Black Supremacy Commentary How funny is this? How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Politics Racism

Ladies and Gentleman, the next mayor of Houston. %$#&*(*&^^%. Hopefully not.

Views: 20

Ladies and Gentleman, the next mayor of Houston. %$#&*(*&^^%. Hopefully not. So trash mouth and all, Ms. Lee is retiring from Congress and running for mayor of Houston. Below is her platform.

I don’t want you to do a goddamn thing. I want you to have a f*cking brain. I want you to have read it. I want you to say, Congresswoman, with such and such date. That’s what I want. That’s the kind of staff that I want to have. So some stupid other motherf*cker did it. And, and I don’t have the information. Nobody sent me the information. I need to, uh, ensure my, um, schedule and, uh, you know, if, if Boo Boo did it, shit a** did it, f*ck face did it. And nobody knows a goddamn thing in my office. Okay? Nothing. I gave it to you. Your job was to get it on the calendar, imprint it in your brain, or send me the information back saying, “Congresswoman, I made sure that the Ovide Ducantell event that you gave me, uh, for a so-and-so date at seven is on the f*cking calendar.” Not to, oh, Jerome has it.

Sheila Jackson Lee • 1:02 – 1:33

Okay. So when I called Jerome, he only sitting up there like a fat a** stupid idiot talking about, uh, what the f*ck? He doesn’t know. Okay? Both of y’all are f*ck ups [inaudible]. It’s the worst sh*t that I could have ever had put together. Two g*ddamn big a** children f*cking idiots serve no goddamn purpose. Ain’t managing nobody. Nobody’s respecting them. Nobody gives a sh*t about what you’re doing and you ain’t doing sh*t. And this is an example of it. I gave it to Jerome. This is not child’s work.



America's Heartland Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Education How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Opinion Racism Social Venues-Twitter

NO Virginia there isn’t just one example of hate from the left.

Views: 42

NO Virginia there isn’t just one example of hate from the left. Just yesterday a person posted a comment that there was just one example of hate from the left. Well, it’s obvious that this person lives in a small corner of the world where life’s reality is ignored.

Recently ZACH KESSEL is a William F. Buckley Jr. Fellow in Political Journalism and a recent graduate of Northwestern University reposted a few tweets to show us true examples of hate from the left that exists on college campuses. Below are a few examples.

Zach Kessel on X: “Students at @Columbia have signed a statement somehow even worse than the @Harvard one.” / X (

Zach Kessel on X: “Students for Justice in Palestine (@SJPNU) at @NorthwesternU: Hamas barbarism is justified, and Israel is not “the aggrieved party.”” / X (

Zach Kessel on X: “Students at another elite institution embrace Hamas terrorism, this time at @UMichLaw.” / X (

What say you?

Higher Education & Hamas: The Campus War on Israel | National Review




America's Heartland Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Economy Education Elections Emotional abuse Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Racism Reprints from others. Uncategorized White Progressive Supremacy

Democrats beware: These Black voters are fed up, and looking for a political home.

Views: 20

DUQUESNE — Nine years ago Leo Beatty was in his early 30s and working for U.S. Steel when president Barack Obama came to the Mon Valley plant. The visit was a post-State of the Union opportunity to sign an executive order authorizing “myRA,” a new retirement savings option for people who lacked an employer-administered account.

Mr. Beatty, then a registered Democrat who voted for Mr. Obama twice, said it was a thrill: “I really liked him then so it was exciting,” even though his presidency wasn’t always what he had expected. “I still like him. I am just not sure how much he did for the middle class Black community, or middle class white community either for that matter.”

Today Mr. Beatty is no longer a Democrat, nor after thirteen years on the job does he work for U.S. Steel. And that “myRA” program was shuttered only three years later.

Mr. Beatty voted for Joe Biden in 2020, but that has become even more of a disappointment.

“Biden dropped the ball for me on inflation, so no I don’t think he’s doing a good job — not just because I don’t think he has the cognitive ability to do it effectively, but because he knows no one like us. And by that I mean middle-class America,” said Mr. Beatty, who is now a registered Independent.

When asked to expand about his problems with Mr. Biden’s presidency he said, “Well, how much time you got?”

Mr. Beatty said it is insulting for Mr. Biden and the Democrats to keep saying how great the economy is. “Maybe for his friends. It is about the rich getting richer and putting us working class people against each other instead of looking at the real problem. The real problem is the rich people against poor people. It’s more classism than racism,” he said.

Mr. Beatty, who has earned multiple degrees and certificates in the trades, criminal justice and leadership, said the media tries to divide people on the basis of skin color.

“But we have a lot more in common than we have different. All of us want to be safe. All of us want our kids safe. All of us want to live a decent life. That’s all we want.”

Mr. Beatty is one of six middle-class Black voters, including his wife Crystal, who sat with me for hours last Sunday discussing the state of politics. What was most interesting is their shared belief that neither party is listening to them, with the Democrats taking the brunt of their criticism for promising change that never comes and taking them for granted, while Republicans struggle — sometimes comically — to give them a reason to support the party.

Missing middle class

My interviewees are optimistic about their lives and their communities, but very disappointed in this administration. In their eyes, Mr. Biden and the Democrats have failed their children and grandchildren by overreaching on cultural issues and underperforming on the basics of governance. Specifically, they are very frustrated over how inflation and crime remain serious problems in their daily lives.

Image DescriptionDonna Lee of Wall re­tired from theAl­le­gheny County Health Depart­ment. She says her big­gest con­cerns are what chil­dren are be­ing taught in school and out-of-con­trol-crime.
Tap or slick for larger image.

Donna Lee said she doesn’t consider herself a member of either party. “But I do my civic duty and vote in every election,” the retired Allegheny County Health Department employee said.

Ms. Lee said locally she mostly votes Democrat, but won’t discuss her 2020 vote. “I’ll pass on that question,” she says smiling. The grandmother said she is frustrated with the Biden administration for challenging the removal of sexually explicit books in schools — so much so that she sent the president a letter about the affect these curricula are having on children.

“Oh he wrote me back alright, about immigration,” she said, throwing her hands up in the air.

Image DescriptionChester Harper of Duquesne, afa­cil­i­ties man­ager at a uni­ver­sity in Oak­land, says he is a reg­is­teredDem­o­crat but con­sid­ers him­selfin­de­pen­dent.
Tap or slick for larger image.

Dressed in a dark navy suit, Chester Harper cuts a dapper figure all the way down to his leather briefcase. A lifelong Democrat and facilities manager at Carnegie Mellon University, Mr. Harper grew up in McKeesport and now calls Duquesne home. He says he voted for Mr. Biden — then makes a face and shakes his head when asked to give his assessment.

“He is not looking out for the needs of the common man. He has this agenda that is out of sorts with the average voter. He says all the time he knows middle class voters and he has their back — but no, he doesn’t, because he hasn’t been out there. He’s not in our world and [he hasn’t] listened to us,” Mr. Harper said.

Out of touch

Crystal Beatty, Leo’s wife, said she is a registered Democrat, but that doesn’t determine her votes. “Truly I’m more of an Independent because I want to vote for the person who’s most like me — and not necessarily the color of my skin, but the values I believe in,” she said.

Ms. Beatty cringes at the reminder of Mr. Biden telling a Black radio host in 2020 that Black voters torn between voting for him and President Trump “ain’t Black.” “Let me put it this way, so I am not rude, the person who most represents my values wouldn’t even consider thinking that, let alone saying it out loud,” she said.

As for local Democrats U.S. Rep. Summer Lee and U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, she is unimpressed with them as well. “Have you seen Braddock, it’s like you have proof of what you’re not doing and how much you care,” she said of Mr. Fetterman, who lives there, and Ms. Lee, who represented it in the state house.

Image DescriptionWini­fred Wash­ing­ton, a reg­is­tered Dem­o­crat, said she is dis­ap­pointed in Joe Biden. She be­lieves if he came to her neigh­bor­hood he wouldn’t un­der­stand the prob­lems it is fac­ing.
Tap or slick for larger image.

Winifred Washington said localism is something Democratic politicians have forgotten to focus on. “Take something as simple as Duquesne High School. That school was the center of the community and children attending school in their hometown are a visual reminder that our future will be better,” she said.

In 2007 the state Department of Education split Duquesne’s high school students between West Mifflin and East Allegheny high schools. It was a move that fractured the community and took away a storied football program that drew people together.

“It is not that I expect that Joe Biden would understand or deal with that kind of displacement and the impact it would have. His problem is he doesn’t know how to relate to anyone who has had that happen to their community,” she explained.

“Democrats used to be all about this kind of situation — they used to fight for it— now they have turned to fight for things I often don’t understand.”

She voted for Mr. Biden. Is she happy about it? “No,” she said. “Its just sad, he’s too old and he is out of touch.”

Image DescriptionArdell Mar­tin of Duquesne says the Demo­cratic Party has taken Blackvot­ers for granted for too long and no lon­ger rep­resents mid­dle class Black peo­ple; she is un­happy with Joe Biden and has no in­ter­est in Don­ald Trump.(Salena Zito)

Pathetic president

Ardell Martin, who spent most of her career working for community newspapers, said she even looking at Mr. Biden makes her so uncomfortable. “I think he’s pathetic. In a way, I feel bad for him. I really do. I think he’s lost.”

Her problem with him is the problem she has with all politicians, “You may say I’m cynical, but I don’t think they care. They don’t care about anybody. A lot of them are in it for the pension plan that they’re going to get after their terms are up. Some of them, it’s an ego thing.”

Still she says she dutifully votes, “I honor my obligations. I wish that they would remember that they’re working for us people I think they have lost empathy for.”

North Side native Salena Zito is a national political reporter for The Washington Examiner, a New York Post columnist and co-author of “The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics”


Corruption How sick is this? Links from other news sources. Opinion Racism Reprints from others. The Courts The Law White Progressive Supremacy

Progressives Sought White Supremacy in 1898.

Views: 19

Progressives Sought White Supremacy in 1898.


This article is from 2014, but very relevant today. Progressives are even worse today than they were in 1898.

Editor’s Note: In our Spring 2014  Civitas Review magazine, Civitas’ Susan Myrick looked back at a dark chapter in North Carolina history — the “White Supremacy” campaign of 1898. White progressive Democrats ran an avowedly racist campaign to remove blacks from political life. The photo on the front page of the web site is from the Wilmington race riot, the culmination of the campaign’s propaganda and incitement.

“What you do in this world is a matter of no consequence. The question is, What can you make people believe you have done?” ― Arthur Conan DoyleA Study in Scarlet

It shouldn’t have come as a surprise in 2013 that North Carolina Democrats and self-styled progressives reacted with fury when Republicans took over the General Assembly and the governor’s office. That’s because Democrats and Progressives reacted the same way when their hold on power was threatened more than a century ago.

A little over a year ago, on February 22, 2013, the Charlotte Observer broke the story of a leaked strategy memo from leftist group Blueprint NC that described the game plan “progressive” groups should use to “eviscerate” the Republican leadership. While the memo itself was scandalous, it exposed the liberal Left’s determination to regain the power that had been lost to conservatives in the 2010 and 2012 elections. No student of North Carolina history would underestimate what the Left will do in such circumstances.

To understand this, we must look back to the late 1800s, when Democrats in the legislature controlled almost every level of government, including the state’s county commissions. The County Government Act of 1877 provided that the legislature would appoint justices of the peace, who would then select county commissioners, giving the Democrats in the legislature control of the commissions, and thus of much of the rest of local government.

By the 1890s North Carolina had two other political factions, the Republicans, including most black voters, and Populists, who attracted many poor whites. These two groups devised a plan to defeat Democrats by creating a “Fusion” movement. In 1894 the two parties agreed to challenge every Democratic candidate and in their separate conventions voted on a slate of candidates that included candidates from both the Populist and Republican parties. In 1894, Fusion candidates won a majority in the legislature and won both U.S. Senate seats. During the Fusion era, African Americans voted and held elective and appointed office throughout North Carolina in this era. The Fusion plan worked again in 1896, when the alliance retained control of the legislature and elected a Republican governor, Daniel Russell. Russell, however, would be the last Republican governor in North Carolina until James Holshouser was elected in 1973.
Democrats – led by their Progressive wing – struck back in 1898 with the “White Supremacy Campaign.” The name was accurate: White supremacy was its main tactic and ultimate result.

Then as now, Progressives thought of themselves as having lofty goals for the betterment of the people. But in 1898, Tar Heel Progressives decided they could only attain their aims by playing the race card to divide and defeat the Fusion coalition. Furnifold Simmons, chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee, and Josephus Daniels, publisher of the News & Observer, were leaders of the White Supremacy Campaign. (See p. xx) The campaign stoked racial hatred, used intimidation as a weapon, and ultimately incited violence. These shameful tactics worked. The drive effectively rolled back the gains the Fusion alliance had achieved in the previous two election cycles.

The Democratic Party disenfranchised black voters and returned to its dominant role on all levels of government. The defeat weakened the Republican Party to the point that it took the GOP 112 years to gain control of both houses of the General Assembly. Yet Democrats and progressives still deny that it was their political forebears – their heroes – who acted in such a despicable way.

That’s the rub: North Carolina’s liberals/leftists must always work to distance themselves from their movement’s ugly roots: racism and bare-knuckle politics. Today’s liberals attempt to brand the White Supremacy Campaign as a conservative movement, but its leaders and members were mostly known Progressives. That’s also why today’s liberals gloss over the fact that during the era of segregation Democrats totally dominated the state.

Today’s liberals even go so far as to suggest that racists in the Democratic Party, after the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were passed in 1964 and 1965 respectively, defected to the Republican Party. But there is no evidence to prove this assertion, in either voter registration changes or instances of prominent Democratic politicians who voted against these bills leaving the Democratic Party to join the Republican Party. For example, Democratic U.S. Sen. Sam Ervin was a segregationist who voted against both of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Yet he continues to be hailed as a hero of the liberal Left, mostly for his role in the Watergate hearings. Indeed, both of North Carolina’s U.S. Senators and all of its congressional delegation (of which there were two Republicans) voted against these two pieces of legislation. It doesn’t matter to the progressive Left that the truth is Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in much larger percentages than did Democrats, and without strong Republican support the laws would not have passed. It doesn’t matter, because they know that if you repeat a lie enough, people won’t search for the truth and the progressive media is always at the ready to repeat lies to defeat conservatives.

Perhaps that is why liberals in North Carolina consistently call their enemies racists – to deflect attention from liberalism’s own sordid history. We heard their hate-filled rhetoric during the 2013 legislative session. The leaked strategy memo gave us a peek into North Carolina’s liberal/left organizational structure and revealed their desperation to get back the power they had held for generations.

It’s hard to deny that the left enthusiastically and relentlessly executed the Blueprint NC memo’s strategic plan: “Cripple their leaders ([Gov.] McCrory, [House Speaker] Tillis, [Senate President Pro Tem] Berger etc.)” and “Eviscerate the leadership and weaken their ability to govern.” A swarm of liberal, progressive and socialist groups rallied at the legislative building every Monday (and some other days) during the legislative session to protest the new legislative majority’s work and at the same time accuse them of racism and bigotry. We are even hearing William Barber, president of the NC NAACP describe these groups as the “fusion movement”.

Today, the tide has turned in North Carolina partisan politics. In the 2010 General Election, running in districts drawn up by Democrats, Republicans won majorities in both the state House and Senate but had to battle against Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue’s 19 vetoes. In 2012 they added to their numbers and gained the majorities they needed to override a Governor’s veto, thought that could be viewed as a luxury because a Republican was elected governor. And, it was the first time four Republicans were elected to the state’s Council of State in one year.

Moreover, the North Carolina Democratic Party is in a shambles. The party’s decline can be attributed to a list of disgraced politicos and a state party embroiled in controversy, including a sexual misconduct scandal, the forced resignation of the state party’s executive director, and the failed attempt to replace the state chairman ahead of the 2012 election. More recently, the party has fired the executive director hired in May 2013 to replace the one accused of sexual harassment, and the turmoil has continued this year. Some even suggest that William Barber, president of the NC NAACP and the leader of the coalition of groups that have protested against the legislature on Mondays during the last session, is the face of and de facto head of the Democratic Party. William Barber definitely has the progressive/liberal credentials and rhetoric to be such a leader.
What may be even more ominous for the liberal Left, but probably not as widely known, is who the voters of North Carolina voted for in the 2012 General Election. Using the Civitas Partisan Index model and comparing the votes for Democratic Party and Republican Party in Council of State races, we see a dramatic shift from 2008 to 2012 – more than five percentage points. In 2008, statewide, Tar Heels gave Democratic candidates 53.4 percent of the vote and 46.6 percent for Republican candidates; in the 2012 model, the average vote statewide was nearly even: 50.6 percent Democratic to 49.4 percent Republican. While it is true that historically, in Council of State races, North Carolinians tend to vote for Democratic candidates, in the 2012 CPI we see a possible shift in that voting pattern.

The liberal Left (and that always includes the mainstream media) is adept in defining the Right, whether it’s labeling the tea party as racists or charging that conservatives are waging war on women. History and the facts belie the liberal/left’s rhetoric concerning the workings and the history of the progressive movement in North Carolina. We only have to glance at history to get a clear picture of how progressives reacted when they lost power for a short time in the 19th century. It should be no surprise that they would react with such vitriol in the 21st.



Commentary Corruption Emotional abuse Faked news Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Media Woke MSM Opinion Progressive Racism Racism Reprints from others.

Former ESPN broadcaster Sage Steele blasts company’s ‘hypocrisy’ days after leaving Steele left the network earlier this week.

Views: 9

By Ryan Morik Fox News

Former ESPN broadcaster Sage Steele blasts company’s ‘hypocrisy’ days after leaving Steele left the network earlier this week.

Sage Steele has broken her silence about what she says is “hypocrisy” at ESPN. Steele, now a former ESPN employee, was a guest on Megyn Kelly’s YouTube show Thursday, just days after leaving the network.

Steele provided the “life update” on X, formerly Twitter, saying her lawsuit against the company was settled, and she decided to leave so she can “exercise my first amendment rights more freely.

Before Steele spoke, Kelly showed a montage of ESPN broadcasters voicing political opinions on the air.

“All I ever wanted was consistency,” Steele told Kelly. “And if we are allowing my peers to go on social media, much less on our own airwaves, saying things that have nothing to do with sports, that are political … then I should be allowed on my personal time to give my opinion on my experiences personally, without telling others what to do or how to feel being biracial or being forced to take a vaccine.

“I think that’s just what breaks my heart. That there were different rules for me than everyone else.”

Steele reflected on the time she felt forced to apologize after another incident with ESPN brass.

Sage Steele in 2019

ESPN’s Sage Steele also expressed support for Riley Gaines. (Meg Oliphant/Getty Images)

“I did not want to apologize. I fought. I fought, and I begged and I screamed. And I was told that if I want to keep my job, I have to apologize. And I need my job,” she said. “And they knew that.”

However, Steele said, issues continued, and “there were events taken away as I’ve worked years to get.”

“It’s interesting. I think in anything in life, quite often, we say, ‘All right, one more time and it’s over, and I’m done …’ I knew that there was a line somewhere,” she explained.

That line was the Rose Bowl Parade. Steele had covered it previously but not this year.

“I knew that, mentally, I had checked out and was heartbroken again at the hypocrisy of the rules. A rule’s a rule for everybody or nobody. You can’t pick and choose, especially if it’s just one person. It’s just me.”

Sage Steele in Phoenix in February 2023

Sage Steele speaks onstage during The Players Tailgate Hosted By Bobby Flay for Super Bowl LVII Feb. 12, 2023, in Phoenix, Ariz. (Jesse Grant/Getty Images for Bullseye Event Group)

Steele’s lawsuit accused ESPN of selective enforcement of its policy that bars news employees from commenting on politics and social issues.

The suit alleged ESPN “violated Connecticut law and Steele’s rights to free speech based upon a faulty understanding of her comments and a nonexistent, unenforced workplace policy that serves as nothing more than pretext” and claimed the network relied on “inaccurate third-party accounts of Steele’s comments” and “did not immediately review the actual comments or the context in which they were made.”

She joined ESPN in 2007 after starting out at Comcast SportsNet. She became one of the mainstays on “SportsCenter” and made appearances on “NBA Countdown.”

Fox News’ Ryan Gaydos contributed to this report.




Corruption Links from other news sources. Medicine Progressive Racism Racism Reprints from others. WOKE Work Place

You make the call. Doctor Coalition Sues California Medical Board for Insisting ‘White Individuals Are Naturally Racist’.

Views: 19

You make the call. Doctor Coalition Sues California Medical Board for Insisting ‘White Individuals Are Naturally Racist’.

Two doctors, one black, and the other an Iranian-American, have sued the Medical Board of California for its requirement forcing a continuation of medical education courses that are focused on “implicit bias.”

Dr. Marilyn Singleton and Dr. Azadeh Khatibi argued that such a requirement violates their constitutional rights of freedom of speech and civil rights.

They said that such a requirement lacks evidence regarding its efficacy in the medical field and that the mandate is considered widely controversial among doctors.

Do No Harm, an organization that fights for individual patients and against identity politics, joined the doctors in opposing California’s mandate.

The lawsuit was filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a freedom-fighting organization, and challenges a mandate from California lawmakers that requires all medical courses to include “implicit bias” training.

“Physicians have free will and act in the best interest of their patients,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Do No Harm’s chairman.

“The idea of unconscious bias states that one acts on those biases, and there’s no evidence of this happening in the medical community,” he added.

“Medical professionals take the Hippocratic oath to do no harm, and do not need lawmakers or medical organizations to tell them what they should think when providing medical advice to patients,” he continued.

The lawsuit points out that all state-licensed physicians must complete 50 hours of continuing medical education every two years.

It describes “implicit bias” as the “idea that medical professionals unconsciously treat patients differently based on their race or other immutable characteristics,” as reported by The Messenger.

In a Fox News Op-Ed, Singleton blasted the California law for what it truly is.

“While the law doesn’t say it, the accusation is clear: White people are oppressors and Black people are oppressed. Nationwide, implicit-bias trainings for medical professionals routinely discuss systemic racism, White supremacy, and other race-based attacks on classes of people,” she said.

“I don’t care that I’m not the target. This still represents the kind of racist thinking that was starting to fade 50 years ago. I don’t want to be taught this evil, nor do I want to teach it to others,” she added.

Singleton also said that medical professionals should focus on teaching medicine rather than pushing an agenda shared wholly by a political party.



Education Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Racism Reprints from others.

Giving Up the Bad Faith of Affirmative Action.

Views: 7

Giving Up the Bad Faith of Affirmative Action.


with John McWhorter and Peter Arcidiacono

One of the more interesting footnotes to the Students for Fair Admissions case doesn’t involve what happened. It involves what didn’t happen. After the decision came down, liberals and the left voiced their dismay at the result. There was a little organized protesting, but it was nothing compared to the massive waves of mobilization that attended the Dobbs decision on abortion, despite the fact that the result was predictable in both cases.

Perhaps that’s to be expected. Dobbs is, in my view, the more consequential decision. It has the potential to directly affect far more people than Students for Fair Admissions. But I think there is another factor at play. Most people already suspected what the latter case demonstrated—that race-based affirmative action is a discriminatory practice. It was both unjust and unpopular, and now it’s been declared unconstitutional. The relatively muted response from some of the left could signal a tacit decision to relinquish the legerdemain and enforced silence and bad faith necessary to keep the policy going. I can’t help but think that, whatever attitude they present to the public, some affirmative action defenders are secretly relieved that they can now turn their attention elsewhere.

Of course, I’m only speculating. And the fight over racial preferences in college admissions is not nearly over. It’s too big a business to simply vanish; elite institutions have invested too much in it to just give it up. This week’s episode features Duke economist Peter Arcidiacono, the man who led the herculean effort to analyze the data that made Students for Fair Admissions’ case. As Peter says, that data is clear. Now that it’s out in the open, any of the “good liberals” who defended affirmative action as a matter of principle while privately harboring doubts as to its logical and moral coherence have an offramp. They can let it go. The questions is, will they?

GLENN LOURY: Peter was the main guy—correct me if I get anything wrong, Peter—in the data analysis marathon that had to be undertaken in order to parse through the information made available by Harvard University, quantitative information on its admissions policies, what exactly was going on. And he faced off against the estimable David Card—Nobel fame, UC-Berkeley—who was the lead witness for the defendant, Harvard University, in the litigation. And he prevailed.

PETER ARCIDIACONO: Not at first, but in the end, yes.

So what were the scientific questions, the academic questions, which you’ve been engaged with that were relevant to the litigation.

PETER ARCIDIACONO: Well, what was relevant to litigation was, was there a penalty against Asian Americans? And also how big the preferences were at these different schools.

JOHN MCWHORTER: There’s nothing sadder than the position of an individual Asian student today at these universities. They are so muzzled. You can often tell what they do think about all of this, but you can’t say that in their social circles. And so they don’t. I’ve seen a couple of them actually change color as they talk about it. It’s weird.

I told one of them, I’m sorry that you are in selective university at this time, because this must be a really tough thing to have any kind of constructive conversation about. Except, I imagine, among yourselves. And one of them kind of smiled. I mean, you can tell what’s going on. It’s hard, but this had to happen. It was time.

Peter, I’m glad that you did this. What in your gut got you onto this? Because, of course, some people are going to say, “Peter, it’s just racism,” and there’s a certain kind of crowd who will applaud. I know it’s not that, but what interested you about this?

PETER ARCIDIACONO: Well, I think that came about through my own experience as an undergraduate and seeing how much easier the economics classes were than the chemistry classes, so then studying higher education. And then back in 2011 when there was a protest over one of my papers on this, seeing universities not really willing to engage in dialogue about how best to improve the experiences here.

That probably set me on this path. What that paper showed was, it was really about a data fact. You look at white males, they come in, those who want to do STEM and economics, they switch out at a rate of eight percent. This is at Duke. Black males interested in STEM and economics switch out at a rate of over fifty percent.

And nothing happened after that. You know, we just sort of let the protests happen, everything sort of died away, nothing changes. And I think it relates, actually—I know you wrote about this—the Georgetown Law professor who got caught on video lamenting the poor performance of her black students.

Sandra Sellers.

SANDRA SELLERS: I hate to say this, I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are blacks. Happens almost every semester. And it’s like, oh, come on. You get some really good ones, but there are also usually some that are just plain at the bottom. It drives me crazy

PETER ARCIDIACONO: And she got torn to pieces.

And to me, that’s a feature not a bug for affirmative action. When you come in, you’re going to be behind your peers. That’s by definition, unless we’re screening on things that we shouldn’t be screening. So that idea, you’re going to come in behind, the performance relative to your peers is going to be worse. It could still be a good thing that you’re going to the better school and have a better outcome. But it’s a definite feature of the system that you will be further down on the last rank. So now you have a system where actually they come in with the university saying, “We want you so much. We’re willing to give you big preferences.” And they come out thinking the place is racist. That doesn’t seem so good.

JOHN MCWHORTER: It’s not so good. It makes no sense whatsoever. It’s one of the aspects of all of this that really is as peculiar as discussions medieval Europeans had about matters of religion and philosophy, where again, you have to be very careful to understand what the terminology is, what things you’re not supposed to look at and why. Truly peculiar that you have that kind of preference, and yet the stylish attitude by the time you’re finished is that you’ve just gone through some sort of racist hazing.

And it really will perplex people in say a hundred years, maybe even in fifty, to look back on the state of our discussion with this and to see something like what Sandra Sellers was lamenting. And for the good thinking idea to have been that there’s nothing wrong with that, that that’s not something that we need to try to fix, and it doesn’t matter.

Yes it does. And I think that everybody will understand why a few of us weird renegades back in the early twenty-first century thought it did. It does.

I think it’s going to happen a lot quicker than fifty years. I think it’s happening before our very eyes. I mean, Peter pointed out that this decision, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the University of North Carolina, did not engender the same kind of backlash from the left of revulsion and political determination to do something about it that the Dobbs decision on the abortion question did, even though it is resolving in a “conservative” direction of one of the big questions of constitutional law of the last half-century. It is historic in representing a kind of transformation of the law in its way, as was the Dobbs decision. It didn’t engender the same kind of backlash.

And I think this house of cards which Peter described—I mean, the Sandra Sellers thing is a predictable consequence. As he says, it’s a feature, not a bug. It’s a predictable consequence. And then you’re going to have a witch hunt and you’re going to go around and cut people’s heads off if they observe that it’s true. And then everybody can see it. It’s not like it’s not common knowledge that there are these implications of preferences. It’s corrupt.

I think Justice Clarence Thomas deserves to be recognized here as, for decades, having made this argument about the affront to the dignity of the beneficiaries of preference, the fact that they’re not being taken seriously as persons of whom it is reasonable to expect performance like anybody else. You’re patting the beneficiaries on the head. You’re turning them into baubles to wear on a charm bracelet around your wrist, representing the various colors of the demographic universe. You’re not taking them seriously. That’s what I would say.



Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Racism Reprints from others.

Winning. Senator Kennedy shames Democrats.

Views: 17

Winning. Senator Kennedy shames Democrats.

The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) did a markup on “ethics” legislation Thursday targeting conservative Supreme Court Justices.

While the Democrats managed to pass out of this sick bill out of committee on a party-line vote, they got humiliated by Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) in the process over a simple amendment condemning racism.

Kennedy is a straight-shooting national treasure complete with an incisive wit and dry sense of humor. He has displayed these talents throughout his time in the Senate whether by stumping unqualified Biden nominees or in interviews with reporters.

As Townhall reported, he put his remarkable skills once again to the test and went scorched earth on the Democrats for refusing to pass his amendment calling out the evil, racist attacks against the great Clarence Thomas. After an epic tour de force and a bit of help from Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), he got them to do exactly what he wanted in the first place.

Democrats started of by making excuses for why the amendment was unworkable and tried to convince Kennedy to back off. The Louisiana Senator, however, let loose in his trademark colorful fashion:

I don’t understand the reluctance to accept the fact that Justice Clarence Thomas, who happens to be a black man, has been the butt of a lot of racist statements. And I don’t understand reluctance to condemn those. And that’s what my amendment does.

I don’t want it watered down, I don’t want to bubble wrap it, I don’t want to sugar coat it, I want to say, big as Dallas, the United States Senate condemns all these racist things that have been said against Justice Clarence Thomas.

Kennedy also noted that if another senator put forth another amendment “to condemn every racist thing that has ever been said in the history of ever” which he would be thrilled vote for it.


Undeterred, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) spoke up and tried to convince his colleagues to excuse the racism against Thomas.

I consider this to be not relevant to the matter at hand, and further it specifically requests the Biden administration to inject itself politically into a law enforcement decision that the Biden administration, I think quite properly, has avoided getting involved with.

But Kennedy was not having any of this BS and blistered Whitehouse and his cronies in return.

I mean does anybody here support that kind of rhetoric? I don’t! I don’t think you do! And this kind of rhetoric hasn’t been directed toward John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, it’s been directed towards Clarence Thomas! And it’s un-American, it’s unconscionable, and I can’t believe we wouldn’t condemn it!

I don’t care how many lawyers can dance on the head of a pin. Don’t try to pretend that this is a technical mistake in this amendment. It’s not complicated! You don’t have to be a senior at Cal Tech to figure it out!

It says all of this stuff about Clarence Thomas, calling him a house slave, and all other racist, disgusting statements, we condemn! Now you either condemn it, or you don’t. And that’s all this amendment does

Whitehouse responded by saying he condemned the racism but still demanded his colleagues to vote no. He reiterated he wanted the Biden regime off the hook when it came to defending Supreme Court Justices.

Like a bulldog, Kennedy once again refused to let go:

It’s a real simple amendment. If you support the racist things that have been said against Clarence Thomas, then vote against this amendment. If you think the things that have been said about Clarence Thomas are racist to the marrow and you condemn them, then vote for this amendment.


Not to be outdone, Cruz next took control and laid into the vile Democrats as well:

The part that is offensive of this is that it calls on the Department of Justice to enforce the law. Just stop and repeat that to yourself again. So now it is the position of Democrats that it is unacceptable for the Department of Justice to enforce the law!”

At the end, the Democrats were so cowed and shamed by Kennedy that they voted for his amendment.



Corruption How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Racism Racism. The Law

Dem-Backed Bill Would Force Judges to Consider Race in Sentencing

Views: 31

Dem-Backed Bill Would Force Judges to Consider Race in Sentencing

California lawmakers consider a bill that would require judges to consider a person’s race when deciding how long to sentence them to prison.

The bill, which was introduced in February by Democratic Assembly taxpaying citMember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, was approved by the state Assembly in May and is currently being debated in the state Senate, according to Fox News.

If the Dems didn’t have double standards, they would have none at all.

Assembly Bill 852 would add a section to the California Penal Code requiring courts, when they have the power to decide a prison sentence, to take into account how racial minorities have been affected differently than others in order to “rectify racial bias.”

“It is the intent of the Legislature to rectify the racial bias that has historically permeated our criminal justice system as documented by the California Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans,” the proposed section reads.

“Whenever the court has discretion to determine the appropriate sentence according to relevant statutes and the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council, the court presiding over a criminal matter shall consider the disparate impact on historically disenfranchised and system-impacted populations.”

The task force, which was created from legislation signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2020, published its recommendations in June, Fox News reported. The state legislature will debate whether to implement them.

Jones-Sawyer is a member of the reparations task force, according to NBC News.

Eligible black California residents could receive more than $115,000, or roughly $2,352 per year of residency from 1971 to 2020, in compensation for excessive policing and felony drug arrests, as well as disproportionate incarceration during the alleged war on drugs, Fox News reported.

Jones-Sawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Wow. Give criminals money for being caught. What a novel concept!

Isn’t giving someone preferential treatment because of their skin color RACIST????

Answer: YES! (Unless the parties enjoying the preference are non-White, of course.)



Gun Control Racism The Courts

The face of a “White Supremacist” in Philly shooting (A follow-up)

Views: 9

Remember how Twitterheads claimed that the Philly shootings were done by “White Supremacists?” Well, here one is:

The 40-year-old Kimbrady Carricker

The man accused in the fatal shooting spree in Philadelphia that left five people dead and four others wounded Monday night left a will at his house, and according to a roommate, had acted agitated and wore a tactical vest around his house in the days before the shooting, prosecutors said Wednesday.

In his first court hearing on Wednesday morning, 40-year-old Kimbrady Carriker was charged with 11 total offenses and several counts of each.

In addition to murder, Carriker is also facing charges of attempted murder, reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, and carrying a firearm without a valid permit.

He is being held without bail for the murders.

Sources say the suspect made disturbing social media posts before the gunfire. Sources say, Carriker, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, owned the ghost guns used in this mass shooting.

Prosecutors said they recovered a handgun, a will dated June 23, and other evidence during a search of the Carricker’s home. They declined to discuss details of the will or whether it gave any indication Carrick had been planning the attack between then and the shooting ten days later.

This is not the first time Carriker has had run-ins with the law. The suspect has misdemeanor drug and gun charges from 2003, which led to probation.




Verified by MonsterInsights