TYSON HAS LONG BEEN IDENTIFED WITH THE DEMOCRAT PARTY FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.
Tyson Foods Faces Boycott After Firing 1,200 Americans, ‘Would Like to Employ’ 42,000 Migrants - AND BIDEN - MAYORKAS - SCHUMER HAVE USHERED OVER THE BORDER 15 MILLION TO PICK FROM.
IF THERE IS SO MUCH 'SYSTEMIC RACISM' THEN HOW DID BARACK OBAMA GET ELECTED, OPRAH BECOME A BILLIONAIRE AND MICHELLE OBAMA, WHO WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO GET INTO ANY LAW SCHOOL, BE ADMITTED TO HARVARD LAW???
The friend's name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the
introduction had taken place about twenty years prior. Sutton described
al-Mansour as "the principal adviser to one of the world's richest
men." The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal,
the same billionaire whose anti-Semitism caused Mayor Rudy Giuliani to reject
his $10 million gift to New York City post 9/11.
Malia, Michelle, Barack and the College Admissions Scandal
What shocked even the old timers in my hometown was that Mayor
Hugh Addonizio, the man who gave me my Eagle Scout Award, would accept
kickbacks in cash right across his desk. They were troubled less by his criminality
-- that was expected in Newark -- than by his lack of subtlety. Addonizio paid
for his indiscretion with a lengthy prison sentence.
So it is with the current college admissions scandal. People
have been scamming their ways into prestige universities for decades, maybe
centuries, but in the past they have had the good sense not to put the cash on
the table. It seems that in this scandal a few of the bribers and their brokers
may well pay for their indiscretion with prison sentences as well.
The media pretend to be shocked. In an editorial on the scandal, the New YorkTimes singled
out Harvard University for its “special admissions preferences and back doors
for certain applicants.” This is the same New York Times, however, that published an entirely uncritical article three years prior headlined, “Malia Obama Rebels, Sort of, by
Choosing Harvard.”
Malia is the fourth member of the Obama family to attend that
august university, none of whom, save perhaps for Grandpa Obama, deserved to be
there.
Let’s start with Obama Sr., the only member of the extended
family to attend college before the affirmative action/diversity era. Obama
arrived at Harvard in the early 1960s with the goal of getting a Ph.D. in
economics. According to biographer Sally Jacobs, Obama “struggled” with his
studies but managed to get a Masters degree.
Alas, the university booted him on moral grounds before he could
get his doctorate. An inveterate playboy despite his two ongoing marriages,
Obama had an affair with a high-school girl. Denied his Ph.D., says Jacobs, “He
goes on to claim the title, nonetheless. He's Dr. Obama. The older he gets, the
more he claims it.” As will be seen, intellectual fraud runs in the family.
Michelle was the next to attend Harvard, in her case Harvard Law
School. “Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades
weren’t good enough for an Ivy League school,” writes Christopher Andersen
in Barack and Michelle,
“Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.”
Sympathetic biographer Liza Mundy writes, “Michelle frequently
deplores the modern reliance on test scores, describing herself as a person who
did not test well.” She did not write well either. Mundy charitably describes
her senior thesis, "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black
Community," as “dense and turgid.”
The less charitable Christopher Hitchens observed, “To
describe [the thesis] as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be
‘read’ at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't
written in any known language.” Hitchens exaggerated only a little. The
following summary statement by Michelle captures her unfamiliarity with many of
the rules of grammar and most of logic:
The study inquires about the respondents' motivations to benefit
him/herself, and the following social groups: the family, the Black community,
the White community, God and church, The U.S. society, the non-White races of
the world, and the human species as a whole.
Michelle even typed badly. Still, she was admitted to and
graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law. I have been told by those on
the inside that there are ways of recognizing affirmative-action admissions.
Still, one almost feels sorry for Michelle. She was in so far over her
head it is no wonder she projected her angst onto the white people around her.
“Regardless of the circumstances underwhich [sic] I interact with whites
at Princeton,” she wrote in the opening of her thesis, “it often seems as if,
to them, I will always be black first and a student second."
Barack was the smarter and better educated half of the couple.
That said, had Obama’s father come from Kentucky not Kenya and been named
O’Hara not Obama, there would been no Harvard
Law Review, no Harvard, no Columbia.
In his overly friendly biography, The Bridge, David Remnick
writes that Obama was an “unspectacular” student in his two years at Columbia
and at every stop before that going back to grade school. A Northwestern University prof who wrote a letter of reference
for Obama reinforces the point, telling Remnick, “I don’t think [Obama] did too
well in college.” As to Obama’s LSAT scores, Jimmy Hoffa’s body will be
unearthed before those are.
How such an indifferent student got into a law school whose
applicants’ LSAT scores typically track between 98 to 99 percentile and whose
GPAs range between 3.80 and 4.00 is a subject Remnick avoids.
Obama does too. Although he has admitted that he “undoubtedly
benefited from affirmative action programs” during his academic career, he has
remained mum about some reported “back door” influence peddling that may have
been as useful to him as affirmative action.
In late March 2008 the venerable African-American entrepreneur
and politico Percy Sutton appeared on a local New York City show called
"Inside City Hall." When asked about Obama by the show’s host,
Dominic Carter, the former Manhattan borough president calmly and lucidly
explained that he had been “introduced to [Obama] by a friend.”
The friend's name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the
introduction had taken place about twenty years prior. Sutton described
al-Mansour as "the principal adviser to one of the world's richest
men." The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal,
the same billionaire whose anti-Semitism caused Mayor Rudy Giuliani to reject
his $10 million gift to New York City post 9/11.
According to Sutton, al-Mansour had asked him to "please
write a letter in support of [Obama]... a young man that has applied to
Harvard." Sutton had friends at Harvard and gladly did so.
Three months before the election it should have mattered that a
respected black political figure had publicly announced that an unapologetic
anti-Semite like al-Mansour, backed by an equally anti-Semitic Saudi
billionaire, had been guiding Obama’s career perhaps for the last twenty years,
but the story died a quick and unnatural death.
As for Malia, whose grades and scores are as much a state secret
as her father’s, the old man damns with the faint praise of “capable” and
“conscientious.” But hell, Bill’s daughter Chelsea got into Stanford and
George’s daughter Barbara got into Yale, so this particular path to the back
door was well worn.
Barack Obama’s back door, however, was unique to him. Before
prosecutors send some of the dimmer Hollywood stars to the slammer for their
dimness, they might want to ask just how much influence a Saudi billionaire
peddled to get Obama into Harvard.
Harvard
virtue-signals: DoJ brief finds that 45% of its black and Latino admissions got
in on race
Imagine
being a talented black or Latino applicant who got into Harvard University. Now
there's news that 45% of the blacks and Latinos have been found to have been
admitted on race over merit, according to a new Justice department brief, which
credibly argues that Harvard engaged in illegal "race-balancing."
Almost half of all blacks and Hispanics who
attend Harvard were admitted because of illegal racial preferences in
admissions according to a brief just filed by the Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice filed the brief in a
federal lawsuit filed by Students
For Fair Admissions. It says Harvard's race-based admissions process
violates federal law.
Every
employer is going to be looking at your diploma and wondering if you were part
of the 45%.
Which
is a pretty nasty burden to throw onto the talented 55% who got in on merit
alone. Everywhere they go, they'll be suspected of not being Harvard material
but for the color of their skin. Make a mistake at work? It's because of the
Harvard affirmative-action advantage. What an ugly thing to have to worry about
for the rest of your life, solely because you are black or Latino. It's the
typically lefty good intentions and virtue-signaling that in the real world
does blacks and Latinos absolutely no favors.
The school considers applicants’ race at
virtually every step, from rating applicants to winnowing the field of
applicants when attempting to avoid an oversubscribed class. And its inclusion
of race in the analysis frequently makes a dispositive difference. The district
court found that Harvard’s use of race was “determinative” for “approximately
45% of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” ADD84. Moreover,
Harvard meticulously tracks and shapes the racial makeup of its emerging
incoming class throughout the process, continuously comparing the new class’s
racial composition with that of the previous year.
The
DoJ brief argued that the funnily consistent number of admissions among
minorities proved there was some intense "racial balancing" going on,
which it notes, is explicitly unconstitutional in a university that takes
massive federal funding:
These numbers speak for themselves. The minimal
variation, including in the percentages of underrepresented minorities that
Harvard seeks to benefit, over a multi-year period is much narrower than the
6.6-percentage-point range in underrepresented minorities the Supreme Court
sustained in Grutter.
Asian-Americans,
of course, were the ones knocked out on the old subjective 'personality'
factor, with Harvard apparently claiming most have bad ones:
Second, Harvard’s process imposes a racial
penalty by systematically disfavoring Asian-American applicants. It does so in
part through the subjective personal rating that admissions officers apply with
minimal guidance or supervision. That rating produces consistently poorer
scores for Asian Americans. Harvard did not prove that the personal rating is
race-neutral.
The
DoJ brief notes that the personality rating is a big one in determining
who gets admitted - applicants who got 1's and 2's, the highest ratings, were
80% of the incoming class:
With the personal rating excluded, both experts’
models show Harvard’s program inflicts a statistically significant penalty
against Asian-American applicants.
So
what is there to unpack here?
Minorities
are getting shortchanged on the values of their diplomas, now that news is out
that their admission, unlike those of the others, was disproportionately based
on race over other more qualified applicants. That's the impact of Harvard's white
leadership looking to virtue-signal at the top instead of confront failing
black schools and poor cultural outcomes in Great Society-poisoned black and
brown cultures.
We
see a lot of the effects of this affirmative-action shortchanging in lower-tier
schools, which often feature huge dropout rates of minority students who
as admitted minorities, cannot keep up with the other kids in the classes.
We
don't see that pattern at Harvard - the 2019
statistics show that 99.04% of black
students, or, 103 out of 104 graduate (presumably within the 6-year time
period noted), and 98.68% of Hispanics -- 150 out of 152 -- do the same.
Whites, by contrast, have a 97.6%, or 733/751 rate, and Asians have a 97.73%,
or 733/751 rate. Students of mixed race have a 96.19%, or 101 out of 105
graduation rate.
All
pretty hunky dory, but it's still possible this may be manipulated to
keep the virtue-signal going.
The
DoJ charges that racial bean-counting is continuous at Harvard. It's also
noteworthy that the school has a gargantuan "diversity" staff --
which needs to somehow keep busy. Might it be that these students are expressly
guided to be graduates over other students? That's one possibility.
Another
way the graduation rate can be manipulated is through grade inflation
and gut majors. Are these ultra-high black and Latino graduation
rates the result of the students taking easy majors? Such as a
major that ends in '-studies'? Well, to take one benchmark, about half the
student section of Harvard's African-American
Studies department, based on appearances, is African or African-American, or
about 13 out of 27 students. That would be about 10% of the black student body,
a rather disproportionate enrollment.
The
Harvard physics department, by contrast, doesn't feature faces of its
students as the African-American Studies department does. The site
features a gigantic eight-person committee on 'diversion and
inclusivity' though, but no student facebook listings, quite unlike the African-American
Studies page. A jaunt to the Harvard 'Women in
Physics' section, though, features 22 female
faces, nearly all students, it appears, and none apparently
African-American or Latina, in the two pictoral line-up photos showing 22
faces and 25 faces. They all appear to be white, South Asian,
or East Asian. Since I couldn't find any information about what black and
Latino students are majoring in, the photos serve as a suggestion,
particularly since the physics page has a 'diversity and inclusion' link
that the African American Studies section does not, suggesting the
school thinks someone might notice.
But
something probably even more significant was brought up by Henry Louis Gates of
all people: It's not the ghetto kids getting into Harvard under the checkbox of
'black' - it's the rich and upper middle class black kids -- and the children
of African or Caribbean immigrants, who have a significant work ethic and sense
of excellence, probably putting a lot of them in the 55%.
The
race-balancing going on at Harvard seems to be primarily a subsidy to the
rich black and Latino kids who enroll when admitted, as this academic
sums up.
University of Illinois professor Walter Benn
Michaels put the question most bluntly when he said, “When students and faculty
activists struggle for cultural diversity, they are in large part battling over
what skin color the rich kids have.”
And
that does seem to be going on with the Harvard race-balancing, using the richer
kids. That is supported by the fact that only 76%
of blacks admitted to Harvard actually go to
the school. Harvard itself attributes that to the appeal of historically
black colleges such as Howard University and full scholarships offered by other
ivy league schools. The Journal of
Black Higher Education thinks it's black
kids going to high-grade selective state schools, which serve their needs
better. The admissions committee, it seems, is throwing things at black kids
that a lot of them might not really want. Some may see themselves as more
successful at Howard University, or U.C. Santa Barbara, and meet more people in
the same boat as themselves.
Meanwhile,
over at Harvard, a combination of gut majors, grade inflation, and admitting
the rich kids with the requisite background to at least minimally sudceed at
Harvard seems to be what keeps the Asian-American kid with poor immigrant
parents from the Flushing or Jackson Heights neighborhoods in Queens from
getting in - which is fundamentally discriminatory, and a nasty surprise to
their American dreams. All because of those supposed bad personalities.
The
DoJ fundamentally shows how kids of all races are getting shortchanged by
Harvard's racial bean counting, which far from serving kids, serves as a sop to
the whites who run these programs -- to virtue-signal to other whites. It's
nonsense. Racialism by any other name is still racism. The black and Latino
kids get shortchanged, and so do the Asians. The case shows that
Harvard needs to scrap that whole thing and move to race-blind admissions
more than anything else, or else go without federal funding. Better still,
they might just start speaking out on why ordinary African-Americans are
condemned to such bad union-run schools that keep them from out of the
competition at Harvard as richer kids with the same skin color glide right in.
Former first lady Michelle Obama claimed Thursday that so-called “systemic racism” is coming from the Trump White House in the wake of the shooting of Jacob Blake.
“These past few months, I’ve been thinking a lot about what our kids are seeing every day in this country — the lack of empathy, the division stoked in times of crisis, the age-old and systemic racism that’s been so prominent this summer,” said Obama. “Sometimes they see it on the news. Sometimes they see it from the White House Rose Garden. And sometimes they see it from the back seat of a car.”
I’m just devastated by the shootings in Kenosha. And I can’t stop thinking about what our kids are seeing every day—and our obligations to them going forward.
On Sunday, Blake, a 29-year-old black man, was shot multiple times by Kenosha police when officers responded to a domestic incident. Before being shot, Blake admitted to officers that he had a knife in his possession, which was recovered from the floorboard of his vehicle, the Wisconsin Department of Justice said Wednesday.
Obama’s statement comes after a 17-year-old male was arrested Wednesday in connection to the fatal shooting of two people during a third straight night of riots in Kenosha, sparked by Blake’s shooting.
Kyle Rittenhouse, of Antioch, Illinois, about 15 miles from Kenosha, was taken into custody in Illinois on suspicion of first-degree intentional homicide in the attack Tuesday that was largely captured on cellphone video. The shooting left a third person wounded.
“I just killed somebody,” the gunman, carrying a semi-automatic rifle, could be heard saying at one point during the rampage that erupted just before midnight in the city of 100,000 people midway between Milwaukee and Chicago.
In the wake of the killings, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers authorized the deployment of 500 members of the National Guard to Kenosha, doubling the number of troops. The governor’s office said he is working with other states to bring in additional National Guard members and law officers.
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation and the Obama book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption.
As
awful as this orchestrated campaign against President Trump has been, it is
absolutely maddening to realize that none of it would have happened had Hillary
Clinton not engaged in one of the greatest pay-for-play operations in American
history while placing our most guarded secrets (as well as the very lives of
our soldiers and civilians) on a silver platter for those governments and adversaries
who wish us the most harm in this world. Three years of Russian
hysteria happened only because of the deep corruption of Hillary Clinton. J B SHURK
Hillary Clinton: Trump Held ‘Law-Breaking Convention’
Hillary Clinton described the Republican National Convention (RNC) as a “law-breaking convention,” making her accusation via her verified profiles on Instagram and Twitter. She did not identify any laws that were allegedly broken by the RNC’s operations.
Clinton cited a death count similar to the latest claim from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC currently categorizes 160,000 deaths as “involving COVID-19.”
Clinton wrote, “What we saw last night sums up so much of the Trump administration: A law-breaking convention on your dime, on the lawn of your house, to celebrate a president like a king for overseeing the needless deaths of 180,000 Americans—and counting.”
Clinton attached a photo of protesters forming a message reading, “TRUMP FAILED 180000+ DIED.”
What we saw last night sums up so much of the Trump administration:
A law-breaking convention on your dime, on the lawn of your house, to celebrate a president like a king for overseeing the needless deaths of 180,000 Americans—and counting. pic.twitter.com/qmoxmOLe4w
Left-wing and Democrat-aligned news media critiqued what they claimed was a lack of “social distancing” and mask-wearing at the RNC. The Washington Post published an article titled, “Few masks, little distancing: Trump celebrates at crowded White House party largely devoid of coronavirus precautions.” CNN ran a headline reading, “Few masks, lack of social distancing at final night of RNC.” ABC declared, “What virus? At GOP’s convention, pandemic is largely ignored.”
Christine Pelosi, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s eldest daughter, characterized the RNC as “illegal” due to “no masks” and “no distancing.” Her Twitter profile image is a photo of her wearing a mask.
Live look at the Illegal White House convention: No masks. No distancing. No telling who among them will be the next Herman Cain.#DontTrustTrump with your lives!! pic.twitter.com/kHa36uixSc
Assorted left-wing pundits and Democrat operatives similarly described the RNC as “illegal.”
Tonight, Donald Trump is hosting an illegal, taxpayer subsidized campaign rally at the White House and we cannot let him get away with it. Here are my thoughts on how Democrats can make Trump pay a price for his convention crimes. https://t.co/Ez6mbrCgSC
I am the grandson of immigrants. I am the father of an immigrant. I am also a law-abiding government worker. Trump's hijacking of a naturalization ceremony was disgusting – and illegal. A new low in a dark, narcissistic convention. https://t.co/LWhr5IDnxX
Was this event illegal? Yes. Is forcing someone to be a part of your political convention without their consent totally unethical? Of course. But you can't argue with those optics! https://t.co/hkolOGezg7
Clinton said on Monday that Joe Biden should not concede the presidential election “under any circumstances.” She also told her former presidential campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri that Democrats “have to have a massive legal operation” on Election Day and that she knows “the Biden campaign is working on that.”