Fighting non-racism with racism?

These students want to abandon non-racist policies and replace them with racist versions. Their argument is essentially that racist policies are acceptable if they help under-represented people.

Cornell faculty-student group demands racial quotas, criticizes ‘colorblind’ practices

They are buoyed by Dr. Ibram Kendi, the leader of Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research, who is touted in the same article supporting discrimination as a tool for creating racial equality. However, such discriminatory quotas will not resolve the root cause of the problem, and will introduce their own negative consequences.

Many universities have a race-neutral admissions policy. Why then is it assumed that race is the cause of admission disparities? It is not race that is preventing students of color from being admitted to these schools but rather readiness as measured by coursework, grades and standardized test results. If universities adopt a racial quota system for admissions then student readiness will not have to improve, since students would only have to compete within their own race for admissions. Readiness will not rise, and could actually fall. Would this be good for students?

And how should we deal with the disparity of readiness between students that a race-based quota system might cause? Should we have different classes based on preparedness? Would these classes likely fall among racial lines? How do you think this would impact race opinions on campus?

And what if we take this to the extreme, where students of some races have a generally different course set and grading criteria, all in the name of graduating more under-representing students? Do you think that this will go unnoticed by employers? What effect do you think this might have on their hiring practices? Do you think this will foster inclusivity – or racism?

The correct solution for under-represention in universities is not to establish racial quotas; it is instead to find the root cause of the under-representation and attack that problem directly. If readiness is an issue then we need to find out why and provide resources likely to overcome it. This will bring students up to the expected level, rather than having different levels based on race, and eliminate the potential negative consequences of a racial quota admissions system.

The fact of the matter is that racial quotas – like affirmative action programs – can establish a disparity between the qualifications of some students or graduates, creating an opportunity for racial bias. This is the exact opposite of the stated goals of such a quota system, and as a result these quota systems should be avoided. We should work instead to find the root cause of admissions disparities and then solve those issues directly.

Diversity – except in thought

ACLU staffer fumes at University for accepting Nick Sandmann, calls it a ‘stain’ on the school: report

Nice of this ACLU staffer to chastise someone for their political activities, don’t you think? But it gets worse; from the same article:

An assistant professor and diversity scholar at Transylvania Unversity, Avery Tompkins, shared a comment on the post before it was taken down, calling Sandmann’s “public behavior and rhetoric atrocious and uninformed,” adding that the young student must accept his class as gospel, The National Review reported.

Did you get that? A diversity professor is upset because a soon-to-be student has opinions that differ from their own – and insists that the student “accept as gospel” the professor’s views instead? How diverse of them…

Excerpts from other comments made by this “diversity professor” (cited in the above article):

Tompkins added that Sandmann … would see the professor “as part of some liberal brainwashing machine…”

Based on your comments, professor, I’m beginning to wonder about that too.

The politics of fear

Portland has had 100 nights of protest, ostensibly in response to alleged race-based police brutality incidents. Why then are the protestors promising to continue until Trump is replaced? What does Trump or the federal government have to do with local incidents of alleged police brutality? Federal law and the U.S. Constitution do not allow such brutality, and instead offer protections from such abuses of police power. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for these groups to be protesting local governments and police departments, insisting that they uphold the protections afforded by the Constitution to all Americans?

And why aren’t the local governments reining in the violent protests? The right to peaceably assemble and petition the government does not also grant the right to destroy property and physically attack those with whom you disagree. The courts have long held that municipalities can place restrictions on peaceful protests that wish to use public resources. Limiting the time and place of protests to those where the protest can be properly policed and protected would serve all parties – including the local residents and businesses. Why then have the local governments refused to take such actions?

The answer to both questions is the same: the protests serve a political purpose beneficial to the Democratic party. They serve as a warning and a threat to voters that if Democrats don’t win the next election then violent protests will continue. It is political extortion at its worst, reminiscent of tactics used by some of the world’s most oppressive political regimes.

The protests have nothing to do with the actions of the current administration; there is no blame to befall the Trump administration for the failure of local governments to maintain civilian control and oversight of their police forces in line with constitutional requirements. And it is unacceptable for a local government to fail its citizens by allowing violent, unconstitutional riots to continue unabated for purely political gains.

We need to send a message to the protestors and their brethren: We will not be threatened; we will not be extorted; we will not be silenced. All you need to do to send this message is to vote your conscience on election day – not your fears.

I hate being right

I previously opined that the purpose behind the violent riots/protests happening around our country today might be to threaten voters, to show them what will happen if Trump wins another 4 years in the White House. Turns out I might be right.

As an example, one far-left group – “Refuse Fascism” – has declared that they will organize protests until Trump is removed from power:

“We must make a living declaration to the world that we are uniting, we are organizing, we are determined, we are preparing to struggle with all we’ve got, starting now and not stopping until the Trump/Pence regime is driven from power and its fascist program brought to a halt,” Andy Zee, Refuse Fascism spokesperson, told WBBM 780 Radio.

I find it strange that violent protests are being used to oppose what these groups call “fascism” – given that such violent tactics are the same used by Nazi “brown shirt” fascist forces to intimidate opposition and bring Hitler to power. It should also be noted that the fascists of Nazi Germany were not the free-market capitalists of the Trump administration; they were instead socialists who laid blame for society’s ills on the “rich”. So ask yourself: Which group more closely resembles fascists?  The capitialist, free-speech advocating, right-leaning Trump administration; or the socialist, hate-speech censoring (but only they can determine what counts as “hate” speech), left-leaning forces using threats of ongoing violence and intimidation to put their politician in power?

Yeah, that’s what I think, too.

But what can we do? The far left are a fervent bunch that will do anything to convert America into a socialist dictatorship where their “values” are compelled under force of law; it’s unlikely any of them will come to their senses and see the potential result of their efforts until it is far too late. Are we doomed to eventually cede power to this group and suffer the consequences of dependency, speech censorship, and a propaganda-based media? Or will we come to our senses?

Only time will tell…

They’ve got it all wrong

I generally like the material at the National Review, but I think they got it wrong this time:

How the Far Left Fails Basic Math

Math’s just not the issue. The math is too simple; even the politicians know that this simply won’t work (as the National Review article clearly shows). But the goal of “tax the rich” proposals promulgated by far left democrats is not to pay for some expensive socialist program; that’s just an excuse.  Instead, the real purpose is to simply punish the rich for being rich. It’s jealousy and envy at its worse, and the eager politicians capitalize on it to acquire votes. What’s incredibly short-sighted about this approach is that it buys votes at the cost of destroying our economy. But what do you expect from voters who are so revenge-driven that their top goal is to destroy those more successful than themselves? Reason?

A threat?

I think I finally figured out the reasoning behind liberal support for the rioters besieging our major metropolitan cities.

Until now I had assumed that liberals and the press wanted to blame Trump for the violence in hopes of attaching the violence to his re-election campaign. But that hasn’t worked so well – many are already fed up with the unchecked protest/riot activity in their towns. But what if that’s not the actual purpose of the riots?

How’s this for an alternative theory: The riots are an extortion threat to the American public: if you don’t elect Biden, then this is what we’ll do every day.

Clearly, the uber-left mayors of some cities – such as Portland, Seattle, Austin, etc. – can let this go on forever. They could also stop riots immediately if they so chose. So why let them continue, unless they provide a tactical political benefit?

WHO’S throwing gasoline???

Democrats claim that Trump went to Wisconsin:

“…like an arsonist pouring gasoline on the flames for political advantage…”

Uh… a couple of points:

1) The rioters so revered by the left are literally using gasoline.

2) The author (no surprise here…) compares Trump’s actions to those of Alabama’s Governor George Wallace – a Democrat – during Wallace’s attempt to prevent desegregation of southern schools. Really; you can’t make this s**t up – the Democrats are actually trying to disparage Trump by comparing him to a… Democrat.

3) The author goes so far as to use fictitious quotes that they would attribute to Trump had he actually been present at these events. They seem to simply be making this all up as they go! How much do you want to bet that tomorrow liberals will be citing these quotes a fact rather than hyperbole?

Read this piece if you really want to understand the dark heart of the political movement working to unseat Trump. You should be afraid – very afraid – if these people come to power.

Progressives v. you

Pelosi used shuttered San Francisco hair salon for blow-out, owner calls it ‘slap in the face’

And you think the Democrats are working for your benefit? Do you really think that your life will be better once they’ve gained control? What are the odds?

Take a clue from Bill DeBlasio, the liberal darling progressive mayor of New York City. A few quotes from Bill will lead you to see the true goal of the progressive liberal movement – control:

“Here’s the truth, brothers and sisters, there’s plenty of money in the world. Plenty of money in this city,” the mayor said, flanked by screens with graphs of productivity outpacing compensation. “It’s just in the wrong hands!”

Progressive politicians will try to convince you that they can take money from others and give it to you in return for your vote, but there simply isn’t enough money available to loot from the rich to go around. But in the mean time, in the hope of being able to pick the pockets of your betters for rewards you have not earned, you’ll vote for Bill with your hand out. If you’re lucky he won’t spit in it.

The same applies to “government” housing, which democrats also want to control for the votes it carries. Think not? Here’s another quote from our friend Bill:

“I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be,” de Blasio said in a wide-ranging interview with New York Magazine.  [emphasis mine]

Think that you’ll get a cheap, rent-subsidized apartment from the progressive politicians? Think again: From the NYCHA web-page FAQ: “Public housing apartments are owned and operated by NYCHA. More than 400,000 New Yorkers reside in one of the 178,895 apartments located around the five boroughs of New York City.” Unfortunately, the NY City Housing Authority has a public housing waiting list of over 160,000 applications. Will you be one of the lucky ones?

At least under the Republicans you can have whatever you can earn, free from the fear of being robbed by the government for “redistribution” to others. And, you’ll have equal access to businesses – rather than having them closed to service only the progressive politicians.

Your choice: Freedom, or dependence and control. Now’s the time to decide.

Pot calls the kettle black, so it explodes

I wonder how the CNN reporter would have reacted if the intern had referred to her in a way disparaging both women and her race? And all of this the result of an email noting that a claim made by the reporter against a conservative politician applies equally well to the reporter?

CNN’s Asha Rangappa doxxes Free Beacon intern, mocks her as ‘Karen’ after Twitter intervenes