core of each of us as Americans. This is something an undivided color-blind nation can truly celebrate.

( click – let me know what you think)

Will Supreme Court Affirmative Action Case End Reverse Discrimination

US Supreme Court

Race based affirmative action  may come to a screeching halt and finally put an end to decades of reverse discriminatory policies utilized in higher educational institutions. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court took up arguments concerning a case brought by Abigail Fisher, a white applicant who was denied admission to the University of Texas (UT) at Austin in 2008. Fisher is challenging UT-Austin’s decision to use a race-conscious admission plan which considers race as a factor in admitting students to its incoming freshman class.

Instead of using a fairer race-neutral plan, which Texas law already guarantees the top 10 percent of high school students in their graduating class admission to the university, UT-Austin, went a step further. It used an unnecessary and highly unfair reverse discrimination practice of considering race as a factor for admittance, thus making the purpose for the race neutral Texas law meaningless.

The problem which Miss Fisher and any other high school applicant in Texas and in any other community in America has to consider, is will they be admitted based upon their academic ability, content of their character or any other measurable qualities?

Or, will their years of academic pursuit and hard work be rendered fruitless, because the student was denied access based upon their race? In a nation where there is a black president, and where diversity is clearly present in major industries, in academics, and other professions, is reverse discriminatory denial of educational access to white Americans, fair, right, just or even legal?

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., gave America his take on this nearly fifty years ago, and his words have the answer which must guide the U.S. Supreme Court’s legal and moral determination of this case. Rev. King stated with moral clarity and conciseness in his 1963 “I have a Dream” speech, “I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!”

When is the time to make real the promises of Democracy? When does America finally become one nation and not an America divided by a two-tier system? Where is the end?

In 2003, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority court opinion in the University of Michigan Law School Grutter v. Bollinger decision. She concluded that universities would need 25 years until they ended their race-conscious admissions policies.

Justice O’Connor was wrong in 2003 and her discriminatory decision and conclusions muse be reversed now. Here is why her conclusions are in error and unnecessarily deprives honorable achieving students like Miss Fisher her rightful seat at the TU-Austin.

O’Connor stipulated in the Grutter v. Bollinger decision, that race-conscious admissions policies were constitutional because they serve a “compelling state interest of promoting diversity and its associated educational benefits.”

The question has to be, racial diversity of whom and associated educational benefits for whom. Certainly Justice O’Connor and the NAACP and the liberals who backed the University of Michigan could not have been talking about the poor and low income black students, who never made the affirmative action cut. Surely, Justice O’Connor could not have been referring to providing an educational seat at the table to the black students whose parents see their kids stripped of their self worth by an educational system run by blacks, led by blacks, and run to ruin by blacks.

No, no and no again!

Justice “O’Connor’s decision in 2003 left intact a discriminatory system that only largely benefited students from well connected or very affluent black families. In fact, William Joyce Wilson, a noted black social research scientist, at the Kennedy School and the Department of Sociology at Harvard University, has concluded that affirmative action has actually been a very ineffective tool for the truly disadvantaged, and marginally beneficial for the minority working class.

So again, why is affirmative action still used to discriminate against white students? It is a matter of politics.

If a lie is said often enough, it will become the truth when left unchallenged. Affirmative action is the new slavery. It is the new second-tier of citizenship, where fear, smear and misrepresentation is used in the black community to convince followers of democrat machine promises that affirmative action will help poor and low income blacks up the ladder of success.

Yet black mothers and fathers should seriously consider this. When was the last time you saw a white person stand in front of your child in school to keep him from learning? When was the last time you saw a white person stand in front of your child and told him to commit a crime? When was the last time that you saw a white person stand in front of your child and told him not to study, not to get good grades, not to try harder, not to do better, not to be better and not to succeed?

Abigail Fisher, in Texas does not keep your child from excelling in school. Abigail Fisher’s parents and parents like them in Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin, South Carolina, or any other state are not keeping your child from learning, from achieving from realizing the American Dream. So why are you letting Affirmative Action and its discriminatory use block Abigail Fisher’s opportunity at the American Dream?

Unions, and democrat machines in Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, and many other major cities, have hoodwinked blacks and minorities into believing that whites are maintaining discriminatory practices that keep their families, their children, and their educational systems and children shackled to poverty, high school dropout rates, crime and sky rocketing illegitimate births.

These insidious notions must end.

Affirmative Action is and to a large part will always be a tool that is used to create a divide between whites, blacks and other minorities. Democrats, poverty pimps, and so called civil rights activists and organizations use affirmative action to skim millions of dollars from guilt-ridden white liberals who want to “do the right thing” because the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of America have raised the “slavery” boogieman.

Well, Al and Jesse that tired old slavery boogieman won’t hunt any longer. No matter how many sad sack stories and anecdotes that you drum up, white people and black people and Americans period, will reject this emotion driven discrimination.

The U.S. Supreme Court must come to the only conclusion that makes moral, logical and principled sense and bring about a game change to Supreme Court Justice O’ Connor’s decision 2003. When will Affirmative Action end? It cannot be put off 14 more years, 4 more years or even one more year.

It must end here with this court and it must ends now, so that the legacy of slavery and white guilt can die together and America can become one United States, and one nation under God.

Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy, so that America will let true colorblind freedom ring and the nation can become truly and completely free at last.

Let me know what you think – ( Click )

ACE to file amicus brief in affirmative action case

US Supreme Court

In a Monday press release ACE, the American Council on Education, stated that it was filing an amicus brief to support the University of Texas’ affirmative action admission standards in the case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Abilgail Fisher filed the suit after having been turned down for admission in 2008 what she believed was a decision based on her race – firmly in violation of the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ACE said that it was filing the brief, ” urging the court to reaffirm the constitutionality of the university’s use of race and ethnicity in its admissions process.” (emphasis added)

While most Americans already knew that affirmative action was race/ethnicity-based, the fact ACE is filing a brief that flat out says it is astounding. How does changing the tone from “separate but equal” to “together and unequal” remove racial division? Why isn’t it simply… equality of opportunity?

ACE goes on to trip all over themselves by describing the pluses of the UT admissions policy:

The ACE brief argues that a core holding in Grutter remains valid: Universities can consider race or ethnicity as a “plus” factor in the context of individualized consideration of each and every applicant.

The problem here is that if race is a “plus” factor for one group, does that not make it a “minus” factor for anyone not included in the “plus” groups?

Shouldn’t the focus be on achievement? If a middle-class hispanic student and a middle-class white student both score 1160’s on the SAT and have 3.4 GPAs, why should either one’s race come into the picture at all? According to ACE, it’s about diversity:

“Courts have long recognized that diversity is a compelling interest in higher education and that individual institutions are in the best position to determine how to pursue that interest in service to their own educational objectives.”

If a school wants to have a more diverse population, it should attract top performing members of ethnic groups, not knee-cap one group because there aren’t enough applicants from another.

One Supreme Court Justice won’t be deciding the case as Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself, likely due to her involvement with the case during her tenure as the Solicitor General. That leaves a right-leaning court that may seek to apply the 14th as it was intended, not as it has been abused.

The fourteenth amendment is precisely the amendment that was cited in Brown v. Board of Education that led to the de-segregation of schools. Can the supreme court possibly argue that the Constitution should protect one group more so than another?

If the court finds for Fisher, it will overturn Grutter v. Bollinger which affirmed the use of race and ethnicity in admissions. A win for the plaintiff will likely result in the end of affirmative action in schools across the nation.

Should Police Entrance Physicals Be Gender Fair?

police

If men and women are competing for the same job should they take the same entrance physicals? What if the job requires that person to confront dangerous subjects? What if the job requires that person to protect the lives of citizens?

Should there be a less rigorous test for one subset of society? In an effort to maintain equality should the candidates be a 50-50 split no matter their physical or academic standards? Does accepting a candidate with less physical ability put the partner or others in danger?

According to the Department of Justice the city of Corpus Christi, Texas must offer lower physical readiness standards for women applicants. The physical test currently used by the City of Corpus Christi has four parts: push-ups, sit-ups, a 300-meter run and a 1.5-mile run. If an applicant fails any section they fail the whole test. From 2005 to 2009, approximately 19% of female applicants passed the physical test and 63% of male applicants passed it.

Listed below are the DOJ complaint and from the Corpus Christi website what the current physical standards.

Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against Corpus Christi, Texas, Police Department for Sex Discrimination

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department today filed a lawsuit against the city of Corpus Christi, Texas, alleging that the city’s police department engaged in a pattern or practice of employment discrimination against women in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The lawsuit challenges the police department’s use of a physical ability test for the hiring of entry-level police officers.  According to the complaint, the physical test used by the city between 2005 and 2011 had the effect of excluding qualified women from consideration for hire as entry-level police officers and did not screen candidates for job-related skills.

From the Corpus Christi City website:

Physical fitness is having the physical readiness to perform the strenuous and critical physical tasks of the job. The physical fitness areas that have been determined to be the underlying factors for your capabilities to do the job consist of four (4) specific and different areas.

  1. Aerobic power or cardiovascular endurance. This is having an efficient heart and cardiovascular system so that you can perform physical tasks over a sustained period. It is an important area for performing job tasks such as making foot pursuits and long-term use of force situations.
  2. Anaerobic power. This is having the ability to make short intense bursts of effort. This is an important area for performing job tasks such as short sprint pursuit situations.
  3. Upper body muscular endurance. This is having the capability to make repeated muscular contractions with the upper body without getting fatigued. This is important for many use of force job tasks.
  4. Trunk or abdominal muscular endurance. This is having the capability to make repeated muscular contractions with the abdominal area without getting fatigued. Your abdomen is the fulcrum of your body and is important in many tasks involving lifting, pulling and dragging.

What place should affirmative action play in today’s society? In an effort to be fair to all should the standards be lower for some? Do you think these standards are too high? Which candidate would you want responding to a home invasion at your house?

What do you think?

 

SCOTUS and Affirmative Action in Higher Education




Is affirmative action in the determination of higher education admission ending? In 2003, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) upheld the race-conscious admissions policy at the University of Michigan’s law school. In making its 5-4 decision, SCOTUS reasoned that a diverse student body prepares students for their professional careers, as “the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints.” But on Tuesday, February 21, 2012, SCOTUS agreed to revisit the concept, to hear a case that could end race-based affirmative action as we know it. SCOTUS agree to hear the case, but arguments aren’t expected until the court’s 2012-13 term, beginning in October, 2012.

Justice Samuel Alito, who replaced retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who cast the deciding vote for affirmative action in 2003, is more realistic about affirmative action. In 2007, Alito and four other Justices issued a ruling that barred public-school districts from promoting diversity through race-conscious pupil-assignment plans. Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the current case because she worked on the 2003 decision.

This case centers on the University of Texas’ (UT) undergraduate admission policy. UT said in a statement that it is “firmly committed to a holistic admissions policy that is narrowly tailored to achieve the educational benefits of a diverse student body.” But the UT statement did not bother to explain what the ultimate goal of its admissions policy is, to specifically explain “holistic admissions policy” or “educational benefits of a diverse student body.”

Dr. Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law professor at UCLA, wrote, “Any decision will apply nationwide, meaning that racial minorities will find it more difficult to gain entrance to all public universities.” He continued, “And white students, who will gain more slots, will also lose by having fewer diverse students to learn from once admitted.” Thomas Lifson, lead editor at American Thinker, adds, “This is stunningly disingenuous coming from a professor [Winkler] at a campus where affirmative action has been abolished (by an initiative vote of Californians), revealing that the principal victims of affirmative action in California were minorities themselves: Asian-heritage students.

But that’s just my opinion.

A Treatise: The REAL Legacy of Racism in America

Over at Townhall.com  editor

Erika Johnsen asks  this question:

What possible motivations could liberals have for subverting this into a racial issue?

thumbnail
My initial reaction to that question was an emotional….ARE YOU KIDDIN’?, so I allowed my systolic to abate some and continue here. Judging from the picture of Ms. Johnsen I saw on the source page for this video located here… http://townhall.com/tipsheet/erikajohnsen/2011/08/13/pelosi_on_par_with_sheila_jackson_lee_why_this_president
…I’d have to observe that she is a by-product of the progressive education that started in the post war 5os and successfully progressed in the civil rights 60s to become the then democratic agenda.
I always refer to it as
 The-Not-So-Great-Society,
a quite intentional spoof on the alleged Great Society of  “Grandpa Lyndon” Baines Johnson, known as simply LBJ. Johnson was a bigtime and well-experienced Texas congressional power-broker who was thrust into the presidency by circumstance. The circumstance of the assassination of JFK. He was to make a very intentional and calculated decision along with his congressional cohorts back then to do something unique to sustain his future power ambitions. Oh! To be sure it had no formal name or program description attached to it, but the pattern I will  lay out for you is proof of such as a clandestine agenda.
The democrats* made the term “target group” a new phrase in the political lexicon. Never before in America had a political party actually set out upon an unstated and unpublicized course to whore for the vote of an entire race of people by so defining them. It was so successful that they used it to accomplish the same ends with Latinos later on and still continuing to today. It was then that, for that simple gateway to continuing power…THE VOTE, those democrats morphed into demonRATs , selling their collective souls to the political Devil in them. Their methodology was simple. Go forth and select black leaders among the people whom they would tempt to the appeal of future power to help spread among their own people the subliminal suggestion that “whitey” OWED THEM. That’s right! For the younger generation that was exactly how it started. At the same time liberal whites started chortling about how blacks had been dehumanized and taken advantage of for toooo looonnng and that now was the time to right that horrible wrong and “power to the people” was born. They, back then, sowed the seeds of what was called “white guilt” among not just liberals, but by extension among the entire white population. Was there a modicum of truth to their story. You betcha! Racism against blacks did indeed existed in the South openly and in the North in the shadows, but it DID exist. However, in demonRATrick politics unlike in real life the sins of the fathers ARE borne by the sons (…and daughters too).
Having acknowledged that, back then people should have asked themselves what can we reasonably and correctly do to right that wrong. They did, but only briefly so, and from that genuine concern arose Dr. Martin Luther King and a very select few who legitimately sought to change things in America. LBJ and his race-mongering allies depended upon this and became their best friends USING THEM AND THAT AGENDA with a pervasive evil heretofore not known in politics became federal government policy. King and his original dedicated group, all religious leaders, never sought  “affirmative action” or “repatriations” for past abuses heaped upon blacks. They ONLY sought a brotherhood with whites and the Guarantee of Equal Opportunity.  SOME…who walked arm-in-arm with him back then were politicians of color and they reacted differently and started aligning with the LBJs of that time, the white power-brokers,  seeing great personal aggandisement for themselves in the future of black racist politics. Can you spell B-L-A-C-K  C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S-I-O-N-A-L  C-A-U-C-U-S ?  Sadly they were to be drawn into the fold by younger political activists seeking not justice, but revenge. One Stokely Carmichael headed the Student Non-violent Co-ordinating Committee, known by the shorter acronym of SNCC, but that was destined to morph into the much more aggressive outlets of the H. Rap Browns and Eldridge Cleavers and Muhammad Xs and “Limbo Louie” Farrakhans and that ilk of the times to spread the message of “Get whitey’ to the young. That was key.
I’m from New York and it was a hotbed of black radical action with the more violent fringe groups represented by the Five Percenters and the Simbas, groups unknown to the white mainstream in suburbia, but very defining for young, black, ghettoized youths confined to those inner-city, liberal financed and built, urban ghettos. The message of energy to kinetic political action had to be transmitted by violent emotionalism to the black young to become an effective recruitment tool for the white democratic racist politicians and by extension their naive “sheeple” the  white liberal,  general population who saw only a “do-good” agenda building up a head of steam. They became the “useful fools” for a completely Machevellian protocol that continues today. An unrelenting corruption of the black soul that has, as sure as a cancerous malignancy, infected blacks with a GENERATIONAL parasitic dependency upon the government for everything from cradle to grave. For those few like myself who speak this truth openly we are branded by THEM as “racists” and “bigots”, but we wear those vilifications as badges of honor for advocating for THE TRUTH. It’s a civic responsibility to DO NO LESS.
If one is black and poor today he/she needs to ask themself some questions.
Am I better off today by being an urban black, ghettoized to the same federal housing project slums as 50 years ago?
Why is it that when I look about me I see a sub-culture that thrives on black on black demonization and crime?
Why is it that black gangs have emerged for the young that wreak territorial violence upon other blacks?
Why when I look around me do I see drug addled black youth all about me?
Why does my entertainment, music and culture revile my very being?
Why do my black brothers walk about glorying in the appearance of slovenly bums?
Why are bastard children now more prevalent than ever among blacks?
Have I improved my lot by being a poor black in suburbia now?
I’ll close my making a very serious rhetorical observation.
Why is it that I, an older, white American, is the one asking these questions that ALL blacks should be asking themselves? Especially now, more than ever, when that same  black racism is being used by a half- black president, the first one in the history of these United States.
What a sorry commentary upon how uncrupulous white liberal politicians were to use RACE to strip away any hint of a positive self-image from generations of black Americans and the transition is now SO COMPLETE THAT THEY DON’T EVEN REALIZE WHAT HAPPENED!
Note:
* Indicates my lowercase descriptive of the former “loyal opposition” Democrats, who by this very agenda became permanent  lowercase characters on the American political machine. Ultimately they finally swung far-left morphing into the current-day decriptive I coined for them of demonRATs. I strongly suggest you adopt that to describe them as it is so very accurate.

Appeals Court Forces Michigan to Restart Racist Policies

Racism sucks

The activist group By Any Means Necessary has succeeded in returning racist college admission policies and state government hiring and contracting terms to Michigan. By Any Means Necessary pursued the lawsuit to overturn Proposal 2 knows as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which bans the use of race and gender preferences in state admission and hiring practices. On Friday, a federal appeals court overturned Proposal 2, saying the voter-approved measure harms minorities and is unconstitutional.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said he will make a formal request for a rehearing with the appeals court, which should keep Proposal 2 in place for the time being.

“MCRI embodies the fundamental premise of what America is all about: equal opportunity under the law,” Schuette said. “Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit, and I will continue the fight for equality, fairness and rule of law.”

The 2006 law forced the University of Michigan and other state schools to revise their admission policies. A voter-approved ban was also added to the Michigan Constitution.. In a 2-1, 59-page decision, the judges ruled that the law (and popular Constutional change both violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The decision would force the return of policies that discriminate in-favor of certain groups in order to achieve a certain ratio of students, employees and contractors. An argument using the 14th amendment could also be positioned to show that the groups not being discriminated for, are being discriminated against – reverse-discrimination.

Proposal 2 has withstood legal challenges before. In 2008, a federal judge in Detroit upheld the law, saying it was race-neutral.

Indeed, a law that would choose to the acceptance of a college applicant or prospective employee is biased. Forcing students and hiring policies to explicitly select candidates based on their merits would be as non-racists, non-sexist, as is possible.

Jennifer Gratz, who headed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative ballot proposal, expects this new ruling to be overturned because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that initiatives that ban racaial preferences are constitutional.

“To me, this is the epitome of an activist court. These justices held onto this ruling for years and released it the day before the holiday weekend. They were hoping they would catch people off guard and not make the news,” said, Gratz, director of the American Civil Rights Institute, a California-based group that advocates against affirmative action.

What to Expect from the First GOP Presidential Debate

Thursday night at 9pm, Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party will co-sponsor the first debate of the 2012 Presidential election. Five presidential possibles will be present for the debate: Herman Cain, former chief executive of Godfather’s Pizza; Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico; Ron Paul, U.S. representative from Texas; Tim Pawlenty, former governor of Minnesota, and Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania.

What’s also important to note is that the candidates polling at the top of the most recent polls, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, and Sarah Palin will not be in attendance.

For those that chose to show, two main themes will more-than-likely be omnipresent: pot shots at President Obama and attempts for each of the candidates to differentiate themselves from each other.

Gary Johnson and Ron Paul will likely stress their libertarian roots by attacking the Fed’s monetary policy, shrinking the size of government and stressing the need for the U.S. to get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Johnson’s laser-like focus on the legalization of marijuana may place him firmly in the fringe camp especially since he’s been largely out of the limelight since leaving the New Mexico Governorship in 2002.

Tim Pawlenty will likely stress his executive experience as the Governor of Minnesota and crafting the image that he is the only realistic candidate in the race against Obama. In the past, Pawlenty has struggled to create an image of himself that excites the Conservative base. The debate could prove a pivot-point for him in becoming the most-serious contender for the GOP nomination.

Herman Cain has a tough push in the debate. While an effective communicator, he has some unclear positions on more liberal-leaning policies such as affirmative action and government intervention in the workplace. If those issues come to light, he will be hard pressed to either distance himself from prior stances on these issues or avoiding answering them altogether. Either one may not play well with the GOP base.

Rick Santorum will likely do well in the debate if it focuses on foreign policy, a strong point for the former Pennsylvania senator. A key concern is Santorum’s electability. While he will likely be fiery and exciting in the debate format, his loss of his recent Senate seat may cause many to question if he can beat Barack Obama in the general election.

Trump Tromps the Teleprompter

Many people in America just cannot grasp the realism behind Donald Trump’s recent outbursts concerning Barack Obama’s trashing of American values and blatant Alinsky-taught, Nanny-State fiscal insanity. These two men are your basic polar opposites in just about every category of life. Trump is a real estate mogul, a self-made businessman extraordinaire who is largely successful through hard work and pure determination. That obviously makes him the anti-Obama in the fact the Mr. Obama is basically an anti-capitalist Socialism pimp who thinks Americans are too stupid to find their own way in life without the government regulating every facet possible.  Donald Trump is the epitome of the American dream through a tirelesswork ethic, whereas Barack Obama is the pied piper of the race-based wealth redistribution agenda so prized by the blind, mathematically challenged Liberal Democrats. The Donald sees spread sheets in black and white numbers, profits vs. losses, and success vs. bankruptcy, whereas Barry sees spreadsheets as takers vs. makers, white people against his beloved diversity-club, and evil capitalism vs. his Utopian nanny-state fiscal insanity.

The Trump tri-fecta is rooted in reality, while Barack Obama, the career community organiser and manufactured politician is rooted in the social justice fraud that leads to the  irresponsible destruction of the very system that has made America the  most prosperous and free nation on earth for centuries. The Donald is all about big rewards and an enhanced standard of life through hard work and personable responsibility, while Barack is all about handouts to irresponsible freeloaders based on skin color and vote-buying. One person’s ideology here would enhance Americans lives through opening up the door to greater wealth and prosperity through innovation in business and less government regulations, while the other would run America into bankruptcy through mandating government control of everything while overloading the welfare roles to the point of  financial ruin, not to mention destroying the jobs environment by mandating the Affirmative Action style race-based hiring of one group over the other instead of the most qualified, which leads to bloated labor prices like we see in our current government, where it now takes approximately eight workers to do the work one what one worker did just 10 – 15 years ago. If  The Donald ran his companies like The Teleprompter runs America today, he would soon to be living in a government subsidised apartment collecting food stamps and hoping for more handouts from the taxpayers, with no hope for the future in sight.

These are the truths that every American voter must be aware of come the 2012 elections. Donald Trump can speak for hours and answer questions on economics without so much as a few notes to refer to, whereas Barack Obama rarely utters a word that hasn’t been prepared by his handlers and has been proven incapable of speaking  without a teleprompter. This points to the fact the Trump knows what he is talking about, and Obama doesn’t, period. Trump is a qualified businessman capable of  preventing America’s impending financial Armageddon, and has a proven very successful economic track record, while Obama is a manufactured politician who in fact has never worked an honest day in his life.  Which one do you want to bet  America’s future on ?   The stakes are higher than they have ever been throughout America’s history of prosperity and freedom in 2012. Donald Trump realises the danger of four more years of  Barack Obama’s Utopian Socialist Nanny-state agenda and has chosen to make a stand for all of America in 2012.  Trump’s success and wealth are well-documented for all of America to see, in what hard work and a good education can bring a person as far as their quality of life goes. Trump has expressed his love for America and his desires that future generations of Americans are given a fair chance of achieving the success that he has today. This gives Trump theunalienable right to question Obama’s ideology, his right to the Presidency of the United States, or his policies and agenda, whether the Democrats, the media propagandists or the political operatives/mouthpieces of Obama’s administration like it or not. The Donald does not like the current fundamental transformation of America that Obama promised in the 2008 campaign, but had refused to define. That transformation is to a big government controlled, welfare nanny state for votes scheme, and it is right out front for all to see today, and Trump is to be thanked for helping expose that agenda.

As proof for those in denial of our economic situation today, in relationship to Obama’s proven welfare/nanny state transformation agenda, I offer up the numbers after two short years of Obama-rule here. Yes the poverty rate is up 32% under Obama, and long term unemployed was up a staggering 146% in that article!  Today, gas prices are up a whopping $3.87 a gallon, as opposed to $1.61 a gallon the day Obama took office!

Whether Donald Trump is making a serious run for President in 2012, or just simply getting some face time on the talk show circuits and news programs, he is to be commended for taking a stand against putting America through another four years of  listening to the lies and misinformation written by propagandists and inserted into Obama’s  teleprompter for the mindless Community Organiser in Chief to read. I personally hope Trump keeps right on tromping the teleprompter at every chance he gets, right on up to the 2012 elections. America certainly needs that bright sunshine that Trump is putting on the Obama Socialist transformation of America.

Herman Cain: 2012 Presidential Profile

As far as a common sense true American Patriot and successful businessman goes, possible 2012 Presidential candidate Herman Cain has to be near top of the true conservative voters wish list. According to Mr. Cain’s website, he has now formed a Presidential exploratory committee.

Personal Information

 

(from answers.com*)

Born Herman Cain, December 13, 1945, in Memphis, TN; son of Luther and Lenora Cain; married Gloria Cain; children: Melanie and Vincent.
Education: Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA, B.S., 1967; Purdue University, Lafayette, IN, M.A., computer science, 1971.
Memberships: Chairman, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 1992; president, National Restaurant Association, 1994-95; board member, Creighton University, 1989-; board member, Super Valu, Inc., 1990-; board member, Utilicorp United Inc., 1992-; board member, Whirlpool Corp., 1992; member, Economic Growth and Tax Reform Commission established by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole.

Career*
The Pillsbury Company, Minneapolis, MN, vice president/corporate systems and services, 1977-82; Burger King Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, regional vice president, 1982-86; Godfather’s Pizza Inc., Omaha, NE, president, 1986-88, president/CEO, 1988–.

Conservative credentials or liberal RINO?

Back in the 90’s when Cain ran for the U. S. Senate, he was quoted by several groups at spofga.org** where we see the following things:

Herman Cain. He has served as the CEO of Godfather Pizza. He also has been endorsed by Georgia Right to Life. Herman Cain has identified himself with conservative causes. As a speaker, he articulates conservative values very well. Herman Cain has also made the cause of civil rights a major issue. Herman Cain favors Federal Government intervention in the work place on the behalf of blacks and minorities. Republican U.S. Senate candidate Herman Cain issued a glowing statement commemorating the Civil Rights Act of 1964, read it on his web site www.cainforussenate.org.

Government intervention in the workplace for blacks and minorities is proving to be unfair and problematic to businesses today, and is being used mainly by liberals to enhance their voting base.  This could explain why Cain tries to avoid showing his true colors on social issues so far.

From the same article referencing Cain’s lack of conservative creds in the late 90’s** we see this troubling statement:

“He wasn’t in favor of doing away with affirmative-action programs that treat one class of people special and discriminate against another class of people, so what WOULD happen if a bill was introduced in Congress on that issue? Hmmmmmm..”

Mr. Cain wanted  to run against GWB in 1999, and when his own run against Bush fizzled, Cain endorsed Steve Forbes, who was (and, likely, still is) known to be quite moderate on the abortion issue and continued his anti-Bush campaign, saying that by electing Bush, Republicans will have “shortchanged ourselves as a party.” (Source: Conservative News Service, July 1, 1999) Statements like these could show Cain to be kind of a renegade against the old guard GOP of today, which could enhance his Teaparty creds, but at what expense would this come to towards his GOP creds in looking for any RNC support? For a person who has been very politically active and worked in various positions with such GOP heavyweights as Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, Mr. Cain has never won an election in his life. He failed in a 2004 Senate run back in Georgia in his only real campaign.  When people try to separate the fiscal conservative issues from the social issues, as Cain does, they are basically in denial of the fact that social issues can have a  dramatic effect on fiscal issues. For example, welfare will cost us over $10 trillion dollars under Obama’s tenure. ***   That is the cost of producing a nanny state, directly the result of Liberals and GOP Rino’s irresponsibility. No wonder Mr. Cain avoids discussing the social issues today.

Mr. Cain has an interesting, seemingly libertarian, anti-governmental view on energy with this recent statement:  ” We have a path to energy independence in this country and it just baffles me as to why the leadership of either party in Congress or the White House doesn’t pursue it,” said Cain. “We simply need to remove the regulatory barriers and stop overreacting to the concerns of the environmentalists.”  That could also qualify as a decent conservative view, if it was further explained as to exactly how we would completely remove the government from our energy sector.

Mr. Cain presents a confusing collage of ideologies, part Libertarian, part liberal, part Conservative. While his views on energy independence and government regulation shade him towards the Libertarian and Conservative platforms, his thoughts on government intrusion in matters of social justice put him firmly at odds with both Libertarians and Conservatives. Perhaps these are some of the reasons Mr. Cain has yet to win any election he’s run in. Mr. Cain is a very natural speaker, who uses a decent platform of delivering the coveted smaller government message to the grassroots movement of the Teaparty. His lack of political experience seems to be considered both a plus by the Teaparty and a huge negative by the longtime GOP operatives that think they know how to win elections. Take note that the GOP failed miserably against a Jr. Senator from the far left with zero credibility in any area of politics or business, one  Barack Hussein Obama.

Mr. Cain would certainly make  some great media clips if he follows through with a Presidential primary campaign in 2012, and you can sure bet that many of the establishment, big name, big spending Rinos in the GOP  do not want to square off against Cain in any Primary debates.In the end, I look for Cain to drop out early, after accepting a deal to support another candidate for *further considerations or appointments*. Using my own formula of common sense, plus political research, conservative rating system, I give Mr. Cain a 46% rating.

_________________________
On The Web
Official Herman Cain Campaign Website
Herman Cain on Twitter
Herman Cain on Facebook
Herman Cain on YouTube

Updates
April 4th, 2011
Exclusive Newsmax interview with Herman Cain  here:
Mr. Cain has moved up in some recent polls for the 2012 elections, and here we can see why, as he articulates why America needs a ” proven problem solver ” instead of just another GOP career politician to lead America.

*Update*
Cain has officially announced his candidacy:
Herman Cain Announces Presidential Run in Atlanta

_________________________
Sources:

* Answers.com
** Spofga.org
*** Heritage.org

See the profiles of other potential 2012 GOP Candidates