ANTI-WHITE RACISM IS ALL PART OF THE GEROGE SOROS - BARACK OBAMA DIVISIONIST PLAYBOOK. MICHELLE IS IN ON IT ALSO!
How Government is Fanning and Subsidizing Anti-White Racism
When the current occupant of the White House openly asserts that white supremacy is the greatest threat to America, it shows that demonizing whites is now an acceptable part of American life. Conservative writer Ed Brodow dubs this phenomenon the “new national sport” in the subtitle of his book The War on Whites. In a Townhall article, he says hating whites is a disease of epidemic proportions that must be called out for what it is – racism. He explains how, in the woke-perverted world of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), white people – by dint of pigment alone – are the default oppressors, obliged to feel guilty and do penance for imagined crimes of “systemic racism.”
This reversal has its roots in critical race theory (CRT) and Marxist ideology, which are working overtime to replace the American ideal of equality (of opportunity, not outcome) with a distorted version of equity. The word itself means fairness or impartiality. But the new discourse interprets it to mean providing special opportunities to minorities and groups perceived as disadvantaged and denying them to the majority and those perceived as advantaged.
With woke ideas well entrenched in academia and diffusing therefrom to the corporate world and government, this perverse interpretation is increasingly translating into a sidelining of whites. Although government programs are required by the Constitution to be non-discriminatory, instances abound of anti-white racism becoming their salient feature. Such discrimination even extends to COVID relief programs, as if whites were not affected (or were less affected) by the pandemic.
Fortunately, these are being challenged as unconstitutional in federal lawsuits. One involves a discriminatory COVID relief program for businesses in Massachusetts. The $75 million program is deceptively called the Inclusive Recovery Grant Program, but accepts applications only from firms owned by minorities, women, veterans, the disabled, or LGBTQ+.
Challenging this, the pro bono Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Brian Dalton, whose New England Firearms Academy cannot receive aid because he happens to be heterosexual and white. Dalton, a retired law enforcement officer, opened the academy in 2013 to provide firearms and safety training. During the pandemic, he was forced to sell assets and use his savings to cover business expenses. Upon reopening, he incurred additional costs to comply with mandated safety measures. So, he wanted to apply when the program was first announced, but found he was ineligible.
In Brian Dalton et al v. Hao and MA Growth Capital Corp, filed on May 31st at the U.S. District Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, PLF attorneys argue that the program violates the 14th Amendment guarantee for “equal protection under the law.” They rightly characterize the program as inclusive in name, but in fact exclusive in its application. Broadening the argument to make a case for the American ideal of individual rights, the PLF states on its website:
When the government benefits or burdens us based on traits we cannot control, it unjustly diminishes our individuality and institutionalizes and reinforces stereotypes. Such treatment also hinders opportunity. Business owners have a right to be treated as individuals, and not as part of a group to which the government arbitrarily assigns them. Our country has had a terrible history of discrimination that cannot be remedied with more discrimination.
A similar case was filed in 2021 by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) on behalf of Tennessee restaurateur Antonio Vitolo against the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA prioritized women and minorities during an initial three-week period for grants from the $28.6 billion Restaurant Revitalization Fund, a COVID relief program. White males were relegated to the back of the line. On May 27, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled (with Judge Bernice Donald dissenting) that such prioritizing amounted to “racial gerrymandering.” It ordered the government to fund Vitolo’s grant application, if eligible.
In 2020, two whites and a Chicano sued Oregon in two lawsuits for racial discrimination when it designated $62 million in COVID relief specifically for blacks, presuming that the pandemic affected them disproportionately. Under pressure from the nightly Black Lives Matter (BLM) mayhem in Portland, state officials initially defended the program. Later, though, they admitted to its potential unconstitutionality. In an editorial commentary, the WSJ called the program “blatantly unconstitutional.”
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut had denied a request from one of the plaintiffs to block disbursements, but agreed to examine the constitutional issues “later in this litigation.” Eventually, the state settled both cases, paying out grants to 1,252 non-black applicants.
In December 2020, Etienne Hardre, a barbershop owner from Colorado Springs, sued the state of Colorado for denying him relief under a state program due to minority eligibility criteria. Hardre’s business was hit hard by the pandemic lockdown and the restrictions under which he could reopen at reduced capacity. The program requirements were later amended, but still conferred preference to minorities. The case, however, was closed, with the judge saying in an April 19, 2021 order that it was filed before “implementing regulations had been adopted” – in short, too early.
There are other examples, too, of government programs discriminating against whites. The California Underserved and Small Producers Program (for drought relief) advantages farmers of color and illegal immigrants by awarding them 50% of available funding. A Covid relief grant in Stamford, CT, and the Source Grow Grant of Cook County, IL, both reserve one-third of funding for small businesses owned by minorities, women, the disabled, and veterans. The latter was rescinded for redesigning after PLF filed a lawsuit.
White-bashing is so pervasive now that a Rutgers professor, Brittney Cooper, had no qualms about saying “we got to take these [white] motherf*****s out,” and another from Drexel, George Ciccariello-Maher, tweeting that “All I want for Christmas is White Genocide.” Anti-white racist screeds abound: White Fragility, by Robin DiAngelo and Michael Eric Dyson, and How to Be an Antiracist, by Ibram X. Kendi, for instance.
Denver councilwoman Candi Lee CdeBaca believes in correcting what she perceives as past inequities committed by whites through higher taxes on white-owned businesses. Describing herself as more of an anarchist than a communist, she justifies such punitive measures to redistribute wealth to minority businesses on the grounds that capitalism was built on “stolen land, stolen labor, and stolen resources.”
Throughout the university system, faculty keep such extremism alive in the classroom, fanning the embers with CRT and DEI. One technique Leftist academics have deployed successfully, as Australian authors Harry Richardson and Frank K. Salter point out in their book Anglophobia: The Unrecognized Hatred, is the weaponization of victimhood, actual or perceived. Young, impressionable minds – often catalyzed by the induced guilt of being born white – absorb these ideas and perpetuate them after graduation through activism and at their workplaces.
Race has become such a dominant factor in government funding, university admissions, and hiring and promotion decisions that there is a climate of tremendous animosity against whites, who are excluded while favored categories are given preference. Former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich calls it a “cult of anti-white racism.” What is lost to the CRT-DEI ideologues is that racism is always wrong, regardless of who is targeted.
Government benefits and special privileges must be distributed on objective criteria of need and merit, not by arbitrary classifications of race, sex, or sexual orientation. The latter is both unjust and unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Worse, such policies encourage privilege seeking and wallowing in victimhood, both of which demean the human spirit, its quest for excellence, and its ability to rise above circumstances. This threat to our meritocracy signals the end of an America that achieved greatness through endeavor, innovation, and excellence. We can’t allow that to happen.
Graphic credit: GDJ Pixabay license
Prepare for Disparate Impact
REVIEW: ‘When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives’ by Heather Mac Donald
In her latest book, When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives, bestselling author Heather Mac Donald skewers the ideology of "disparate impact"—a "once obscure legal theory that is now transforming our world."
According to Mac Donald, disparate impact—in which any negative or disproportionate outcome impacting black Americans is declared to be a "tool of white supremacy"—has been deliberately developed and leveraged as a cultural tool, targeting "the very fundamentals of a fair society."
Today, she argues, meritocracy, fealty to the rule of law, and even respect for our civilizational inheritance stand in the way of achieving so-called racial justice.
Mac Donald describes 2020 as a potentially "pivotal moment in American history," accelerating the notion that racism defines America. This idea, she believes, is tearing the country apart, with any protest rejected by the same "just believe" mandate used by the #MeToo movement.
Not only that, any roadblock to the achievement of "exact racial proportionality"—with the key to disparate impact being the presumption of racial proportionality with no regard for factors such as behavior and ability—is itself evidence of this same systemic racism.
In When Race Trumps Merit, Mac Donald explores three fundamental areas of American life to support her hypothesis that the country is engaging in a fit of "cultural self-cancellation" that is impoverishing the imagination, stunting the capacity for wonder and joy, and stripping the future of everything that gives human life meaning: beauty, sublimity, and wit.
The first two chapters are dedicated to science and medicine, which were hit "like an earthquake" by the "post-George Floyd racial reckoning" unleashed in 2020.
Mac Donald provides the reader with a deep dive into the racialized nature of today’s scientific community, arguing that American elites have simply moved on from failing to close the academic skills gap by deciding to "break up the objective yardsticks that measure it," including dismantling the system of knowledge underpinning modern medicine. "The result," says Mac Donald, "will be a declining quality of medical care and a curtailment of scientific progress."
Mac Donald then moves on from the world of science and explores the abstract world of culture. Across 10 chapters she explores the pursuit of racial proportionality across classical music, opera, and art.
The problem with this section—compared with the former and latter sections—is that the bulk of the book is dedicated to subjective expressions of art sandwiched on either side by the comparatively objective areas of science and crime. While the critiques of certain artists under the "rise of mediocrity" might highlight the breadth of the blind pursuit of racial proportionality and the erasure of Western culture, it must be said that by placing such significance upon subjective areas of human expression—rather than objective fields of pure meritocracy—Mac Donald is in danger of diluting the strength of her overarching argument.
The third and final section is an emotionally stunning investigation of the effect of disparate impact analysis on the American criminal-justice system, "where every disparity in arrest or incarceration rates is now attributed to racism."
Presenting the decline of New York City into a haven for criminal behavior as an example, Mac Donald argues that two decades of successful efforts to combat crime have been voluntarily cast aside, with the spread of violence and predation erupting as a predictable result.
"Acknowledging the vastly higher black crime rate is taboo," Mac Donald points out, with Democrats preferring to blame the supposed systemic racism of law enforcement or—if necessary—focus on the insidious (and often imagined) presumption of white supremacy.
Under "anti-racism orthodoxy," if we are unable to discuss the root causes of higher black crime—"above all, family breakdown," Mac Donald adds—then the only way we can achieve racial proportionality regarding crime is to stop the penalization of criminal behavior.
As a result, "elite ‘anti-racists’ absolve blacks from responsibility for their actions," Mac Donald writes. "This patronizing attitude is today’s real racism."
Providing the reader with an almost overwhelming trove of pure data—including a moving account of forgotten black victims of gang violence deemed unimportant by the mainstream media and the Democratic Party—Mac Donald proves that criminal violence is the main problem afflicting urban black communities, and not police shootings.
Analyzing the areas of science, the arts, and criminal justice, When Race Trumps Merit is not only an enthralling account of the reality of so-called anti-racism efforts in the United States, but a resolute warning of the dangers of unfettered disparate impact analysis.
"Western civilization contains too much beauty and grandeur, too much achievement, and too much innovation—from advances in the sciences to the blessings of republican self-government—to be lost without a fight," Mac Donald concludes. "It will be lost, however, if disparate impact continues to be our measure of injustice."
When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives
by Heather Mac Donald
DW Books, 320 pp., $28.99
Ian Haworth is a writer, speaker, and former Big Tech insider. He also hosts "Off Limits with Ian Haworth
Published under: Anti-Racism , Book reviews , Crime , White Supremacy
Recapturing the hijacked Democrat Party
I grew up with parents who were Democrats. I lived in Chicago, Illinois; I was introduced to Democrat Richard J. Daley, the famous mayor of Chicago. My uncle was Democrat Dan Ryan, President of the Cook County Board of Commissioners, who had a major freeway named after him. I moved to the Chicago suburbs and became mayor of the city of Oak Forest. My job took me to California, where I had relationships with Los Angeles Democrat mayor Tom Bradley, Democrat California governors Gray Davis and Jerry Brown, and many other Democrat leaders. Without a doubt I know the Democrat party and its philosophy.
My parents were from the Greatest Generation. They experienced war, the Great Depression, and Democrat president Franklin D. Roosevelt. As they raised me, they made it clear that Democrats stood for workers, God, and country. They would tell me about FDR bringing the country together with his four fundamental freedoms: “freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.” In my early years I can remember listing to the radio and hearing Democrat president Harry S. Truman address the nation. I remember him talking about a sign on his White House desk that read, "The Buck Stops Here," his willingness to take responsibility for actions united the country because he was a strong leader.
Several years later, Democrat John F. Kennedy entered the scene, and he quickly became my idol. One of his speeches struck me: “The Freedom and Happiness of Man," by Thomas Jefferson, "Kennedy stated that this quotation of Jefferson has been the beacon by which the course of the Democratic Party had been chartered. He went on to say the Democrat Party was inaugurated by Thomas Jefferson in 1800, and stood firmly opposed to a strong centralized government. It stood rather for direct popular control. Jefferson’s philosophy was based on the fundamental belief that the people are capable of self-government. JFK’s words championed state’s rights and strict constitutional interpretation. JFK brought people together.
Another individual became popular around the same time. Martin Luther King, Jr. took his inspiration from scripture and united the country with his “I have a dream” speech. Americans knew that the United States was blessed with “Greatest Generation” leaders. Their qualities united the country by finding solutions with Republicans. Together with shared values they protected the Constitution, families, freedom of speech and religion, patriotism, and commitment to high moral values.
In America in 2023, our nation’s citizens are in turmoil and completely divided. Democrat leaders have surfaced who are driven by racism, extremism, wokism, transgenderism, religious hatred, corruption, and lies. These extremists do not represent historical values; they have plundered the Democrat party. Their ideologies are rampant with envy politics, socialism, and Marxism. Author J.R. Dunn analyzed “Liberal leftism has not only failed as an ideology but has proven fatal to citizens and societies around the world.” These society killers have infiltrated every aspect of our society: families, education, parental rights, government, and the press/social media. They show contempt for the two-party system and those challenging their views.
What is the answer? Seniors, one of the nation’s largest voting blocs, have the history, experience, and expertise to throw out these dysfunctional radicals. They must lead a crusade joined by traditional Democrats, Republicans, and other Americans, real patriots who will protect the goodness and decency of American society. We must look within ourselves with love of country and ask questions “what life do we want for our children and their children?” “Who benefits by destroying our history and the freedom and thoughts of others?” Finally, our actions must improve the lives of fellow Americans in this world that is ours.
Image: DNC
THERE IS NO GREATER THREAT TO AMERICA THAN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY
Mark Levin: The Democrat Party must be 'obliterated'
Obama suggests digital fingerprints to counter misinformation, so we know what is true or not true.
Former President Barack Obama suggested in a new interview the development of "digital fingerprints" to combat misinformation and distinguish between true and misleading news for consumers.
Who will be Obama's arbitrators? Will they be Rachel Maddow and MSNBC, Brian Stelter, WaPo, DHS, SPLC, the Justice Department? Obviously, Obama wants some kind of censorship power under the rubric of "stopping disinformation" because lying is so hard to conceal when the truth keeps getting out.
Here is a small sample of misinformation that has been spread by the leftist mainstream media, which I do not recall Obama ever complained about.
No comments:
Post a Comment