Are Minorities Brainwashed Into Inferiority Complex?
Apr 23, 2014 Commentary, Terrorism
The Supreme Court upheld a Michigan law that banned affirmative action. The Michigan law basically states that race will not be used as a factor in determining who gets into college. In fact, the Michigan law does not allow colleges to ask the race of the applicant.
The race baiting poverty pimp, and government informant, Al Sharpton is rallying the black folks to do whatever it takes (you know, like riot and protest) to reverse this huge injustice. But what huge injustice is there? We are told that we need equality and a long hard fight was waged for that equality. The Republican Party led the way in ensuring that civil rights were made into law. While one can debate if it was necessary or Constitutional, the fact is we passed a lot of civil rights laws.
So if we want equality why do people of color have to be “more equal” based on their race? Should not one get into college (or anything else like the White House) based on merit and not skin color?
Not according to Al Sharpton and the rest of the race baiters who think that affirmative action is the only way to solve past injustices. In other words, there needs to be a continual advantage for people of color because of inequalities that existed before many of them were born.
One does not solve racial inequality by reversing the racism by giving a leg up based solely on skin color.
Then again, how would Al Sharpton make any money?
It is bad enough that Al uses the issue to provide a solution for a problem that does not exist but what is worse is that many people of color have been told for so long that they are inferior to white people that they seem to believe it. Why are there threats of riots and other civil unrest over the Court’s decision? Why are people fighting for an act that basically says people of color can’t make it on their merits so they need extra help?
It would seem to me that if people believed in equality they would jump at the chance to prove they are on equal footing and worthy of consideration based solely on their abilities. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, Jr., they should be judged not on the color of their skin but on their merits and abilities.
The problem is that many of these folks have been told for so long that they are not as good (and that is the message of affirmative action) so they need a little extra help.
When a state like Michigan says that race will not be asked and will not be used to determine admission folks who have been brainwashed into believing they are inferior get riled up by the race baiters, whose sole job is to keep people down by making them think they are inferior, and act on emotion.
If your scores are not good enough to get you in then your color had nothing to do with it. Perhaps if people (of all colors) spent more time learning and less time listening to people like Sharpton or skipping school to get involved in drug and gang activities they would achieve the scores necessary for admission.
Here is a wake up call. You do not need special treatment to get into school. You have the ability to achieve as well as anyone else regardless of color. There are many highly successful people of color who chose to study and do well in life and you can do that too.
First though, you need to tune out the likes of Al Sharpton and the rest of the race baiters. They will continue to drag you down while they get rich exploiting you (and Al might rat you out for something).
Affirmative Action is a bad program that needs to go away. It causes all kinds of problems.
Look at what happened when we got the Affirmative Action president…
I wonder if Harry Reid will call Al and those he incites domestic terrorists?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: affirmative action, Al Sharpton, civil rights, justice, lies, michigan, supreme court
Michigan Proposes Monarchy
Mar 14, 2011 Political
Apparently the leaders in the state of Michigan have had enough of this damnable “representative” government and have decided to do something about it. It appears that next week they will abolish the representative form of government and replace it with a new form — I guess I’d call it an “elected monarchy.” I’m not sure what term to use for a system of government in which one person is elected, but then appoints someone else who has the power to remove duly elected officials.
Oh sure, it’s not called that. And it’s “for the children” or some such claptrap. And it’s only “for emergencies.” But hey, I’m sure it’s legal, because under our current system of government, any decision made by the legislature is automatically legal, appropriate, and good. After all, they’re so much smarter than everyone else. This just seems like a logical extension — when the people, in their ignorance, select someone they shouldn’t, this new “emergency financial manager” could simply get rid of the elected official, because he’s so much smarter than the people who vote.
Amazingly, this is one of the very few times in which I believe the federal government should step in: Article IV, Section 4:
Section 4 – Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Whoops. Sorry. I was thinking the Constitution was the law of the land. I know, I’m dreaming again.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: inancial crisis, michigan, monarchy
DNC Has a Choice to Make
May 31, 2008 Opinion, Political
The DNC has been put in a terrible bind by the Democratic Politicians in Florida and Michigan who decided that they wanted to hold their primaries early. The DNC told these leaders that if they did so they would not be able to seat their delegates. The states moved their primaries and the candidates all agreed not to campaign in either state because of the DNC ruling. The DNC figured it could be heavy handed with its threats and that the states would back down. When the states did not back down the sanctions were imposed and it did not, at the time, seem like a big deal because Hillary Clinton was the candidate in waiting. Everyone assumed she would be the winner and that is why these states had early primaries, they wanted to have a say in the process.
The Republicans had a front runner in Rudy but took a more conservative approach and decided to strip half of the delegates from any state that went early. This approach has been seen as fair and has caused no real complaints on the Republican side. The Democrats, however, have a real mess on their hands. It did not start out this way. Everyone expected Hillary to win and she, along with the others, agreed that they would not participate in the states that went early and they were all fine with the decisions of the DNC. Then Hillary turned out not to be the winner. She was getting trounced by Obama and all of the sudden she decides that Florida and Michigan should count.
It always seemed to me that the DNC made the wrong decision from the start because they were so damned adamant about every vote counting in 2000 (even all their dead voters and people’s pets). The word disenfranchisement became part of the vocabulary of people who can’t spell DNC and it was the ugly Republicans who were keeping votes from counting. That all turned out to be a bunch of bunk but after all the caterwauling from the Democrats about every vote counting they would come up with something better than not counting every vote.
A lot of people in Florida and Michigan feel disenfranchised (now that they know what it means) and they are upset that their votes, so far do not count. The DNC feels that it has to at least give the appearance of being tough and having rules but they do not want to tick off people in two states they must have to win. What message will they send? Will they keep it so that no votes count and risk losing the states or will they allow some or all of the delegates to be seated thus telling people that while the DNC has rules it is OK to break them. Unless they stick to their original edict, one which all parties knew and agreed to, then they are waffling in favor of politics. How can we expect these people to run our country when they have no respect for rules, not even the ones they establish?
To the Democrats in Michigan and Florida, it was your party leaders who allowed this to happen. If you want to be mad be mad at them. Vote them out of office and replace them with people who can lead. As for being disenfranchised, that is what happens when you allow greed to top the rules. Your states were so greedy to make a difference that they broke the rules. Don’t worry, we in the Republican party would welcome you with open arms. We will count your votes. You Hillary supporters who think she got shafted, vote for our guy to show your party that you disapprove of their leadership. You Obama supporters who feel that he is getting screwed because he did not campaign in those states and therefore did not do well (to know him is to love him) vote for McCain just to show your party that you will not be taken for granted. We will not disenfranchise you like your party did.
The Democrats are working this out. They will bend the rules in some fashion to allow at least some of the delegates to be seated. This is contrary to the rules they established but they are trying to appease people. They are the party of appeasement and they have a candidate in the lead who will meet with unfriendly nations without precondition so that he can appease them. This is the DNC platform, appeasement and they are showing it with regard to Florida and Michigan.
They want to be everything to everybody and that is not leadership.
Related items:
Yahoo News
Yahoo News 2
Tags: delegates, disenfranchise, dnc, florida, michigan, primary
Democrats are not Good at Following Rules
Mar 7, 2008 Political
Democrats in Florida and Michigan decided to hold their primary elections earlier than allowed by the DNC. Both states were informed well in advance of the election that they would not be able to seat delegates if they went ahead with the early voting and the states agreed. Now the Democratic race is tight and the prospect of a brokered convention looms large and is giving the Democratic Party heartburn. Of course, after the voting took place many Democrats cried that people were disenfranchised. If this is the case then they were disenfranchised by their party which is amazing since Democrats claim only Republicans do that to voters.
Howard Dean has tried to be tough on this issue and stated that they would not change the rules that everyone agreed to. Hillary is whining about the delegates (she won the token elections) and Obama’s folks are not happy with the idea of seating delegates in contests he did not compete in. However, the DNC is faced with the possibility of bloodshed at its convention and it wants to do anything to avoid that so the party is looking at alternatives including having another election. Major issues include how much will it cost and who will pay for it? Regardless, the indications are that there will be no “do over” if a number of conditions are not met.
Then again, it looks like the DNC might be forced into about anything. Fox News reported on television today that Florida was considering not including the Democratic candidate on the November ballot if its delegates are not seated. The Democrats know that they need to win Florida in order to win the White House and they do not want an open ballot that gives all the electoral votes to Republican John McCain.
It would appear that not only does Florida not know how to follow rules but now it is showing that it knows how to play dirty in order to get its way. If they had not brought this on themselves I would agree with the tactic but they decided that they wanted to have an impact on the primary and held their election early despite knowing what it would cost. I think they should abide by those rules. If the Democrats decide to have another election then the party should pay for it. Forcing the tax payers to foot the bill is unfair and a waste of money.
Having said that, I like this play by Florida because now it tightens the screws on Howard Dean and the DNC. They will have to seriously consider what Florida wants because that state is in a position to blackmail the party. If the delegates are not seated then Florida will not put the Democrat on the ballot. If Michigan decides to take the same path then the Democrats will not win the presidency.
Regardless of what happens, the infighting and posturing are great to watch and, I for one, pray that this thing keeps going right up until Denver so that they can destroy their party from within much the same way that party is doing to this country.