The results of 45 years of good hearted unconstionality and Black Over-repsnation

Startling data on black overeprsenation i found in this brillant Paul Craig Roberts vdare.com article from August 06, 2002 with the slightly alarmist title "Abolishing America (contd.): Do Whites Have Rights?":

"The ink was hardly dry on the 1964 Civil Rights Act before an EEOC bureaucrat, Alfred W. Blumrosen, illegally and unconstitutionally subverted the statutory purpose of the law. Judicial complicity and congressional distraction enabled Blumrosen to redefine discrimination from a purposeful action against an individual to the absence of proportional representation regardless of discriminatory intent.

Thus did Blumrosen originate the system of race and gender privileges known as quotas that are thoroughly institutionalized throughout the government, private industry, and universities.

Racial quotas are so firmly entrenched that quotas prevail even in states where federal district courts have ruled against them and referendums have made them illegal.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act has been illegally enforced for 37 years. The result is a massive system of race and gender discrimination against white males in order to achieve proportional representation of racial minorities and women.

Now comes an astonishing report from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management: “Annual Report to Congress, Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program, Fiscal Year 2000,” released in April 2002. [You can read it on Adversity.net, an anti-preference organization that fights for victims of reverse discrimination, with analysis and comment. The original government version may be found here.]

This report to Congress makes brutally clear that despite the “equal opportunity” name of the program, the purpose of the federal program is to make certain there is no equal opportunity for whites in federal employment.

The report uses tables and bar charts to make unmistakably clear that federal discrimination against whites goes far beyond merely achieving proportional representation for blacks. In all 22 independent federal agencies and in 16 of 17 federal executive departments, blacks are massively overrepresented.

In the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (sic) blacks comprise 46.4 percent of the employees. The “affirmative action” or racial quota target for proportional representation (percent in Relevant Civilian Labor Force) for the EEOC is 6.4 percent black employees.

Blacks are thus overrepresented in EEOC employment by 625 percent!

And the EEOC is the federal agency that is supposed to enforce equal employment opportunity.

Blacks are overrepresented in the National Science Foundation by 504.7 %; in the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. by 538.7 %; in the Securities and Exchange Commission by 452.1%; in the Smithsonian Institution by 452.1%, in the Federal Communications Commission by 370.1%; in the Social Security Administration by 263.5%; in the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by 375%; in the Office of Personnel Management by 286.7%; and so on.

In cabinet departments, blacks are overrepresented in Department of Education employment by 464.7%; in Department of Labor by 254%; in HUD by 383%; in Treasury by 176%; in Department of Justice by 106%; in Department of State by 165%; and so on.

The push is now on in the federal government to achieve comparable overrepresentation for Hispanics and females.

If these two “minorities” achieve similar overrepresentation, there will be no room for white males in the federal government.

Did you know that the federal government pays its managers “superbonuses” for hiring, training, and promoting nonwhites? According to a lawsuit filed against the Secretary of Energy by DOE employees, a DOE boss, Anibal Taboas, staffed the Argonne National Laboratory with minorities, while reassigning white males to dead end jobs where they could be terminated under reduction in force polices.

For this achievement, the lawsuit says Mr. Taboas received thousands of dollars in bonuses.

Note that no one in the government intervenes in behalf of white males who suffer discrimination, not President Bush, no congressional committee chairman, certainly not the Justice Department or the EEOC.

Today in the United States white people have no political representation. Whites have to struggle in the courts against government opposition to claim any resemblance to equal rights.

Explicit government policies have made whites second class citizens. Whites are a dispossessed majority in their own country.

Why did the white majority allow themselves to be stripped of the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Why do whites remain loyal to the political parties that took away their rights?"

Another hidden outrage.

The ugly reality of how the unknown civil rights movements has stripped Americans of basic liberity & given America the laws of a Bannana Republic

I'm like a sucker at the momement.

Why?
Well i'll tell but the reason why may shock you and may hopeful demolish some of the largest myths you have.

The reason why is that i've been reading Steve Sailer's brillant writing on Sotomayor and Ricci and "disparate impact" and rapidly i see one after another, the most basic freedoms that are non existent today as a result of that holyiest of holy entitys The Civil Rights Movement. It's nearly as much of a third rail to speak uncoventionally about as the Holacaust is. But i following Orwells adage, will have the integrity to follow reason anywhere no matter how unpopular a place. So out with: The greatest myth in american society today is that of the "holy"Civil Rights Movement that keeps on-a-chugging today not fighting any real discrimination or racism but doing all it can to make America's claim to be a land of colorblind freedome and justice look like a terrible joke.

(don't worry i will get to exsplaining why)

Where i went to school, the civil rights movement was taught a 100 times more than the founding, Kig might as well have been Washington, Malcolm X John Adams.
But oddly they basically just hammered into us again and again the same images and basics-"i have a dream", ruby bridges walking into school, roots the movie, harriet tubman and the underground railroad.

IN the end as me and my piers leave high school i realize how we really were never even taught about the civil rights movement just the fantasty. LBJ was never mentioned, the civil rights bills were not exsplained, busing neither, and certainly not any talk of the curtailed basic liberitys and never any discussion of why people like William f. Buckley and Barry Goldwater opposed unconstuitional civil rights laws, my piers don't even know who either men are nor of any "constuitional issue in regard to civil rights laws". And i know now for ceratian there terrible education on this so called civil rights movement (that for some reason only took rights away) was not a accident. To produce hordes of children with a entireely facile view of the civil rights movement is good for the left and its agenda. They prodice adolcents who know nothing about the civil rights movements laws, nor why many whites were angered by forced and unconstuitional integration and don'tt even know what "busing" is. Rather the see the civil rights movement literally in black and whites, good vs. evil, northern liberal angels and minoritys vs. evil southern republicans (they don't about the dixiecrats).This false version of the civil rights movement is taught like the liberal creation myth, which solifidys the totally rigtousness of the left and the instinstic dark racist motives of the right forver in young impressionable adolcents minds.


For kids to be taught about the actual civil rights movement is something the left must avoid occuring by all means. The 60's fantasy they teach like sunday school t eachers tecahing scripture, covers up the wholly opposite reality of what the civil rights movement was really like.

King is symbolic as the indivdual diety of this deified movement, for those "extremist" facts about his life show his deification to be just as false. I should not here that in saying that King and the movement he was figurehead of are not the dietys we known them both as, i am not then claiming either to be absolutely bad or amoral but human and mixed like most people and things, gray rather than all white or all black. There is the life MLK lead that we all know and were taught endlessly and not very well but his actual life is rather different and his full collection of views drawl a quite different picture than the diety laid before everyday children.
In reality he was not a saint but a plagarist, a adulterer, a supporter of large scale legalized racism, a likely private communist, a non-believer in numerous basic rights and freedoms enshrined by the constuition and a hypocritical preacher who lived as a rabid adulterer after church (the FBI tapped his rooms and recorded his fallandering on the day of his death he beded multiple women and was recording shoutied "i'm f*** for jesus!"). Copious friends of MLK say (most with glee) that he was probably a closet communist and many of his closet friends and partners claim that he confessed to being one in private. The fact that some of his closest associates were Soviet connected communist party USA leaders and that he had apaulling tolitrian (soviet like) views on wealth distrubition, taxes, and other matters suggest that MLK if not a secret pro-communists was pretty close to being so. As for his support of large scale legalized racism: it wouldn't suffice to merely exsplain that he longed for extreme tolytrian racial quoatas without specficying how extreme the quoata's he favored were: he once said that if a city had a 40 percent "negro" population that then "negros" should then rightly hold 40 percent of jobs in companys in that city.

The glaring contrast between the real MLK and the mythical MLK, when the full facts are reviwed, reflects the same contradiction betweem the civil rights movement myth propogated in public schools and the civil rights movement of reality.

Where are the magical fruits of this so called movement for basic rights? where are these new rights?

(Before i answer those 2 questions let me say that the improvement in race relations and the living consditions of african americans has been a unqaulfied good.)

But where are these new civil rights?

The sad answer is that the Civil Rights Movement produced no new rights (unless i missed them) only took away rights.

For 45 years now the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been illegally enforced. Those 45 years of good hearted unconstuitionality has resulted in a massive system of race and gender discrimination against white males in order to achieve proportional representation of racial minorities and women among other causes of white guilt.

Thanks to the Civil Rights Movement:

1. you no longer have the right-as a business owner-to not let romanians (or any minority group or gender) into your store if you don't like romanians (for whatever reason). a rather basic right, me thinks?

2. if your a bank, you no longer can give loans to whom ever you want, you can and will recieve massive discrimination lawsuites if you do not give enough loans to blacks compared to whites

3. you no longer, can treat female and male employees that differently.

4. if you do not hire enough black people you may be also recieve a discrimination lawsuite.

5. the goverment can force your kid to be bused 40 miles away to a inner city school instead of the neigborhood school down the block and parents can do nothing about it.

How strangely Orwellian it is to find that the legacy of the civil rights movement is not more liberity and freedom but the stripping of the most basic rights and freedomes and an a imposition of a new rigourous kind of legalized racism that digs deeper and deeper into places Legalized racism do not belong (not that it belongs anywhere).

Getting to know Barack and Sonya vol 1.

Liberals when even they can't defend there leaders judicial rulings in the Ricci case and beyond commonly resort to simply saying "well it's really a tuff and complicated and.." and most people will unthinkingly kindly nod in agreement. But these cases are incredibly simple and clear cut that 3rd graders get them-some of these case that is, the most outragous ones.

For instance, here's a message i sent to my face newsletter chain:

you may have noticed that California-the state with the massive poor latino population that the whole USA will also have soon-is in giant debt and falling apart.

You may have wondered like many other sencible Americans: "why don't they just stop paying billions out that they don't have paying to provide there huge illegal alien population 1. free health care 2. free K-12 education 3. free financial aid and 4. free welfare and unemployment services and so fourth?"

Well, actually California in the late 90's voted to ban their billions of hard earned tax dollars from going to illegal aliens, but something happened .In the eyes of Barack Obama and Sonya Sotomayor and the liberal supreme court justices, the "evil" that was this refusal to give illegals billions had to be stopped by any means.

So Obama (who has worked as "constuitional" law professor) and his supreme court pick Sotomayor, supported the Supreme Court in ignoring the most basic rights of both states and citizens, and DECLARING A STATE'S PEOPLE VOTING NOT TO GIVE THEIR MONEY AWAY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS "UNCONSTUITIONAL".

You hopefully are asking yourselves "is he joking?" now. Well indeed i'm not this actually happened. There are actually americans 2 of which are the current president and his supreme court nominee WHO THINK THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS RECIEVING BILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS THROUGH FREE STATE RUN SERVICES MEANT ONLY FOR CITIZENS IS A RIGHT ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTUITION.

That statement alone can't stand up on its own two feet but in case you want me to back it up a little here's just a few points:

Illegal aliens didn't recieve the state run services made and paid for by citizens up until atleast at earliest the 1960's. If it was a clear "right enshrined in the constuition why did 1.not one illegal recieve free tax payer paid for service for the first 190 years of the USA's existence? 2. has anyone including the founders up until the 90's argued that illegals have a "constuitional right" to receieve tax dollars? does illegal status mean essentially nothing? and finally where in our constuition is this right enshrined?

A NEW LOW: my first blog comment battle (though i do triumph)

The action went down like this at matt ygelisas' blog (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/sonia-sotomayors-iq.php/comment-page-3#comment-1590319):

1. daniel schwartz Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm

   can the people who support Sotomayor, please also say

   that they:

   1. support suing banks for not giving “enough” loans to minoritys and find such action constuitional.

   2. support throwing out the results of tests firefighters take because they don’t like the lack of passing minoritys scores and find such action constuitional.

   3. That they believe it’s unconstuitional for californians to vote to pass a proposition that would deny tax dollars to go to illegal imgrants.

   stand up tall and pride!

2. Barbar Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

   How do borderline illiterates wind up with opinions about who belongs on the Supreme Court?

3. SLC Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

   Re Daniel Schwarz

   Should one pay any attention to a fucking asshole like Mr. Schwarz who can’t even spell constitution? A visit to Mr. Schwarzs’ website (which I don’t recommend as it recalls visits to Don Blacks’ stormfront website) shows a bigoted shithead who hates Latinos.

4. daniel schwartz Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

   great arguments guys!

   you really made serious arguments, didn’t you?

   why don’t you address somethin besides my lack of spellchecking?

   how bout’ some actually arguments? how about you tell me how i’m wrong? tell me about why the mayor of new haven is right? etc.

5. joe s Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

   Would not a measure of her “brilliance” be the proportion of times her decisions are upheld or reversed at the next level compared to her peers(Sorry, I am not American and not sure if the next level is the USSC)

   Now that would seem to be a qualitative metric

6. SLC Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 1:24 pm

   Re Daniel Schwarz

   How about Mr. Schwarz go fuck himself.

7. daniel schwartz Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

   you are so brillant SLC

   you really are such a great debater, so intellectual, not the slightest ad hominem out of you

   i guess your to embarssed to pubicly affirm your absurd racist views, your fervent support for racial quotas, suing banks for not giving enough loans to black people.

   but if you can’t defend yourself just call someone a racist, right?

Deciphring liberal bullshit

don't you love that gasy liberal talk?

Obama on how he wants "empathy" in a supreme court justice:

"I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."

TRANSLATION:

Obama wants a justice that:

1. supports suing banks for not giving “enough” loans to minoritys and find such action constuitional.

2. supports throwing out the results of tests firefighters take because they don’t like the lack of passing minoritys scores and find such action constuitional.

3. That they believe it’s unconstuitional for californians to vote to pass a proposition that would deny tax dollars to go to illegal immgrants.

P.S.

on Matt Ygelisas. think progress blog i wrote in regard to a post on Sotomayor

1. daniel schwartz Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm

   can the people who support Sotomayor, please also say

   that they:

   1. support suing banks for not giving “enough” loans to minoritys and find such action constuitional.

   2. support throwing out the results of tests firefighters take because they don’t like the lack of passing minoritys scores and find such action constuitional.

   3. That they believe it’s unconstuitional for californians to vote to pass a proposition that would deny tax dollars to go to illegal imgrants.

   stand up tall and pride!

the responces:

1. Barbar Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

   How do borderline illiterates wind up with opinions about who belongs on the Supreme Court?

2. SLC Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

   Re Daniel Schwarz

   Should one pay any attention to a fucking asshole like Mr. Schwarz who can’t even spell constitution? A visit to Mr. Schwarzs’ website (which I don’t recommend as it recalls visits to Don Blacks’ stormfront website) shows a bigoted shithead who hates Latinos.

3. daniel schwartz Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

   great arguments guys!

   you really made serious arguments, didn’t you?

   why don’t you address somethin besides my lack of spellchecking?

   how bout’ some actually arguments? how about you tell me how i’m wrong? tell me about why the mayor of new haven is right? etc.

WHEN LIBERALS FIND THE CONSTUITION

the democratic partys record of leglisation and goverance speaks it for itself, and one of the things it commucates to any honest reader is that the democrats have rarealy ever paused to push the constuition and basic freedom to the margins when they must "do good".

Example 1: Busing. would madison say its constuitional to force some parents child to go to a public school 50 miles away from his home when the neigborhood school is down the street in the name of achieving forced diversity? ofcourse not, totally unconstuitional, utterly totilitirian with the best intentions.

Example 2: Does anybody doubt that it's a basic freedom of a owner of a private business to decide who can or cannot enter there store? for a country club to prohibt women from golfing there? ofcourse not.

Example 3: The Employee Free choice: where upon the goverment forced banks to make a certain amount of loans to minoritys or else be sued by the goverment for discrimantion! contuitionalesque? no.


Anyways THEY DO SOMETIMES LIKE ALZEIHMEIMERS PATIENTS REDISCOVER THERE REVERENCE FOR THE CONSTUITION. but its at the funniest times and for the sillyiest reasons.

for instance.....

1. they rediscover federalism when they don't want to enforce the nations immgration laws in our major citys.

2. they rediscover the constuition when they want to make sure the man who planned 9/11 doesn't undergo any pain at all in order to extract information to save lives. cause someone responcible for 3 thousand americans deaths shall never undergo 20 seconds of simulated drowning and discomfort and because jihadisof a private businet are probably more likely to rat on their cause if we ask more kindly for secrets.

3. they rediscover the constuition to claim that gay marriage is enshrined within it (though its not at all) and is a basic human right.


just a little review: so an owners ss can't decide he doensn't want to allow women to enter his property isn't a constuitional right but gay marriage is. fascinating?

ain't the living constuition great? if you want something to be constuitional you don't need to read anything, it just is!

something new to be outraged about

as CNN does segments on how to get your arms like the first ladys and Obama going grey and Anderson Cooper talks to food exsperts" about how oranges can keep cancer away, that the dismally small number of patriotic informed americans that read the corner, are always hour by hour hearing about the real news of the day, news since inaguration day, has come to be known simply as the news only readers of conservtive magazines hear about.

One such news story that has not been covered at all, is quite shocking and outragous:

Next time your at a Marriotte Hotel or using a computer at anyother such hotel or if you happen to have NetNanny or anyother brand of Net Filter, try and see if you can visit NRO.com. The national review online, the most popular conservtive website on the web and one of the most prestigous and popular of all poltical websites. Or try to mained your way over to Steynonline.com, the website of the brillant author of the essential milestone book "america alone" (the best book on islamic radicalism and the demographic decline of west minus america bar none) and NRO colmunist, Mark Steyn. A website which pretty much stores his articles that have been published in the most respected and popular publications in europe, australia, canada and america such as Macleans, National Review, the CHicago Sun times and many other Us papers, the Ireland Times, and many other publications who don't publish articles deemed "racist" or "hate mongering" repeadtldy at that.

Noone serious figure on the left and right would charcterize NRO.com or steynonline.com as racist, hate monegering websites that minors nor anyone else needs be protected from. The notion is absurd.

Well, if you try to visit either nro.com or steynonline.com and probably many more such sites, at many hotels and high schools and colleges, or on computers using Netnanny or SiteCoach or other similiar programs, you will find that national review and mark steyn is just to hateful and racist and profane for you to have access to.

However, you'd be amazed at what other sites were not blocked at the same time, you can geuss

heres the post from nro.com's "the corner:

Marriott, Me, and More [Mark Steyn]

Lots of mail re the blocking of websites. It's not just my own, but NRO, too. A reader writes:

A year or so ago, I purchased Net Nanny for my home PC. It blocked NRO's "The Corner", due to "some hate content". So, for fun, I went to Al Jazeera dot com, and of course it was NOT blocked. I emailed support, pointing out the execution videos pass their filter, but not NRO. They very explained that they didn't support blocking of Arabic language sites, which didn't really answer my question, of course. When pressed, they refused to identify which content on NRO was "hate". In the end, they refunded my money rather than answer my question.

So a jihadist snuff video is perfectly safe for your kids. But Jonah's objections to the New Deal? Whoa, can't let them get anywhere near that. That pretty much confirms my suspicion that "Net Nanny" and the like are not child-friendly filtering services but just the twilight west's usual self-loathing limp-wristed politically-correct illiterate nitwits.

Whoops, I seem to have just upped the "hate content."

The Abortion Card

90 percent of downsydrom babies are aborted.

I think it's amazing Palin hasn't talked about this.

IN General I wish everyone including Republicans would talk more about what this supposedly evil thing called revoking roe vs, wade is? It's remberarkable how many people and women have no idea what it entails.
Revoking Roe vs. Wade is a attempt not to end roe vs wade but to simply bring it to the state level and allow states to decide on it. If roe v. wade were revoked, nothing would change in the places angy liberals live most. In blue states like NY, california, illinois, as well as most states abortion would remain as legal as the sky is blue. I have felt confident for a long time that if people new what revrsing Roe meant it wouldn't be nearly as much the divisive issue it is today.
I remeber it was quite a suprise to learn that roe v. wade being revoked didnt mean my sisters and ex girlfriends would be round up and sent up to evanglical concertraion camps in wyoming.


The stunning un outargeousness of revoking roe. vs wade is rembercable and it underscores what has long been the sinister primary scare tactic of the supposedly immiculate Democartic party, which for 40 years has tried to terrify women from voting republican by claiming republicans will nomiate supreme court justices who will revoke roe v. wade. This is nothing more than a scare tactic.
Reagan and the BUsh's had the white house for 20 years and there wasnt a single school prayer uttered in those 2 decades, and there wasnt a single women prevented from having a abortion.
The supreme court for nearly 20 years has had numerous chances to revoke roe v wade, they havent done it.