Sonia Sotomayor Spells Out Racist Utopia Liberals Want
Back in 2006, Michigan voters amended the state constitution to ban state-funded, public colleges and universities from considering race when deciding whether or not to accept a student applicant. You would think that we would all be glad to live in an age when colleges lived up to Martin Luther King’s dream to not consider the color of an applicant’s skin, but rather the content of their academic record.
But no. Even though it would be a crime for a college to turn away a black applicant because he was black, it was somehow necessary to accept a black applicant because he was black. And because colleges can accept only a finite number of students, this practice entailed turning down white students because they were white. No wonder Michigan residents decided to demand a change in the state constitution to eliminate these racist practices.
So people in favor of the racist practices sued on the theory that prohibiting college-entrance racism was unconstitutional. This made its way to the Supreme Court. 6-2 they decided in favor of the right of Michigan voters to decide for themselves what entrance requirements they wanted their schools to apply (Elena Kagan recused herself). According to Politico.com:
“The respondents in this case insist that a difficult question of public policy must be taken from the reach of the voters, and thus removed from the realm of public discussion, dialogue, and debate in an election campaign,” Kennedy wrote in an opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.” Quite in addition to the serious First Amendment implications of that position with respect to any particular election, it is inconsistent with the underlying premises of a responsible, functioning democracy … It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that the voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds.”
So nothing here was said against the idea or practice of making racial identity a reason to prefer a college applicant. I can only assume that the Supreme Court would reverse themselves and come up with a reason to forbid such a practice if public universities favored majorities.
But even merely allowing the states to democratically decide to have racially blind admission policies was some kind of threat against civilization as far as Sotomayor was concerned. She read her dissent out loud. It was longer than the other four written opinions put together. According to AP:
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision tramples on the rights of minorities, even though the amendment was adopted democratically.
“But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups,” said Sotomayor, who read her dissent aloud in the courtroom Tuesday. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with Sotomayor in dissent.
Everyone should know that majorities can oppress minorities. That’s why we need the government to acknowledge limits so that, no matter what the majority want, the government is forbidden from doing unjust things—like taxing people unequally or imposing racial quotas on college student bodies.
But for Sotomayor, you are oppressing a minority if you don’t prefer them over a non-minority in the college application process. This insane idea is “justified”—if the line of reasoning deserves such a term—by the history of racism and alleged racism that exists now.
Of course, if it is racist not to give preferential treatment to minority races, then I can hardly argue against the presence of racism according to that insane definition. When do we ever get to outgrow the sins of history for people possessed by this mindset? You know the answer: never. In fact, it is the gift that keeps on giving since past racial grievances are used to justify a trail of ever new racial grievances. The losers in this situation are all members of peaceful society, whatever their race. The winner is the state, which pacifies society by keeping various members at odds with one another by its race-based devices.
Ironically, the AP story went on in the very next paragraph to mention real inequality in our society and treat it as if it didn’t matter:
Judges “ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society,” Sotomayor said. She is one of two justices, along with Clarence Thomas, who have acknowledged that affirmative action was a factor in their admission to Princeton University and Yale University, respectively. They both attended law school at Yale. Thomas is a staunch opponent of racial preferences.
We have thousands of schools in this country, but only graduates from a handful of Ivy League schools get to be nominated as Supreme Court Justices. Do you really think there are no judges who graduated from other law schools who are qualified to sit on the Supreme Court? Conveniently for the regime, people who go to Yale or Harvard or Princeton are not marked out by race or ethnicity in every individual case. So they can pretend to diversity on the Supreme Court when they are actually one monolithic ruling regime.
Someone can try to argue this difference between Sotomayor and Ginsburg and the rest constitutes “diversity,” but that is nonsense. They all believe that a public institution has the right to feed on taxpayers while discriminating against some taxpayers and in favor of others. They all have a common philosophy, in other words, of tyranny. Their difference over application, though it is a happy thing for Michigan residents, doesn’t change their monolithic and discriminatory make-up.
A real blow for social justice would be struck by banning any graduates from Ivy League schools from holding any office in government for the next century. Now that would be a real attempt to deal with a history of inequality in the United States!
Found at Political Outcast.
This month in public school teachers confiscating Bibles and yelling at students about Bibles
Public school teachers across America are cracking down this month on kids who read the Bible during “read to myself” time or carry a personal copy of the canonical collection of sacred texts through school hallways.
On Tuesday, the family of a second-grade student at Hamilton Elementary School in the Houston suburb of Cypress claimed that the girl’s teacher took her Bible away during “read to myself” time.
Instead of complaining to school officials, the family, which wishes to remain anonymous, took its complaint to the Liberty Institute, a conservative Christian advocacy outfit, Houston-area CBS affiliate KHOU reports.
Michael Berry, one of the attorneys representing the family, noted that the actual incident occurred a couple weeks ago. He also noted that the Hamilton Elementary library includes copies of the Bible.
“So if it’s appropriate for their own library, why on earth would it not be appropriate for their own students?” Berry asked, according to KHOU.
Local parents were split on whether the teacher reacted appropriately when she allegedly swiped a little kid’s Bible during independent reading time.
“They are letting them read the Hunger Games,” parent Jennifer Muse told KHOU. “That’s kids killing kids. Why can’t she read the Bible?”
Finish reading HERE.
Extremely hilarious comparison of God vs. government
Perrysburg,OH – Two things you were always told to never talk about at family gathering has always and will always be religion and politics. Unfortunately for myself my two favorite things to discuss are religion and politics.
Over the weekend I gave a speech at the Toledo Tax Day Rally in Perrysburg, Ohio (a suburb right outside of Toledo) over the differences between God and government. The differences are clear and range from those listed in the video to the difference in approval rating.
The speech was meant to have some humor however also to address some very real issues conservatives have long brought up and even an issue brought up by progressives. Not to brag but I must say this was probably one of my best speeches so far so please make sure to listen to what I would hope is an excellent speech.
5 Ways Obama Has Destroyed The Rule Of Law In America
When you allow unlawful acts to go unpunished, you’re moving toward a government of men rather than a government of law; you’re moving toward anarchy. And that’s exactly what we’re doing. — John Wayne
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. — George Orwell
Tell me why any American should respect the law?
Because it’s moral? Not necessarily. Slavery was once the law of the land. Abortion is the law of the land today. Even in a nation like America, it’s not unusual for laws to be unfair, unjust, and even immoral.
Is it because laws represent the will of the people? Not anymore. Today, the “law” is often summarily created from murky statutes by unelected bureaucrats who face no consequences for destroying people’s lives.
Well, is the law at least equally applied? Absolutely not. Your political affiliation and how well connected you are to the regime in charge can have a direct bearing on whether you’re prosecuted for breaking the law and how serious the penalty will be.
So, what’s left?
Respect for the law? Why should anyone respect arbitrary, immoral laws that aren’t equally applied and don’t reflect the will of the people? Under Barack Obama, the “law” in this country has become nothing more than whatever you can get away with and we’re likely to feel the consequences of that for decades to come.
Finish reading all this HERE.
Welcome to the Paradise of the Real
How to refute progressive fantasies — or, a red-pill economics
Word Problem No. 1: It’s lunchtime for Mrs. Piketty’s second-grade class. Bobby has 20 Gummi Worms, and Jenny has 20 SweeTarts. Bobby and Jenny both like Gummi Worms and SweeTarts, but both like SweeTarts a little bit more, so Jenny trades three of her SweeTarts for four of Bobby’s Gummi Worms. Both are happy with this trade, so they do it again. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?
Word Problem No. 2: Mrs. Piketty is unhappy with the inequality in her second-grade classroom. Jenny’s 20 SweeTarts are valued much more highly than are Bobby’s 20 Gummi Worms, trading at a rate of 3:4. To even things out, Mrs. Piketty gives Bobby a voucher for seven SweeTarts. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?
Word Problem No. 3: Mrs. Piketty’s attempt to solve the problem of inequality in her classroom has yielded unsatisfactory results. Bobby has his 20 Gummi Worms, and Jenny has her 20 SweeTarts, and SweeTarts still trade for Gummi Worms at a rate of 3:4. So Mrs. Piketty enacts some new policies. First, she hires Bobby as a hall monitor and decrees that hall monitors receive a minimum income of at least ten SweeTarts or the equivalent value in Gummi Worms. Also, she decrees that the high price of SweeTarts — three of them cost four Gummi Worms — is oppressive, but she’s not an all-the-way-to-the-wall outright red, either, more of a social-democrat type with a subscription to The Nation, so she simply enacts some counteracting price supports for Gummi Worms, decreeing that they cannot be traded at a price less than 13/15th of a SweeTart. She enlists Mrs. Yellen from the next classroom over to provide zero-interest financing for the purchase of up to five SweeTarts per lunch period, increases Bobby’s voucher allowance to nine SweeTarts per lunch period, and offsets that on her budget with a “fairness” tax of two SweeTarts per lunch period on Jenny, who is the sole member of her tax bracket. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?
Answers: (1.) 40; (2.) 40; (3.) 40. There are only 40 pieces of candy, and rules, vouchers, taxes, zero-interest loans, redistribution, and mandates do not magic more pieces of candy into existence. If Jenny does not like the trading price imposed by Mrs. Piketty, she can keep all of her SweeTarts, while Bobby gets none. If Mrs. Piketty sends out her second-grade tactical SWAT unit to seize Jenny’s SweeTarts and put some serious asset-forfeiture and social-by-God-justice up in her smug little 1-percenter face, Jenny can still leave her SweeTarts at home, eating them before or after school, and maybe even save them up in the hopes that her third-grade teacher next year will not be a howling moonbat. Faced with that inconvenient reality, Mrs. Piketty may demand the repatriation of these SweeTart assets and denounce Jenny as an “economic traitor,” but she does not have any real power outside her classroom. Plus, Jenny and her SweeTarts are sort of popular, and she’s a pretty good student to boot, and so there are other classrooms that would just love to have her, with Mr. Lee’s nicely air-conditioned classroom across the hall offering some very attractive laissez-faire policies vis-à-vis SweeTarts and confectionery gains in general.
Forty is forty is forty, 10 times 4, 8 times 5, 6.32455532034 squared, 23 plus 17. You can set the trading ratio of apples to oranges however you like, but if you have 20 of each, you have 40 pieces of fruit at any price — and the only way to bring more of it into the world is to plant trees, cultivate them, and pick the fruit.
Which is to say: Reality is not optional.
Money is a symbolic system, the purpose of which is to facilitate exchange and to act as a recordkeeping technology. That money is so very important to our everyday lives and yet has no real connection with physical reality is the source of many apparent paradoxes and contradictions. These are the best of times, these are the worst of times.
Measured by money, things look relatively grim for the American middle class and the poor. Men’s inflation-adjusted average wages peaked in 1973, and inflation-adjusted household incomes for much of the middle class have shown little or no growth in some time. The incomes of those at the top of the distribution (which is not composed of a stable group of individuals, political rhetoric notwithstanding) continue to pull away from those in the middle and those at the bottom. The difference between a CEO’s compensation and the average worker’s compensation continues to grow.
Finish reading all this HERE.
Shocking Reality: Clean Drinking Water Could Be Gone In America in Coming Years
The “perfect storm” is brewing when it comes to global clean drinking water supply. The cost of quenching your thirst could be your health.
Currently, there are 768 million people around the world that have no access to clean drinking water and 2.5 billion are without proper sanitation. This according to analysts with Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Research.
“Water scarcity is a pressing people and planet issue,” they write in a recent report on the subject matter.
It’s been discovered that humans have reached what’s called “peak water”, meaning we’re at or very near the limit of environmental, physical and economic demands on the renewable freshwater supply. Of all the water on earth, just 2.5% of it is considered to be fresh water.
When the available amount of water is exceeded by demand, the situation is referred to as “water stress”, which is projected to inflict half of the world’s population by the year 2030. By 2050, 45 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) could be at risk, with as many as 50 nations expected to be involved in conflicts over water.
Water shortages and scarcity are already a major issue in the U.S. Food prices are soaring across the country due to the ongoing drought California is experiencing, where a lot of produce is grown. Meanwhile, the state is planning a series of costly and controversial water desalination plants along its coastline.In California, “water has become the input that is constraining all agricultural outputs right now,” said J.R. DeShazo, director of UCLA’s Luskin Center for Innovation. “And I think that has renewed the policy focus, and the management focus, on how to better utilize what we have, and how to plan for, in the future, reliability and supplies.”
Food price is not all that is soaring in the U.S, an average household’s water bill is costing Americans a lot more than past estimates of around $300. Until recently, most consumers paid less for their drinking water than they did for electricity, cable television, telephone or other goods and services.
But those days are in the past and we’re facing a very dry future. We have treated water as if it were a free resource, as if it were a superabundant resource. As a result, we all need to begin to conserve this valuable resource if there is to be any left in the coming years.
While there are a variety of public policy solutions when it comes to how we deal with energy, waste disposal and recycling issues, our approach to water supply and management still needs to come into the 21st century.
Japanese MP who was angry that Michelle didn’t join president on Tokyo trip makes extraordinary claim that Obama CHEATS and their looming divorce is ‘an open secret’
- Kazuyuki Hamada, a member of the upper house of Japan’s parliament, is miffed that Michelle Obama is staying home as her husband tours Japan
- He claimed on his blog that a marital rift is responsible for the president’s stag trip to Tokyo
- Mrs. and Mrs. Obama, he wrote, have already decided to divorce after he leaves office – a claim mirroring one in the National Enquirer
- Hamada claims Michelle Obama knows her husband is cheating on her and using the Secret Service to hide the evidence
- He wrote a 2009 ‘birther’ book titled ‘Who is Obama?’ that argued the president likely wasn’t born in the United States
Read it all HERE.
How do you like them apples?
I am puzzled as to why racism is thought to be a terrible thing, rather than entirely natural and often reasonable, and why people allow themselves to be brow-beaten about it. Maybe we should stop. Domestic tranquility would follow in torrents.
As nearly as I can tell, a racist is one who approves of rigorous education, good English, civilized manners, minimal criminality, and responsible parenthood, among other things. I am, then, a racist. I see no reason to grovel about it.
I decided long ago that if, while I was doing a radio interview, a caller-in told me, “You a racist!” I would hesitate as if puzzled, and say “…So what?” This would add immeasurably to the planetary supply of stunned silence. The expectation is that anyone so charged will fall on his knees and beg for mercy. It would be a lesser offense to be caught sexually molesting autistic three-year-old girls while attending a Nazi torch-rally.
Herewith another and yet worse confession:: I do not see, or care, why it is thought my duty to like, or dislike, groups because of their race, creed, color, sex, sexual aberration, or national origin. Nor do I think it their duty to like me. I especially do not understand why the federal government should decide with whom I ought to associate.
But back to “So what?” Among its charms is that there is no answer to it, other than huffing and puffing and indignant expostulation. All of these amuse me. Used frequently, “So what?”would shut up people who badly need to shut up, or else force them to think. Not likely, as most apparently cannot.
Let us, improbably, glance at reality. A characteristic of human groups is that they do not like each other. The greater the difference between the groups, the greater the dislike; the closer the contact between them, the more open the friction. Note that before the advent of mass immigration, Americans of whatever politics had no dislike of Hispanics.
Thus separation increases the likelihood of amity. Is this not obvious? The instinctive rancor between disparate groups accounts for most of the world’s problems. Moslems and Christians dislike each other, Tamils and Sinhalese, Cambodians and Vietnamese, blacks and whites, Americans and Frenchmen, men and women, homosexuals and the normal and, as Tom Lehrer famously sang, “…everybody hates the Jews.”
Except that in America Jews are so assimilated that most of us don’t remember to hate them. They aren’t different enough. I’ll have to make myself a note.
Humans like to be among their own kind. This can mean many things. It can be political. In Washington, white liberals cheerlead for diversity while spending their time exclusively with white liberals and execrating Southerners, Jesus Creepers, genocidal conservatives (understood to mean all conservatives), Catholics, racists, owners of guns, rednecks, and so on. No dissenting voices are heard because, like conservatives, liberals choose to be among their own. Similarly, if in any of Washington’s dives you know that one person in a table of six has an IQ in excess 130, it is a good bet that all do. It isn’t snobbery. Smart people enjoy the company of smart people. Their own kind. So what?
If left alone, people will naturally and peacefully form such associations as seem to them desirable. If left alone. So what?
The Chinese cluster together in China Towns because they want to be among their own. So what? Jews have yeshivas because they want to preserve their culture. So what? On campus, black students want separate fraternities and dormitories. So what? When men can find a pretext for being among other men, they do. So what?