Some call it a backing of affirmative action policies, while others call it a full-throated endorsement of discrimination. Regardless, 13 attorneys general, led by New York’s own Eric Schneiderman, have filed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold racial preferences in college admissions.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, on behalf of 14 states, is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold racial preferences in college admissions.
The court is scheduled to hear arguments Oct. 10 in a lawsuit by Abigail Fisher, a white student who was not admitted to the University of Texas in 2008. Fisher is challenging the university’s admissions policy as a violation of her civil and constitutional rights.
The court’s ruling will be its first on affirmative action in higher education since 2003.
“The states all share a strong interest in preserving the flexibility of their varied institutions to pursue a range of strategies to achieve the educational benefits of diversity in higher education,” Schneiderman and state Solicitor General Barbara Underwood said in a brief filed late Monday. They noted that public schools like the State University of New York, ranging from community colleges to research universities, enroll about 72 percent of post-secondary students nationally and play an especially important role for students with modest means.
Other states joining the brief were Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia, plus the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The Justice Department has argued that a diverse college population is not only in the best interest of the university, but also the government’s. But the tactics in which a college attains that diversity is what is in question, as the University of Texas had shifted from accepting students based on class rank, to finding other ways to diversify the student population. In other words, some students who may have been accepted based on academic performance would now compete with others who may have been chosen based on better personal essays or on their extracurricular merits – and with race in mind.
The brief (provided below) is very similar to one filed in 2010 with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, also supporting the University of Texas’ use of racial preferences in their undergraduate admissions process. The brief had been filed by then solicitor general and current Justice, Elena Kagan, and stems from the same battle begun in the 2003 ruling that narrowly permitted race-conscious policies in public higher education.
Such blatant support for the exploitation of race in education was panned by the National Review’s Roger Clegg, when he described the brief as “a full-throated endorsement of such discrimination.”
The Supreme Court’s review of this affirmative action case may have political ramifications as well. The review is expected to occur in October—placing it squarely in the minds of voters just weeks prior to the presidential election.
A new report from Accuracy in Media, authored by myself and Cliff Kincaid, explores the question of whether or not President Obama, his campaign, and his staff, are the most racially divisive administration in recent memory.
Here is a very brief excerpt from the 5,000+ word report:
The morning after Election Day, 2008, The New York Times proclaimed that Barack Obama’s victory had swept “away the last racial barrier in American politics.” However, as the President’s first term draws to a close, a case can be made that the historic election was anything but post-racial; rather, it has been the most racially polarizing presidency in modern times.
This article is meant to examine in-depth, the racial, if not racist, agenda of the Obama administration. The new evidence about the racist influence that Frank Marshall Davis had over Barack Obama puts these matters in a new and frightening perspective. Seemingly spontaneous comments Obama has made on racial matters take on a new significance in view of the Kengor book and his revelations about Davis and Obama.
The upcoming election will likely see an escalation of racial tactics on Obama’s part…
The investigative report, titled Reason to Hate: Barack Obama’s Racist Roots, explores the relationship a young Barack Obama had with Communist Frank Marshall Davis, points out specific instances where the President has governed along racial lines, examines how the ever-friendly media has portrayed race in America and this administration, and outlines how Democrats are actively using ‘race training’ as a way to win elections and push their agenda.
Caught your attention with that headline, right? But, why?
Because of it’s undeniable and blatantly racist connotation.
Problem is … That’s not an actual headline. Nor is it an actual news story. But this is…
Liberal group calls Romney too white for blacks to like
Bet your ass if that headline read the way the original does, it would be national news.
The message is delivered via video produced by a liberal group headed by an ex-Media Matters executive, and includes such gems as – Romney is so white, he makes Wonder Bread look like pumpernickel … or something.
As is typical, the message hides behind the facade of being a ‘satire’ or comedy. And they will get away with it.
In advance of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s speech Wednesday to the NAACP, a liberal group headed by a former New York Times reporter and ex-Media Matters executive have produced a video “satire” that claims blacks don’t like Romney, who they dub so white he makes “Wonder Bread look like pumpernickel.”
The YouTube from “The Message,” an online “media hub,” is described as a satirical video of Romney getting advice on what to say to the civil rights group. Or, as they said in a release, the video “lacerates Romney and his advisors as they prepare for his speech to NAACP in Houston on Wednesday.”
The lead “advisor” in the video is described as the brainchild of the 1988 Willie Horton ads and the 2004 swift boat campaign. He states bluntly that “blacks don’t like us and we’re about to give a speech to a whole lot of them.”
Here’s the video…
Satire or not, this video is meant to plant the thought that Romney is your typical rich, white guy who can’t relate to the average African-American.
Now imagine a Tea Party group trying to produce a rebuttal to this and see how it would be reported. Would they be able to call it satire? Or comedy?
Or would they be branded racists?
The Trayvon Martin case is becoming a frightening issue, and professional violence-inciting racists are capitalizing on the tragedy in epic fashion.
Members of the New Black Panther Party are offering a $10,000 reward for the “capture” of George Zimmerman, the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who shot Trayvon Martin.
New Black Panther leader Mikhail Muhammad announced the reward during a protest in Sanford Saturday. And when asked whether he was inciting violence, Muhammad replied defiantly: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”
The bounty announcement came moments after members of the group called for the mobilization of 10,000 black men to capture Zimmerman, who shot Trayvon in a gated Sanford community on Feb. 26.
Muhammad said members of his group would search for Zimmerman themselves in Maitland — where the 28-year old worked before the shooting, employees there told the Orlando Sentinel. He declined to say when the group would begin their search.
So where is the post-racial President, and his calming influence? Where is the man who somehow had the time to have a beer summit with Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Sgt. James Crowley, and referred to the incident as a “teachable moment”?
Marathon Pundit also asks, where’s Eric Holder?
Clearly not all of the facts are out in this tragic case. I’m waiting for Attorney General Eric Holder, the man who dropped the charges against the neo-Panthers in the Philly case in 2009, to denounce this vigilante behavior.
Yesterday racism-inciter Jesse Jackson added to the frenzy by declaring that “blacks are under attack.”
The reward was announced at a protest, one that included a chant of “freedom or death.”
The answer of course is, they have to figure out the political angle first. If it isn’t going to help the President win reelection, then it simply isn’t worth their time. Meanwhile, people are being tempted with thousands in cash to go vigilante in the community.
Of course, the New Black Panther Party is known for this kind of violent rhetoric. Back in 2000, the party’s leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz, was inciting violence in the community when he said:
“When we see caskets rolling and funerals in the black community … we will see caskets and funerals in the community of our enemy.”
That video can be seen over at C-Span in its entirety…
President Obama hasn’t seen a race card he’s not willing to play, and that includes his personal vendetta against Fox News. The petty feud has almost entirely been fabricated in the President’s mind, as he seems fixated on the sole network in mainstream media that isn’t in the tank for him.
President Barack Obama blamed Fox News for his political woes in a private meeting with labor leaders in 2010, saying he was “losing white males” who tune into the cable outlet and “hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7,” according to journalist David Corn’s new book, “Showdown.”
In “Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party” — which hits bookstores on Tuesday — the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones chronicles the White House from the 2010 midterm elections to the start of the 2012 campaign. The book focuses on key moments of Obama’s presidency, such as Osama bin Laden’s assassination, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Arab Spring, the debt ceiling crisis, and the president’s dealings with Congress.
Corn writes that after the midterm elections, Obama told labor leaders in December 2010 that he held Fox partly responsible for him “losing white males.”
“…Fed by Fox News, they hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7, and it begins to seep in…The Republicans have been at this for 40 years. They have new resources, but the strategy is old,” Corn recounted Obama as saying.
I’ve watched Fox News for quite some time (believe it or not I used to watch Olbermann), and I’ve never heard them once say Obama is a Muslim, let alone 24/7.
This just goes to prove one thing… Obama lies so frequently, he’s even willing to convince himself of things that are untrue.
At some point, the Obama administration will have officially played the race card so much, that it will become completely irrelevant. How we haven’t hit that point yet is beyond me – but if Obama himself is using it, then his internal polling is indicating it’s effectiveness.
Via White House Dossier:
At a Washington fundraiser Monday night, President Obama subtly played the race card, suggesting that Republican presidential candidates would deny people opportunity based on the color of their skin.
The post then goes on to demonstrate three separate occasions in which either President Obama,or Michelle Obama, tried hinting that Republican Presidential candidates would deny people opportunity based on skin color or class.
First, the President at a Washington fundraiser:
Everything we fought for during the last election is at stake in this election. The very core of what this country stands for is on the line — the basic promise that no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, this is a place where you could make it if you try. The notion that we’re all in this together, that we look out for one another — that’s at stake in this election. Don’t take my word for it. Watch some of these debates that have been going on up in New Hampshire.
Then, to a Latino group in October:
I believe America should be a place where you can always make it if you try; a place where every child, no matter what they look like, where they come from, should have a chance to succeed . . . I still believe in that America. I believe we can be that America again.
And finally Michelle during another October fundraiser:
Will we be a country where opportunity is limited to just the few at the top? Or will we give every child — every child — a chance to succeed, no matter where she’s from, or what she looks like, or how much money her parents are? Who are we? That’s what’s at stake here.
If only Republicans govern with looks, race, and class in mind, then why is it the President who is always talking about looks, race, and class?