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.

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 3-PART MEDIATION ON SOTOMAYOR, SOFT TYRANNY, LEGAL RACISM & HAVING A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE CONSTUITION AND HIS MEDIA MINIONS

PART 1: EXCLUSIVE EMPATHY

well that emphathy post/prediction of mine was dead on wasn't it? Obama picked Sotomayor.

So "empathy" really is obvious code for not giving a damn about the constuition, and making outragous descions that most all americans deplore, denying citizens of the states the right to vote to ban illegals receieving their money, putting race before merit in regard to promoting firefighters and other such contests that should have nothing to do with race, just to name a few things this newest liberal euphism is code for.

As far as real empathy goes-the kind defined in the dictionary-Sotomayor and Obama do have alot for some people (or should i say some colors?) and none for others.

For example if your a white firefighter in New Haven who works hard studying for a test needed for a promotion to captain in a firehouse and you receive out of 70 plus test takers the 7th best score on that test (which would automaticly make you a captain) Sotomayor and Obama have no empathy for you at all.

No they don't give a damn about you at all. Well actually they do they care about you NOT PASSING AND NOT BEING PROMOTED INSTEAD OF PEOPLE WITH BLACK SKIN.

But Obama and Sotomayor do have their special brand empathy ready for you if your a black firefighter in New Haven.
If you didn't study enough for the test for promotion to firefighter captain and you get the worst score out of 70 plus test takers, Obama and Sotomayor, want to make sure you-rather than a white firfighter like the one above who passed the test-get that promotion cause of slavery, and jim CRowe and blah, blah, blah.
And in the rest of the similiar endevours in your life that seemingly require purely merit base copmeition, Sotomayor and Obama will always be there for you and your black brothers like some kind of gaurdian angels, appearing as testtime begins and with a wink and a smile lowering the bar just for you and hightening that bar right back up again when you've cleared it and it's the crackers turn and you've already gotten your job, your promotion, your acceptance letter, your award, your special treatment and your honorable mention.

PART 2: WHY THE COVERAGE OF SOTOMAYOR SHOULD SCARE YOU & HOW FAR WILL THEY GO FOR HIM? HOW FAR WILL HE GO FOR "JUSTICE"? & A RENUION WITH BRITIAN

Oh and don't forget those of us, Sotomayor and Obama, not only have no empathy for but no tolerance for, those americans who dare to write and/or speak negativly of their special "empathy" and their racist laws. If Sotomayor and Obama where to get their way-there's a good chance seeing what the media the media that informs the public has deformed to- that your website, your blog, your article, could be shut down. This has already happened in Britian, where Scotland Yard urges citizens through advertisments online to notify them not if you come across a mugging or prostuition but if you coe across or hear about "right wing extremist" websites.

We already see the soft tryanny and banning of free special that is law in newly multicultral Britian and Canada seeping into America and Sotomayors confirmation will undoubtly be a big step towards bringing the notorious "human rights tribunals" of Canada to America.

Programs like NetNanny that hotels and schools and parents use to block inapprarite sites (e.g. porn sites) from adolcents now block sites like Mark Steyn's personal website and NRO.com, respectivly the biggest conservtive website of the most mainstream conservtive magazine and the and one it's most famous writers (National Reviews colmunists no doubt). If National Review is labeled a "hate site" and blacked by NEtnanny, the whole conservtive sphere of opinion is blocked as i'm sure it is if you just try t o enter takimag.com, chronicles.com, weeklystandard.com, humanevents.com and so on.

And then ofcourse there is the memo Obama's CIA sent out (with his incentive) that asked citizens and authoritys to watch out for "right wing extremist groups" who may center around the issues of "abortion and/or immgration".

And really-one must ask, and reporters will never ask-Obama and/or Sotomayor, if your willing to deny Ricci the promotion he earned because no blacks passed, what principle of restraint is there to stop you from shutting down websites that you or the Southern POverty Law Center or LA RAZA OR the ACLU says "promotes hate against a group"?

It is hard for us conservtives-who see the persuction of a Ricci or a Mark Steyn in Canada or Geert Wilders in the Netherlands as shameful-to even believe or suspect fellow americans on the left to see such soft tryanny and loss of the freedome of free speech differently.

What really has scared me and made me look at the words that say "Soon to be banned in Canda" on the cover of Mark Steyn's America Alone differently about Obama's selection of Sotomayor is the how the media has covered it all as Obama's minions: repeating over and over Obama's official Sotomayor talking point about "her story", and the other infuraitingly dishonest assigned talking point about how "Sotomayor is hardly liberal" so much so the GOP really has nothing to say against her and awhile in these NPR and ABC and CNN segments "on Sotomayor" never even mention anything but biography and her superb affirmtive action credentials, not one mention of any of her descions nor any utterance of the name Ricci.
Everyone has know for awhile now (except apparently MediaMatters.com) that the media has a liberal bias and even bigger pro- Obama bias, bias' which are startling to those few of us who know of the news that NPR, ABC and the rest of the MSM knowingly ignore, distort or gloss over. But the unknown thing has always been for me atleast:how far will they go for this guy?
I thought there bare coverage of Rev. Wright (the ny times mention rev. wright for the 1st time 5 months after the fact) showed that if forced to by the fear that they can't get away with ignore and supressing news bad for obama they would cover it with extra liberal bias. But after Rev. Wright-as CHristopher Hitchens said-the media felt guilty for even covering Rev. Wright and resolved not to do so again. And everything since Rev. Wright suggests the well connected Hitchen's word is right.
The Uniformity o the MSM's Coverage of Sotomayor pretty much soldifies that if there is a news-story (a unusually intresting poltical story to average people as the Ricci case is) the MSM will simply shamefully not mention it. And worst of all there is no real consquence, the disserviced public knows not what they're not beiing told about Sotomayor and Obama views, and the MSM scoundrels doing there part for TEAM OBAMA don't hear the rigetous denuciations coming from the Limbaugh and Taki T. and the rest of the few of us left that know what the hells going on called consertives.
We'll see when other Ricci like scandals such as Card Check and The fairness doctrine come along again about how far the MSM will go. BUt as of now, the MSM has shown that it will do whatever it takes and supress whatever it takes for Obama and as long as that true OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS REALLY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. Even with 60 or 61 democratic senate seats, with a left slanted media of the BUsh years the MSM would atleast cover big bills that the Dem's would have passed. And knowing that there will be MSM coverage and thus somekind of citizen reaction, enough democrats would have voted against disgraceful bills like amnesty and the fairness doctrine in fear of losing their seat and in doing so stopped such scandals from crossing over from liberal scheme into American law.
BUt now that the MSM has shown how deep its love is for there man by actually ignoring stories and bills like Ricci and the fairness doctrine, those few worried Democratic Senators that would have blocked a Fairness Doctrine in fear won't now that there is nothing for them to fear.

And so the next question, now that it seems Obama can do whatever he wants without major recourse, is HOW FAR WILL OBAMA GO?


PART 3:STATUS AND POLTICS VOL 1.: WHITES WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT RICCI & LEGALIZED ANTI-WHITE DISCRIMINATION AND THE REASON WHY

And the whites i know for the most part -who are the midwestern versions of the people in the west who decide what movies get made and right there anti-american scripts and of those in east who run the mainstream media with the journalstic intregrity and objectivty of Obama P.R. people- they don't give a damn about Ricci and affirmtive action and quoatas and so on, even when you personalize this legalized racism with the heart renching story of a Ricci, which is odd right?

Well in almost any other group on earth it would be very odd if it were ever to happen, indifference towards systematic discrimination agaginst your good group in employment and oppurtinty would be quite odd.
For a group-catholics, luddites, conservtives, blacks, hawians, watever group it may be- to be not indifferent but to support EXSPLICIT LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST YOUR GROUP is bizarre.

But among white americans-unlike any other such group i know of- i know of, it is not hard to find many of this group, white americans, that are indifferent and even indeed open supporters even vigorous promoters for systematic legalized discrimination against white americans.

Can anyone point towards a latino advocate to have to do better than blacks to get into in the same school?
Ofcourse you can't, cause what kind of sane group of people or just sane person wants to be discriminated against in law when they try to get into a college, get a job, or get a promotion?

So i guess many whites males are insane, they're also liberals.

When i talk about Ricci and the like to liberals they usually ask "why do you even care?", "how does affirmtive action effect you?". The questions would suggest they don't what affirmtive action is, but the reason they ask that question to me-a white male-is because they pity minoritys so much, and are so non-threatned by blacks professionals and indeed are so unfimiliar with blacks in their careers, that when these liberal elites say "what has affirmtive action done to you?" they are really saying "c'mon, you know that affirmtive action and such is just charity to minority, it's just another hand out, so we'll let 2 blacks kids go to Princetown who wouldn't have been able to on their own merit, whats the big deal with that?"

To not be threatned or offended by racist anti-white legal discrimination with most all liberal elite positions has it's status element aswell. To be in different to affirmtive actiona nd quotas and so fourth shows-such liberal elites think- how secure they are in their own careers, that they don't have to worry about compeition on uneven ground.

It's those "embarsing" whites on the perphirery-the coal miners, firefighters, truck drivers, sales clerks like Ricci-who are outraged by Leglaized Anti-white racism, liberal elites believe (somewhat correctly) and whatever those whites do or think or like, elite whites instinvily do the opposite, especially poltically.

Guess what living person Alec Baldwin most admires?

My oh my, what things you do find on the last page of Vanity Fair:

ALEC BALDWIN took the Proust Questionnaire,

"VANITY FAIR: Which living person do you most admire?

ALEC BALDWIN: MICHELLE OBAMA"



This is rather unbelivable. is it not? The whole thing reeks of desperate white guilt. We know what this white man's white burden is.

If only VF's next question where "really, Alec?"

i would guess that Alec's riposte would go something like this:

"do you know what it's like to be a black women in this country? do you know the hardship Michelle like all black women endure every single day?! she worked her way up by her bootstraps against the racist tide to PRinceton UNviersity! everyone always told her 'no', 'no you can't do it michelle' your not good', and yet she overcame it all!"

How deep is your white guilt?

If it were up to the media and the celebrity class and perhaps democrats, Michelle would have been crowned along time ago.We'd have the queen's jubilee down the Potomac,

I can see the scene: michelle waving her queen wave with her black silk gloves on, as her boat thraashes its way down the potomac, we would all bow, as the boat past, the boat of course would not be playing any "star splangled banner" racist nonsence, but rather some Public Enemy, maybe "the revoultion will not be televised". And inside queen Obama's boat, is a salon of Rev WRight and Farhkan and Chuck D, some "Ebony" Staff writers, Barak, Beyonce, Usher, sipping on vodka tonics.

But is this any suprise? OFcourse the media and white liberals love Michelle Obama. She's got it all.

1. She's Black.

Which alone alone makes her good, pure, victimized, and a hero. Also it means that when she reads Martin Amis (which i doubt she does, unlike the book worm Laura Bush who had lunch with Amis in London) it's about 30 times more impressive than when a white person reads Amis, like say the book worm Laura Bush who had lunch with Amis in London.

2. She despises America (atleast up until 2007 for some reason).

As Chris Hitchens has shown at the liberal Slate.com, she's the one who-more than Barak-was into the black liberation, anti-american, anti-white, Rev WRight stuff. Her Princeton "thesis" which Hitchens said is "unreadable" is Rev WRight style ditribe against white america/america. She ofcourse has never been proud of America outside of it electing Barak. She thinks America "a mean" country. And thats just what she's said at campiagn rallys, you can guess what she says in private about America.

3. She's got everything in her life from affirmtive action (outside her husband).

Affirmtive Action gave Michelle not only a place in the Ivy League but a career afterwards. (This is not a uncommon thing, think of how many affirmtive action Ivy leaguers went on to become hack black studies professors.)
She got a unearned place at Princeton, where she produced a "unreadable" according CHristopher HItchens, black liberationist thesis. She then got a career shutting down hospitals and companys with bogus discrimination lawsuites aka she made her money suing places for not hiring enough people with the right skin pigment. What a noble proffesion, obvilously Alec Baldwins thinks it so.

Is this the life of the most admirable person on earth?

But apparently, aids workers, and charity founders, have nothing on people who make money enforcing racial quotas on private insuitions, suing banks for not giving enough loans to blacks, and companys for not hiring enough blacks.

Is this a joke?

I wonder what Alec thinks about Mr. Ricci in the Ricci case? is he the most deplorable person living?


This is just more proof of how mad babyboomers have become.