Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for the ‘affirmative action’ Category

Barack Obama At 37 Percent Approval

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2013/11/20

And M24OH has a questionnaire.

37% you say? Hm, it actually doesn’t seem like 37% of the people I meet are complete morons or absolute pieces of sh**. Maybe I should make up a ‘worthless p.o.s. idiot test’:

1. Are you entitled to an income just for being alive?
2. Are you entitled to healthcare just for being alive?
3. Do you believe your gender, race, ethnicity, or combination thereof entitle you to preferred treatment in any aspect of societal interaction, i.e. preferences for hiring, housing, public assistance etc., or deference in ordinairy social interactions?
4. Would you refuse miltary service, or other public service, to qualify for the above “entitlements”?
5. Are you of sound mind and body but not actively seeking employment?
6. Do your engage in non-contraceptive-use extra-marital sex while without the means to independently (free of public assistance) raise a dependent child?

If you answered “yes” to any of the above questions, you are most likely a “worthless p.o.s. idiot”.

And you probably still think Obuggerme is just swell.

(typos in original)

Sadly, far too many people have rejected the US Constitution and would say “yes” to one or more of those questions.

Posted in affirmative action, Character, Constitution, Culture, Insanity, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politics, society | 1 Comment »

Different Views of Race

Posted by Foxfier on 2012/05/09

I’ve felt an urge to protect Elizabeth Warren a little bit, because I don’t have official papers to prove my Indian background, either, and I’m as Indian as she is.  Needless to say, that’s made me feel a little uncomfortable with the ribbing she’s been getting…  less uncomfortable than I am at the notion of race quotas, but a bit uncomfortable.

Then I had a bit of a revelation moment tonight—Duchess discovered red potatoes (cheaper than fresh if you get them at Cash&Carry, and pre-diced!) and thinks they’re quite nifty.  I made a crack to TrueBlue about that being proof of her being my daughter, since I’m Irish… long story short, the tradition goes that my ultimate Irish ancestor jumped off an Irish ship, so how much from-Ireland-blood we have is unsure.  It’s just… a “thing,” the way that TrueBlue makes jokes about being Sicilian. (
short version: he’s just as much Cajun, or moreso)

For us, being X group is something that’s kind of nice, but not hugely important—it’s like knowing your grandparents. (Heck, it is knowing your grandparents.  For many generations back.)

I’ve got more proof of being Indian (a picture of an umpty-grandmother with her husband, the preacher) than I do of being Irish (jack and a story), but our family acts Celtic.  It’s almost like a mini-religion, or a micro-sub-culture. (I’d put being a geek at LEAST on par…for me.  Other members of my family are pretty into it.)

I guess it’s kind of like the first wedding my uncles’ Celtic club did.  Bride and groom were “black,” going off looks and common assignments—far darker than the president, for example.  Darker than Morgan Freeman.  But the groom is a member of the club, and they were wed in kilts and… whatever the longer, girl-kilt thing is… under a giant arch of swords, to the tune of bagpipes from the Giant Piper, by a Catholic Priest. (All from memory; I was kinda small at that point.)  Didn’t really matter, at least to someone as fashion dumb as I am—I’m sure there was some fumbling to make sure that the flowers and stuff made the lady look as gorgeous as she deserved.

Being “Irish” doesn’t eat everything else.  It’s more like having green eyes than it is like having ten fingers—and I chose green carefully, because many shades of hazel are summed up as “green.”  I’ve got two different eye-colors, going from my gov’t issued ID.  Heck, my mom has the loveliest blue-shot-with-green eyes you’ve ever seen, and the DMV lists them as “hazel.”

For the record?  I don’t give two toots if the bride or groom actually had a single Germanic-area ancestor, let alone one that had lived in Celtic lands.  I care even less if it was genetically provable.

From reports, Ms Warren actually kinda cared at some point.  Heavens knows that a lot of libs care, passionately—they conflate genetics with culture. 

Booger that.

Posted in affirmative action, Character, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, Real Life | Comments Off on Different Views of Race

Conservatives Understand Liberals #tcot

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/04/15

But Liberals don’t understand Conservatives.

This has been widely known to be true for a very long time, but a study has only recently come out proving such to be the case. And it also helps to explain why the radical Left, such as the Obama administration and the Reid-Pelosi Congress, thought their problem was a communications problem instead of what it truly was: a complete and total fully informed rejection of their agenda.

Tina Korbe wrote an article last week regarding the research, which was publicized a week or so prior to her article.

At The American, AEI resident scholar Andrew Biggs highlights an interesting study that confirms what most conservatives probably already know to be true of themselves: We understand why our liberal friends think what they think more than they understand why we think what we think. [link to the article]

[University of Virginia professor Jonathan] Haidt’s research asks individuals to answer questionnaires regarding their core moral beliefs—what sorts of values they consider sacred, which they would compromise on, and how much it would take to get them to make those compromises. By themselves, these exercises are interesting. (Try them online and see where you come out.)

But Haidt’s research went one step further, asking self-indentified conservatives to answer those questionnaires as if they were liberals and for liberals to do the opposite. What Haidt found is that conservatives understand liberals’ moral values better than liberals understand where conservatives are coming from. Worse yet, liberals don’t know what they don’t know; they don’t understand how limited their knowledge of conservative values is. If anyone is close-minded here it’s not conservatives.

Haidt has one theory to explain his results, while Biggs has another. Haidt says conservatives speak a broader and more encompassing language of six moral values, while liberals focus on a narrow subset of those values. Biggs says conservatives understand liberal positions because they’re inundated with them — by the media, by academia, even to a certain extent by the culture.

Haidt and Biggs both have a point. It takes just about a year of actively debating politics or witnessing the debate of politics to realize that (a) the two parties to the debate don’t speak the same language and (b) the liberal party will have few opportunities to learn the conservative’s language. It’s not only that we don’t use the same words, it’s that we also assign completely different meanings to the same words.

I wanted to take the same surveys from both perspectives to see how well I did but couldn’t find the way to do so. I did, however, find a long list of surveys to take, and I think I did fairly well. It’s a rather easy process. Follow the above link, register (which surveys your self-declarations for use during your survey-taking), then take whatever surveys you wish. Of course, I self-identified as Very Conservative, Very Conservative fiscally, Very Conservative socially (and Very Conservative on any other questions I have likely forgotten). How did I rate compared to Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians?

First, how well did I do logically and how well did I do defeating bias inputs I received?

So, both my blog name (Truth Before Dishonor) and my byline (I’d rather be right than popular) are quite apt. Now, onto other charts. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in abortion, affirmative action, Character, Christianity, Conservative, crime, economics, Health Care, Law, Liberal, media, military, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politics, Religion, society, Tax, truth | Tagged: , , , | 22 Comments »

The Zombie of Affirmative Action rises from the grave

Posted by Dana Pico on 2011/07/03

From Jim Lynch of bRight & Early:

Logic that makes my head hurt

It’s Friday and I’m reading a few stories when I read this headline, Court strikes down Michigan ban on race in college admissions. So, I clicked over and started reading. Here, in part, is what I find:

Michigan’s ban on using race and gender as a factor in admission to public colleges and universities was overturned today by a federal appeals court, which said the voter-approved measure harms minorities and is unconstitutional.

Let me see if I have the facts right so far. A law that “bans using race and gender as a factor in admission to public colleges and universities” is unconstitutional because it discriminates against minorities by not discriminating in favor of them? The law, according to the 2 judge majority, violates the equal protection clause because it doesn’t allow schools to treat people unequally? Is that what you’re reading here?

That’s some really twisty pretzel logic, but there was more.

George Washington, the chief attorney for the law’s opponents, applauded the decision today.

“It’s a great victory. It means affirmative action is legal again in college admissions. It means that thousands of talented black, Latino and Native Americans can go to our public universities,” Washington said.

Is Washington saying that thousands of talented blacks, Latinos and Native Americans couldn’t go to public universities based on their merit, that they are only able to gain admission by preferential treatment based on race and skin color?

Affirmative action has never made much sense to me. How in the world can you prevent discrimination by using, what can only be described as, discrimination? This decision makes my head hurt.

In 2003, the Supreme Court decided two related cases from the University of Michigan. In Gratz v Bollinger [539 U.S. 244 (2003) ] the Court held that hard, numeric quotas for minority admissions were unconstitutional, but in Grutter v Bollinger [539 U.S. 306 (2003)] the Court left open the door to consider race as one factor among many, as long as such considerations were narrowly tailored to achieve a goal. Associate Justice Sandra O’Connor, in delivering the opinion of the Court, wrote:

We agree that, in the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School’s race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants.

We are mindful, however, that “[a] core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to do away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race.” Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 432 (1984). Accordingly, race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. This requirement reflects that racial classifications, however compelling their goals, are potentially so dangerous that they may be employed no more broadly than the interest demands. Enshrining a permanent justification for racial preferences would offend this fundamental equal protection principle. We see no reason to exempt race-conscious admissions programs from the requirement that all governmental use of race must have a logical end point. The Law School, too, concedes that all “race-conscious programs must have reasonable durational limits.”

In the context of higher education, the durational requirement can be met by sunset provisions in race-conscious admissions policies and periodic reviews to determine whether racial preferences are still necessary to achieve student body diversity. Universities in California, Florida, and Washington State, where racial preferences in admissions are prohibited by state law, are currently engaged in experimenting with a wide variety of alternative approaches. Universities in other States can and should draw on the most promising aspects of these race-neutral alternatives as they develop. Cf. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 581 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“[T]he States may perform their role as laboratories for experimentation to devise various solutions where the best solution is far from clear”).

The requirement that all race-conscious admissions programs have a termination point “assure[s] all citizens that the deviation from the norm of equal treatment of all racial and ethnic groups is a temporary matter, a measure taken in the service of the goal of equality itself.” Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S., at 510 (plurality opinion); see also Nathanson & Bartnik, The Constitutionality of Preferential Treatment for Minority Applicants to Professional Schools, 58 Chicago Bar Rec. 282, 293 (May—June 1977) (“It would be a sad day indeed, were America to become a quota-ridden society, with each identifiable minority assigned proportional representation in every desirable walk of life. But that is not the rationale for programs of preferential treatment; the acid test of their justification will be their efficacy in eliminating the need for any racial or ethnic preferences at all”).

We take the Law School at its word that it would “like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula” and will terminate its race-conscious admissions program as soon as practicable. See Brief for Respondents Bollinger et al. 34; Bakke, supra, at 317—318 (opinion of Powell, J.) (presuming good faith of university officials in the absence of a showing to the contrary). It has been 25 years since Justice Powell first approved the use of race to further an interest in student body diversity in the context of public higher education. Since that time, the number of minority applicants with high grades and test scores has indeed increased. We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today

Note that while the Court allowed certain Affirmative Action plans, it did not require them, and spoke approvingly of “Universities in California, Florida, and Washington State, where racial preferences in admissions are prohibited by state law, (which) are currently engaged in experimenting with a wide variety of alternative approaches.” The Court certainly did not hold that state laws prohibiting racial discrimination in university admissions were unconstitutional, and actually saw them as an ultimate goal.

In November of 2006, Michigan voters considered, and approved, 58% to 42%, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, an amendment to the state constitution which bans the use of racial, ethnic, gender, or national origin considerations in state government decisions. But now the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has held, in effect, that Affirmative Action, to the extent allowed by the Supreme Court, must be maintained.

Their logic, however, is curious. From the Court of Appeals in Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the University of Michigan:

The Supreme Court’s statements in Hunter and Seattle clarify that equal protection of the laws is more than a guarantee of equal treatment under the law substantively. It is also an assurance that the majority may not manipulate the channels of change in a manner that places unique burdens on issues of importance to racial minorities. In effect, the political process theory hews to the unremarkable belief that, when two competitors are running a race, one may not require the other to run twice as far, or to scale obstacles not present in the first runner’s course. Ensuring the fairness of political processes, in particular, is essential, because an electoral minority is by definition disadvantaged in its attempts to pass legislation; and “discrete and insular minorities” are especially so given the unique hurdles they face.

Yet the judges seem to believe that while “two competitors are running a race, one may not require the other to run twice as far, or to scale obstacles not present in the first runner’s course,” it is perfectly acceptable, and even constitutionally required, for the first runner to run farther or scale obstacles not in the second runner’s course. More, the judges are very worried about perceived obstacles which general societal conditions, real or imagined, may place in the minority applicant’s path, obstacles which may not be subject to the restrictions of the Constitution, yet their solution is to burden non-minority applicants with restrictions which are composed wholly of government action, something which is entirely subject to the restrictions of the Constitution.

One would suspect that the Supreme Court might reverse this odious ruling, but it is quite possible that this decision will never reach the Supreme Court. The Defendants, the Regents of the University of Michigan et al, are probably pleased that they lost. State Attorney General Michael Cox, designated as an Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee in the Court’s ruling, and a Republican, might choose to try to appeal.

But, at some point, we have to come back to the Fourteenth Amendment, the first section of which says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Justice O’Connor, determined to preserve some form of Affirmative Action, but still obviously uncomfortable with the program’s clear contradiction with the basic Constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws, concluded:

We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.

That was 2003, eight years ago; only seventeen years remain of the Court’s twenty-five year time frame. What will our friends on the left argue, come 2028, if some minority group or other has not achieved equal average SAT or ACT scores, if the members of some particular group earn less money on average or have lower rates of home ownership?

Because, in the end, the Fourteenth Amendment to our great Constitution guarantees, or is supposed to guarantee, the equal protection of the laws, but so many of our oh-so-nobly-intended friends on the left believe that it somehow means the equality of societal outcomes.

Well, the Constitution and the Congress and the state legislatures and the law cannot guarantee that everybody will have equal outcomes. Though our Declaration of Independence, approved 235 years ago tomorrow, says that:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,

the Signers were saying only that men could pursue happiness, not that they would obtain it, and that all men are created equal under the law; they did not mean that every man was the absolute equal of every other man in fact, knowing that some were smarter than others, some were stronger, some better-looking, some healthier and some wealthier, and, given that the author of the Declaration was himself a slave owner, some whiter. Not one of those brave gentlemen, pledging to each other as they did, their Lives, their Fortunes, and their sacred Honor, ever held that it was the duty or place of government to insure that every man was as wealthy and successful as every other man. Only Karl Marx was daft enough to think that government could ever do such a thing, and not a single one of the attempts to put Herr Marx’s teachings into practice has ever done anything more than share poverty equally . . . equally, of course, except for the nomenklatura!

In the end, the best for which we can hope, the most for which we can strive, is a system in which the government and the laws take no notice of differences in race and gender and ethnicity. That was what the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment wrote, and that was what the authors intended.
Cross-posted from Common Sense Political Thought.

Posted in affirmative action, Constitution, race | 1 Comment »

John Hitchcock For President

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/05/12

Being over 35 and a natural born citizen, the son of two natural born citizens, the grandson of four natural born citizens, I am qualified to be President. I have no other qualifications but that did not affect the votes of 60 million people last time around so it shouldn’t affect my chances to be President.


Drill here, drill now, drill a lot. We have among the most oil and natural gas resources in the world, and that’s just what we know we have. Instead of sending off billions of dollars to our enemies for the oil they have, we should use our own that we have available. In addition, we have not had a new oil refinery built in over 30 years due to onerous regulations and political red tape. I would fight to eliminate much of the over-regulation and political gamesmanship which has prevented the industry growth. In the process, private industry would be freed up to create countless high-paying jobs in the oil industry and in peripheral businesses, both as it relates to the field and as it relates to the needs of the people brought to the centralized locations.

Re-open Yucca Mountain. Obama closed Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste disposal and containment purely for political reasons, rejecting the science, possibly setting back nuclear energy by many decades. I would reverse that decision immediately. In the same vein, there has not been a nuclear plant built in over 30 years due to onerous regulations and the expense required to even consider building a nuclear power plant. I would fight to eliminate much of the unnecessary over-regulation involved in hamstringing the nuclear power industry. In the process, private industry would be freed up to create countless high-paying jobs in the nuclear power industry and in peripheral businesses, both as it relates to the field and as it relates to the needs of the people brought to the centralized locations.

Eliminate all ethanol subsidies. The amount of oil needed to make ethanol, in combination with the loss of fuel efficiency by the use of ethanol, works out to be the same as if the ethanol-producing step were eliminated altogether. Furthermore, the burning of the petroleum to produce the ethanol plus the burning of the ethanol produces more pollution than if ethanol were not produced. The creation of ethanol takes food away from the market, and has already caused riots and suffering. And using ethanol costs the consumer more than using gasoline while at the same time costing the taxpayer more by way of subsidies that prop up the industry — an industry that would not survive without government subsidies.

Use our oil shale and our coal. There is a plentiful supply of oil shale available but locked up by the federal government. I would work hard to unlock those lands for oil production. President Obama stated it was his goal to make the coal industry unprofitable. It would be my goal to provide an environment where the coal industry could become more profitable. Our nation is fabulously rich in coal. It would be a terrible act of destructiveness to prevent our nation from making maximum use of such a rich and inexpensive energy product. The coal industry provides untold numbers of good-paying jobs in the industry itself and in the peripheral industries, both to the industry and to the needs of the people working in the industry.

Health care:
I would work hard to repeal ObamaCare. All socialized medicine plans have been destructive across the world. Rationed care, “death panels”, outrageous expense spikes are all the norm in any such plan. No person should be forced to buy a product. That is clearly unconstitutional and an affront to all freedom-loving people. Instead of ObamaCare, I would work to pass major TORT reform, putting a hard cap on what malpractice awards can be given and limiting the attorneys to a maximum of 10 percent of the award. I would further work to redefine what can be classified as malpractice to remove more frivolous lawsuits, making it less profitable for attorneys to sue caregivers. Doing this would reduce the cost of defensive care doctors provide in an effort to avoid frivolous and expensive lawsuits. In addition, I would work to allow all citizens the right to purchase their health insurance from any health insurance provider regardless of the state of the provider. Open up the state borders for this interstate commerce as the US Constitution states is within the federal government’s mandated duties.

As the US Constitution gives the federal government authority for Washington, DC, I would work to re-install and re-invigorate education free choice in the form of vouchers of half the per-student cost of the public schools, paying for the vouchers out of the education dollars. This would actually increase the per-student expenditures of the public schools with no added cost to the taxpayers. It would also give parents the opportunity to get their children out of the failing public schools and into the more successful private schools. As each state has its own Department of Education and the US Constitution does not provide a federal right in this aspect, I would work to eliminate the Department of Education altogether. I would champion free choice voucher programs across the nation but not as a federal mandate. The issue would be up to the various states as is their realm. I would divorce student loans from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and put them back in the hands of the lenders where they belong.

National Defense:
I would work toward a strong, forward-thinking national defense, one where we don’t have to fight wars on our own soil. Islamic Terrorists have declared war on us. I would not pretend such is not the case. I would not treat the Islamic Terrorists as criminals but as the warring people they are, and I would treat them in a way as is prescribed in the Geneva Convention regarding un-uniformed, unlawful enemy combatants. Israel is our friend. As the only truly democratic nation in the Middle-East, and as a combatant against Islamic Terrorists since her regeneration, she is a very powerful ally and one we should continue to defend to the best of our ability. I would continue to aggressively bring the fight to the Islamic Terrorists in Iraq and support their fledgling democratic shift, working hand-in-hand with the new Iraqi government so long as they desire our presence and so long as they continue to fight the terrorists and fight for democracy for all Iraq’s citizens.

Tax code:
The US Tax Code is far too convoluted and far too expansive. It also works against the people in preventing wealth generation. I would work to rewrite and simplify the tax code. I would work to create a flat tax of 15 percent across the board and eliminate all tax credits for engaging in “government-approved” behavior. It makes no sense for half the wage-earners to subsidize the other half. If everyone had “skin in the game” then it would be much easier to force the federal government to live within its means. As the federal government is mandated to return roughly 94 cents of every dollar collected in fuel taxes back to the states of origin, I would work to fully eliminate the federal fuel tax, allowing the various states to determine the level of tax to keep their roadways up to par.

Illegal Immigration:
I would order the various federal agencies to fully enforce all immigration laws on the books, including the forced deportation of illegal aliens. I would eliminate all federal funds to all “sanctuary cities” as they are acting in direct violation of federal immigration laws. I would eliminate all federal funds to any institution of higher learning that allows and subsidizes illegal alien enrollment as they are acting in violation of federal immigration laws. I would give the states authority to enforce all federal immigration laws. I would not only build a fence across the entire US-Mexico border, but I would also increase the patrolling manpower threefold, take away their bean-bag guns and their tasers, and fully arm the border patrols. It is illegal to enter the US illegally. It should be treated as such.

I would work to eliminate all federal funding of all media outlets. This means outlets like NPR, CPB, PBS but is not limited specifically to them. The federal government has no business in media generation. Any outlets that cannot survive without federal funding should wither and die. Any outlets that can survive without federal funding — why do they need taxpayer dollars?

I would work to eliminate all federal funding of all agencies involved in the abortion industry. It is reprehensible that taxpayers should be funding entities that perform abortions. Likewise, it is equally reprehensible that taxpayers should fund work done by destroying embryos; therefore, I would work to eliminate all federal funding of such endeavors.

I would only appoint Constitutional Originalists to the courts. It is important to return this country back to what the Constitution and Declaration actually say instead of what various people with various agendas want it to say.

I would vigorously defend DOMA.

I would work to repeal McCain-Feingold. Political speech is speech and all speech is protected against government interference, such as McCain-Feingold.

I would work to strengthen citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Every state has its own Environmental Protection Agency. As such, I would work to eliminate the federal EPA — the agency that is busily grabbing authority and power the US Constitution never intended for it to have.

The Federal Communications Commission has outlived its unconstitutional usefulness and is usurping power. I would work to eliminate it.

I would work to create a law that states all regulatory agencies are to be restricted to enforcement procedures and prohibited from performing lawmaking acts (which is what writing regulations is). In that regard, I would work to have as many regulations as possible stricken from the books. “First do no harm” has not been a part of the governmental lexicon for a century. I would work to put it back in prominence.

The Right to Freedom of Association should not be stripped from the citizenry. In that regard, all closed-shop states are doing just that. I would work to install a federal “right to work” law preventing mandatory association with Unions in order to obtain or keep a job. I would also work to eliminate government-mandated automatic deductions from paychecks for the purpose of handing the money over to Unions. The people should have the option and responsibility of paying Union dues themselves; it should not be the purvue of the government to do so.

I would work to create laws that focus on the content of a person’s character and ability and not the color of a person’s skin. Similarly, I would work to eliminate all laws that focus on the color of a person’s skin and not the content of a person’s character or ability. All Affirmative Action laws are race or gender-focused. As such, all Affirmative Action laws need eliminated.

I would permit once again the people to manufacture, sell, and purchase incandescent light bulbs. There is no reason in a freedom- and liberty-loving nation to prevent people from buying the light bulbs of their choice.

Posted in abortion, affirmative action, Constitution, crime, economics, education, Elections, food, Health Care, Israel, media, military, Obama, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politics, race, society, Tax, TEA Party, war | 1 Comment »

Liberal Racism And Historical Revisionism

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2010/03/15

I have previously reported on liberal racism on several occasions, such as Let’s Talk About Racism, which is my personal experience facing racism, Liberals Are Racists, which is my personal experience on “Sadly, No!”, a brain-dead liberal blog which uses profanity and a lack of logic to push the left agenda, Democrat Civil Rights History, where I gave a long history of Democrats opposing the granting of civil rights to blacks. (I did not research that history. I copied it, with permission, from Black&Right.)

Remember this Democrat Party line:

Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.

That is blatant revisionist history. That is a blatant lie. As the Democrat Civil Rights History article showed, Democrats have been on the front line, fighting against equal opportunity for all Americans. On the vast majority of civil rights issues, Democrats have been forefront in opposition, as history shows. Where Democrats have been in favor of civil rights for all, it has been on issues of personal choice and not issues of personal being.

And even in the realm of personal choice, Democrats are racist and exclusionary. This is very obvious. Try being a prominent black Conservative, or weaker, a prominent black Republican. According to a huge number of Democrats, especially in positions of power, those blacks are race-traitors. Hispanic Republicans and Conservatives are also race-traitors. My article showing my experience at “Sadly, No!” proved it, case closed. The person going by the moniker “Some NY Guy” very clearly said, beyond a shadow of a doubt, any non-whites who vote Republican are traitors to their race. And that is a clear example of racism and the exclusionary nature of “personal choice” that Democrats would love for you to ignore, while they claim to be the champions of the opposite.

But you needn’t go to the outrageously inflammatory and intellectually vacuous site “Sadly, No!” to see the inherent racism among Democrats and Liberals. You only need witness the left’s treatment of Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes, both staunch Conservatives, JC Watts, a Republican I believe to be a staunch Conservative, Condoleezza Rice, a hispanic woman who I believe is a Conservative and is most definitely a Republican, and Michael Steele, a wishy-washy Republican. Steele actually had oreos thrown at him! And, of course, Thomas is castigated by members of the left for doing the unthinkable: marrying a white woman. Talk about racism.

In many cases, today’s Liberals and Democrats are no less racist than those of yesteryear. And today’s Liberals and Democrats, many of them, focus on racism when anyone attempts to counter anything the current half-white President pushes. It is a major wedge issue those on the left use, while hoping most of the population never learns the truth. And the truth is Democrats and Liberals have been wedded to racism for over 150 years.

I have shown how today’s Liberals and Democrats are very much racist, calling any non-white “race traitors” and hurling insults and objects at non-white Conservatives and Republicans. I have given a link showing the very long history of Democrats fighting against equal treatment of blacks. I have given the quote showing the very blatant Democrat revisionist lie. Today’s “affirmative action,” which had its uses back in the day (remember your history regarding Democrats and Liberals), is another example of racism. If you’re a member of the “wrong race,” you get extra points on your test scores for college placement and job placement. That means, if you’re a member of the “wrong race,” you’re too dumb and unqualified to get the job without special assistance. What could be more underhandedly racist than that?

But there are those of the left who always try to shift the goalposts. They don’t want to talk about the history they lied about. They don’t want to talk about current events they lie about. They want to bring up another subject, which they also lie about. And here’s the current revisionist Big Lie: Republicans became Democrats and Democrats became Republicans. That’s right, somewhere along the lines, everyone switched sides. And, amazingly, many people who actually hear about the history of Republicans and Democrats actually buy that lie.

I got this comment from my Democrat Civil Rights History article:

[T]hose whom you quoted as white southern democrats now affiliate themselves with the republican party. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.

If you disagree there are plenty of places to start at wiki. And if you disagree with wiki, pickup a high school American History textbook. It’s all spelled out in history’s narrative.

Now the full comment was an attack-and-condescension-filled comment, as if I didn’t know anything about anything. But there was another comment I recently read on a different topic by a different commenter whose chosen moniker is unfit to be used on my site.

The real Constition, JH, not the one the Texas Textbook Taliban fantasizes about when they rewrite history.

So it’s obvious the left wants to focus on history books, but only the history books the left writes. Without revisionist history or total ignorance, the left loses. And, unfortunately, many Americans do not know their own history, nor do they care about history at all. Let’s take this idea that Republicans became Democrats and Democrats became Republicans, as that commenter on my site suggested (along with a large number of leftists). When did this happen? Before or after the Democrats fought every effort to make blacks equal to whites (where they dishonorably claim to the uninformed they fought for every effort to make blacks equal to whites)? Apparently, they choose to suggest to the moderately informed that the change occurred during the Dixiecrat days. Or they suggest the “everybody switch sides” event occurred at the famous “Democrat” civil rights victory of 1964. This is merely a furtherance of lies and revisionism.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, over which a Democrat President presided, was made possible by Republicans in spite of, rather in cooperation with, Democrats. Yes, Democrats were the major blockage. The true history shows:

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

Mackubin T Owens provides more insight into the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which supposedly established the Democrats’ bona fides on race, was passed in spite of the Democrats rather than because of them. Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pushed the bill through the Senate, despite the no-votes of 21 Democrats, including Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd, who remains a powerful force in the Senate today. In contrast, only four Republicans opposed the bill, mostly like Barry Goldwater on libertarian principles, not segregationist ones.

So, obviously, the purported 1964 Democrat victory was actually a Republican victory in furtherance of black rights, despite revisionist leftists’ claims. So the sudden “let’s switch parties” game happened after 1964. After the then-102-year history of Republicans supporting equal rights for all races and both genders and Democrats fighting against civil rights for some races and females, everybody switched sides. Think about that. Is there any logic in that at all?

But leftists like to claim that southerners quit being Democrats and became Dixiecrats and then became Republicans, which made the entire change for both parties. Nevermind that the Dixiecrats were very much regionalized to the former slave states. Nevermind that the Dixiecrats reached their zenith in 1968, where they won 4 states and garnered less than 10 percent of the overall vote during the Presidential general election, where the Republican garnered nearly 56 percent of the overall vote. Forget about the fact Robert Byrd filibustered the bill for 14 hours all by himself. Forget about the fact Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr (recognize the names?) both voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Forget about the 21 Democrat Senators voted against the bill, which would, at the very minimum, equal 10.5 states while the Dixicrats won only 4 in 1968. Ignore all those facts.

According to Democrats, when talking to people who actually know a thing or two about history, everyone switched sides between 1964 and the Reagan Revolution of 1980. The goalpost-shifting left, when talking to people who actually know history, ignore their lies about the longitudinal racist nature of the left and push lies about short-term history and push the totally unbelievable concept that everyone switched sides over a brief 16-year span. They claim a large group of Democrats became Dixiecrats and then all the Dixiecrats became Republicans, when the facts show the vast majority of Dixiecrats returned to the Democrat Party.

The left hopes you don’t know your history at all. And when the left finds out you do actually know history, they try to revise recent history in absurd ways without even so much as a mea culpa about longitudinal history. All the while, the left continues its racist agenda, overt and covert alike.

Posted in affirmative action, education, history, media, politically correct, politics, race, society, truth | 5 Comments »

This Is America On Liberalism

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/12/24

Any Questions? Like about that 25 percent graduation rate? Or that statistic that Detroit high schoolers are more likely to go to jail than to graduate high school? Or the fact Detroit schools pay more per student than the national average? Or the total collapse of Detroit?

HT Jackie

Posted in affirmative action, crime, economics, education, Health Care, history, media, Personal Responsibility, politically correct, politics, Real Life, society | 20 Comments »

Conversations With My Brother

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/11/27

My brother made a visit to my mother’s house this Thanksgiving. And he and I had some conversations regarding mutual interests and other such material. I doubt anyone else was all that interested in what we were discussing: running, cycling, students, and suchlike. For some reason, people are not interested in that sort of stuff.

But my brother (born 76 months after me) and I share a lot of personal experiences and stuff.

He and I were both distance runners in High School.
— I honestly don’t know his times but he was one of the top Cross Country runners on the team before his shin splints.
— I ran the 5k Cross Country courses in 17 flat. In track, I ran 2:03 800, 4:40 1600, 10:20 3200, and was part of the 4X800 relay (all in the same meet).
He and I both spent big money on bicycles. (“You paid over $1k and it didn’t even have a motor?”)
— He got a half-scholarship to college for mountain-biking and was involved in mountain-bike races aired on ESPN2.
— I told him years ago about my 3-hour, 52-mile circuit and he asked if I had a picnic lunch in the middle of my circuit.
He and I both have experience as educators.
— He is a tenured professor of English, teaching first-year composition to “English as Second Language (ESL)” students.
— I was a math education major in college. I spent time teaching 5th grade students and 7th grade students during my college course work. I spent 20+ hours a week tutoring high school and college students in their math courses while a student in college. I spent 3 years home-schooling my daughter 4 grades.

There are other similarities, but those are pertinent here.

He said he went out running after he had his knee surgery. “You know that pain you feel that you have to fight through and that pain you feel that says ‘this was a bad idea’? Well, this was a bad idea. So I did it again and decided this is a bad idea after the second time.” That’s him. Don’t take the body’s first screaming NO for an answer but listen to the second screaming NO.

But he is more a cyclist than a runner. (Running stoves up your knees something fierce, especially if you have his and my trait of a super-long gait.) And he went on to talk about his recent experience cycling.

He mentioned he and I both have another commonality: to overdo things (or take them to extremes). He talked about how he hadn’t been out cycling for a couple months so, naturally, he decided to take a 40-mile trip. Now, when you’re training, you have various different plans for the day. One of those that all top athletes use is what I call “count the leaves on the trees” day, where you just go out and take it very easy, so you have time to take in every aspect of the scenery as you go by. Absolutely nothing hard at all about it. Well, he described his 40-mile circuit as one of those days.

He didn’t work hard at all during his 40-mile circuit, but he said at 75 minutes into his circuit he hit a brick wall. His body decided it was quitting time, it didn’t matter that he wasn’t home yet. And he was still a few miles short of home. Once he got home, he was toast. And the frustrating part was that he didn’t push himself on the circuit, instead taking it easy, and he still was toast.

I recounted my running experience. 5 years ago, I went out for a run for the first (and last) time in many years. Understand, I never in my life went out for a jog, always for a run (and there is a huge difference there). I reminded him of my 17-flat 5k in HS and then reported that I had to take a “walking break” during my 1-mile run, which took a total time of 15 minutes. It was grotesque and embarrassing.

He had some very interesting insight. Since I had previously been a quality distance runner, I could more readily approach that sort of quality again. My body would “remember” my past. “Oh, this is where I need to conserve energy, I remember this. Oh, this is something I can do. Nothing new here.” I just need to get back into it and it’ll come back to me. And much, much faster than for someone who has never had my experience.

He also recounted, in a general way, his experience teaching first-year composition in college. He said there were so many things wrong with papers that he had to ignore a lot of it and focus in on the 5 most important issues in the papers. “How can I make them write better without crushing them (or something to that effect).” I said something about how people need to use a dictionary and he had a retort I didn’t expect. He said he thought part of his students’ (He teaches first-year ESL students, remember.) problem was an over-reliance on the dictionary.

I was definitely surprised by this statement. But he explained his statement. Last year, he had a Japanese student who was very proficient in spoken English. That student’s paper had multiple nested sentences within multiple nested sentences of sentences. And those sentences used very large words. And my brother was thinking “I should know what this person is trying to say but I can’t make heads or tails of this.” (He said, as an aside, that his students this year are Chinese and isn’t it interesting first year students from Communist China are buying top-of-the-line Mercedes-Benz cars for their 4-year US University time?) That wasn’t quite what I expected, but it’s understandable. As he said, people try to sound more intelligent when they write than they do when they just talk. And, as he sees it, that is a pronounced problem with ESL students. That strong desire to show a higher ability (in this case, in a foreign language) than possessed.

Overall, it was a very enjoyable discussion.

But, thinking back on it, I definitely brought a few things home. And one thing I definitely want to point out (which was not his intent at all) is that there is a place where you are judged by your ability and not your “degree of tanness”. And that is in the athletic arena.

I don’t care what your background is. Once you get into your sphere of athletics, you will be dependent on your ability and not a hand-up for your success or failure. It’s all on you. There is no head-start for people of the “wrong race” and there is no lowered standard for people of the “wrong race” in athletics. There’s only your ability and training vs their ability and training. And that’s how it should be in every aspect of everyone’s life.

Posted in affirmative action, Constitution, education, history, politically correct, politics, race, Real Life, society, sports | 3 Comments »

Shove That ‘Native American’ PC Out Your Blowhole

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/11/17

I am part Irish, part Mexican, part Indian (american variety), part Nation of Texas. I do not show my Mexican or Indian heritage but one of my brothers most definitely does. Of the four, three have been soundly rejected by the rest of the people at one time or another. And the fourth? The Nation of Texas was what breed, again? That’s right, mainly a mix of two of the others with Europeans.

Let me be crystal clear here. I despise “politically correct” anything. If you have to add a qualifier to “correct” that means whatever that “correct” is attached to is incorrect, hence, a lie. I adamantly refuse to use PC terminology because PC terminology is a lie. It is a lie of commission. While much is a lie of omission, the omission is intentional, thus making it commission.

And this is exactly what the PC “native American” bovine byproduct is. It is a lie of commission by omission. Any man, woman, or child born of American parents is, by default, a native American. No ifs, ands or buts about it. You are a native American. And, by definition, so am I.

But I also have Indian blood coursing through my veins. That does not make me better than anyone without. That doesn’t make me any more a native of this place than anyone without. That just means I have blood running through my veins that can be traced back to people here before the European settlers arrived. So freaking what?

Every single person in this land born of citizens of this land are native to this land. And if you want to make a spectacle of my native-ness being much greater than yours, shove it out your blowhole!

Posted in affirmative action, history, race, society, stereotype, truth | 3 Comments »

Obama’s Great Intellect

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/09/22

(on the primary trail)
I’ve been to 57 states so far and I have one more to go . . .
*chuckles* My staff won’t let me visit Hawai’i or Alaska.

(in Europe, at “town hall” meeting)
I don’t know how to speak Austrian.

(On ABC) via Patterico
The fact you looked up the definition of “tax” means you’re stretching.

(On ABC) via Patterico
You know, it’s an interesting question. I — I mean I don’t mean to be immodest here, but I don’t think I’ve had that moment with a — with a world leader, where I said gee, you know — you know, we’ve got to really tighten things up.

Gift to Britain’s PM: 25 DVDs that don’t play in European DVD players.

Posted in affirmative action, economics, education, history, humor, media, Obama, politically correct, politics, society, truth | 3 Comments »

Democrat Civil Rights History

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/04/24

Democrats and liberals constantly harp on how they are highly tolerant of everyone while Republicans and conservatives are intolerant of everyone. Democrats and liberals say “this is the way it is and this is the way it always has been and this is the way it always will be.” And the ever-helpful media uncritically parrot this falsehood.

Bob at Black & Right traced back through the history of the US to debunk the lies. He has given me permission to reprint his entire article on Truth Before Dishonor and Common Sense Political thought.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in affirmative action, Constitution, education, history, media, military, politically correct, politics, race, society, stereotype, truth | 13 Comments »

Sexism Is Alive And Well And Living In the US of A

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/02/19

In an era where “equal rights to all” is loudly demanded of everyone, I have to report there is a rapidly expanding segment of society that is refusing membership based solely on gender. If you are the right gender, you are permitted access to various groups and organizations and institutes. But if you are the wrong gender, don’t bother applying for admission; you will be rejected automatically.

It is very easy to find these gender-specific-apartheid organizations and institutions. Yet, there appears to be no outcry against these gender-specific-apartheid organizations within our society, within our press, within governmental organizations. There is a definite intentional subjective blindness on the part of many government agencies and many citizens’ rights activist groups.

If the organizations and bureaus that strongly advocate gender-blindness, and I support much gender-blindness, were to be true to their stated desires, these gender-specific-apartheid organizations would not be permitted to exist in current form. But the organizations and bureaus are not acting with integrity.

What is the realm of the dishonesty? Very succinctly, male-only anything is illegal while female-only anything is promoted. We have school systems that have created female-only schools because “the girls do better without the competitive nature the boys bring.” We have Curves, a female-only gym, because women will be much more comfortable exercising or working out without men present.

I actually have no problem with women-only schools and gyms. The problem I have is the fact that men-only schools and gyms get attacked by “the NAG gang” as Rush Limbaugh calls them (the national organization of gals (NOW)). But the NAG gang sits idly by while women-only schools are advanced and Curves grows. The NAG gang sits idly by while “soroptimists” refuse any males the opportunity for college scholarships, but will attack any group that refuses females the same opportunity.

Again, I have no problem with Curves, girls-only schools, females-only scholarship programs. What I do have a problem with, on the other hand, is the disingenuous attack by organizations such as NAG when comparable gender-specific groups on the other side are systematically attacked. NAG attacks even gender-blended groups for perceived gender imbalances. But heaven forbid anyone attack a female-only establishment.

What do I want? I want the “freedom of association” clause in the US Constitution to actually be upheld. If that means there is some group or organization that rejects me due to my anatomy, fine. If that means there is some group or organization that accepts me due to my anatomy, fine. People need to be free to associate with the types of people with which they wish to associate.

Posted in affirmative action, politically correct, politics, society | 1 Comment »

Consider This

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/06

I All NFL teams shall be required to have at a minimum two caucasian men for each of the following positions: Running Back, Wide Receiver, Defensive Back.
II All NFL teams shall be required to play these caucasian men for a minimum combined official game time of sixty minutes.
III Any NFL team found in violation of these requirements shall be fined no less than 1/160 of total revenue per instance. Should any NFL team be found in violation of these requirements more than four times in five years, the NFL team shall be fined no less than 1/32 of total revenue per instance and shall be excluded from the first two rounds of the NFL draft.
IV The draft exclusion shall remain in effect until the NFL team returns to acceptable standards.
Should any NFL team be excluded four consecutive years, that NFL team shall be dissolved.
V These rules are set in place to provide racial equity. It is well-known caucasians as a whole lack the necessary ability to properly compete for these positions; therefore, it is necessary to provide these requirements to promote equity within the game.

Does the above sound ridiculous to you? Racist, maybe? Does it offend you? Why? Does the above appear to you that caucasians need special help because they’re less than capable of making it on their own? Isn’t that what we’re already doing within certain portions of academia and certain portions of the business sector regarding people of other ethnic backgrounds?

We have regulations in place requiring an accountability regarding placement percentages of people of various ethnic origins. To meet these accountability standards, we have multiple standards to attain placement status. One group of people with a certain ethnic background needs to attain a high standard while another group with a different ethnic background needs to attain a lower standard. And why is that? To obtain a proper ethnic blend.

We are actually telling those of the “wrong” ethnic background “you could not be here unless we gave you a boost due to your inferior ethnic background. Do we really want to tell these people such a thing? Do you truly believe people of certain ethnic backgrounds are less intellectually capable than those of other ethnic backgrounds? I do not believe anything like that.

People need to be judged solely on their ability to do the task at hand, not on any other basis. If I am more qualified to handle a task than someone else, I should be the one given that task. I should not have to take a back seat to someone less qualified simply due to the other person’s “less than capable” ethnic background.

It amazes me how supporters of this supposed “affirmative action” can call me racist when I affirm that race should not be considered. It is definitely racist to claim a certain race should get preferential treatment because that race can’t do it alone. But the “PC” crowd chooses to conveniently disregard the facts to support their agenda. The “PC” crowd prefers to brand unbelievers with labels and stereotypes rather than debate facts. Why? Because any fact-based debate will have them on the losing side.

Posted in affirmative action, politically correct, politics, race, stereotype | Comments Off on Consider This