For Mr Ogbjma, his jihad was established decades ago, dictated by his father and mentored by his relationships with religious radicals over seas and in Chicago under the tutelage of Rev. Wright.
Monday, June 27, 2016
Mr Ogbjma Found Needing A Change : The Past Predicts The Future?
For Mr Ogbjma, his jihad was established decades ago, dictated by his father and mentored by his relationships with religious radicals over seas and in Chicago under the tutelage of Rev. Wright.
North Korea Explains World Power to Mr Ogbjma : More & Bigger Missiles
The question that is foremost in many active minds is, can the Untied States fight a three or four front war that the same time? The answer is no, not a chance. We can hardly fight a single front war much less even a two front war.
As a result of the Ogbjma policy of withdrawal, the forces of destruction move further and faster to dominate the world. Fighting the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and the North Koreans at the same time is begging mental incapacity to understand reality.
With the substantial cuts to the military by Mr Ogbjma and the progressive socialist liberal democrats on both sides of the aisle, along with the withdrawal from situations around the world where we have fought and won ground to control our enemies, just to satisfy Mr Ogbjma's ideology, his personal jihad of revenge for past Western atrocities, not the least of these, Muslims, the coming conflicts, both conventional and nuclear will determine the survival of America and our freedom.
Know this, Mr Ogbjma's personal jihad for destruction of American societally as it was founded as he sees it being unresponsive to his ideology of promised transformation, is paramount.
In any event, America will be a different country then is was just a short 71/2 years ago as the policies set in motions by Mr Ogbjma, along with an ignorant majority of the population are now mostly mainstream.
Welcome to 'The New Wave World' as envisioned by Mr Ogbjma. The 'new wave world' of a one world government to decide all outcomes. Oh, and guess who will be the ruling supreme leader?
North Korea Advances Missile Threat Capabilities
Bruce Klingner /
After a series of previous failures, Pyongyang achieved partial success with the most recent launches of its Musudan intermediate-range ballistic missile. On June 21, the two Musudan missiles traveled 150 and 400 kilometers—far short of a fully successful test but indicating incremental progress toward eventually achieving its estimated range of 3,500 kilometers. North Korea’s four previous Musudan test flights in April and May 2016 had all exploded shortly after launch.
Pyongyang achieved similar partial progress this year with its submarine-launch ballistic missile (SLBM) traveling 30 kilometers after several previous explosions immediately after launch.
The Musudan missile is assessed to be North Korea’s means to threaten U.S. bases in Guam, a critical node in allied plans for defending South Korea. Earlier this month, North Korea’s National Defense Commission warned that “The Korean People’s Army has long put into the range of its precision strike the U.S. bases and logistic bases for invading the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea], including the Anderson Air Force Base on Guam where B-52Hs are deployed and naval bases for nuclear submarines.”
Pyongyang’s willingness to repeatedly test fire the Musudan and submarine-launch ballistic missiles so quickly after failures is unusual and reflects North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s commitment to rapidly augmenting his missile and nuclear arsenal. In addition to the Musudan and submarine launches this year, Kim has tested a nuclear weapon, an intercontinental ballistic missile, reentry vehicle technology, a new solid-fuel rocket engine, and an improved liquid-fuel ICBM engine.
While North Korea continues development of the Musudan and submarine-launch ballistic missile systems, the regime has made greater progress on other missiles.
Adm. Bill Gortney, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command, assessed that North Korea is capable of putting a nuclear warhead on the No Dong medium-range ballistic missile that can reach all of South Korea and Japan.
In April 2015, Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, then-commander of U.S. Forces Korea, testified that North Korea “have stated that they had had intercontinental missiles and they had a nuclear capability, and they paraded it. As a commander, I think, we must assume that they have that capability.”
Other experts assess Pyongyang will have an ICBM capability in one to two years. The accelerated pace of North Korean nuclear and missile tests reflect Kim’s intent to deploy a spectrum of missiles systems of complementary ranges to threaten the U.S. and its allies with nuclear weapons. Kim affirmed at the National Party Congress in May—the first held in 36 years—that North Korea will never negotiate away its nuclear weapons.
Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile tests this year have caused near unanimity of view on the necessity of having more expansive and effective sanctions. But questions remain as to how firmly China—and the Obama administration—will implement recently expanded sanctions authorities.
South Korea, though firm on sanctions, hesitates in deploying sufficient missile defenses to protect its citizens and U.S. forces deployed there. South Korea does not have any ballistic missile defenses against a submarine-launch ballistic missile. The SM-2 missile currently deployed on South Korean destroyers only provides protection against anti-ship missiles. The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, ballistic missile defense system that the U.S. wants to deploy to South Korea would enhance protection against North Korean land-based missiles such as the Scud and No-Dong.
Seoul has hesitated to allow deployment due to Chinese pressure.
As a result of the Ogbjma policy of withdrawal, the forces of destruction move further and faster to dominate the world. Fighting the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and the North Koreans at the same time is begging mental incapacity to understand reality.
With the substantial cuts to the military by Mr Ogbjma and the progressive socialist liberal democrats on both sides of the aisle, along with the withdrawal from situations around the world where we have fought and won ground to control our enemies, just to satisfy Mr Ogbjma's ideology, his personal jihad of revenge for past Western atrocities, not the least of these, Muslims, the coming conflicts, both conventional and nuclear will determine the survival of America and our freedom.
Know this, Mr Ogbjma's personal jihad for destruction of American societally as it was founded as he sees it being unresponsive to his ideology of promised transformation, is paramount.
In any event, America will be a different country then is was just a short 71/2 years ago as the policies set in motions by Mr Ogbjma, along with an ignorant majority of the population are now mostly mainstream.
Welcome to 'The New Wave World' as envisioned by Mr Ogbjma. The 'new wave world' of a one world government to decide all outcomes. Oh, and guess who will be the ruling supreme leader?
North Korea Advances Missile Threat Capabilities
Bruce Klingner /
After a series of previous failures, Pyongyang achieved partial success with the most recent launches of its Musudan intermediate-range ballistic missile. On June 21, the two Musudan missiles traveled 150 and 400 kilometers—far short of a fully successful test but indicating incremental progress toward eventually achieving its estimated range of 3,500 kilometers. North Korea’s four previous Musudan test flights in April and May 2016 had all exploded shortly after launch.
Pyongyang achieved similar partial progress this year with its submarine-launch ballistic missile (SLBM) traveling 30 kilometers after several previous explosions immediately after launch.
The Musudan missile is assessed to be North Korea’s means to threaten U.S. bases in Guam, a critical node in allied plans for defending South Korea. Earlier this month, North Korea’s National Defense Commission warned that “The Korean People’s Army has long put into the range of its precision strike the U.S. bases and logistic bases for invading the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea], including the Anderson Air Force Base on Guam where B-52Hs are deployed and naval bases for nuclear submarines.”
Pyongyang’s willingness to repeatedly test fire the Musudan and submarine-launch ballistic missiles so quickly after failures is unusual and reflects North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s commitment to rapidly augmenting his missile and nuclear arsenal. In addition to the Musudan and submarine launches this year, Kim has tested a nuclear weapon, an intercontinental ballistic missile, reentry vehicle technology, a new solid-fuel rocket engine, and an improved liquid-fuel ICBM engine.
While North Korea continues development of the Musudan and submarine-launch ballistic missile systems, the regime has made greater progress on other missiles.
Adm. Bill Gortney, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command, assessed that North Korea is capable of putting a nuclear warhead on the No Dong medium-range ballistic missile that can reach all of South Korea and Japan.
In April 2015, Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, then-commander of U.S. Forces Korea, testified that North Korea “have stated that they had had intercontinental missiles and they had a nuclear capability, and they paraded it. As a commander, I think, we must assume that they have that capability.”
Other experts assess Pyongyang will have an ICBM capability in one to two years. The accelerated pace of North Korean nuclear and missile tests reflect Kim’s intent to deploy a spectrum of missiles systems of complementary ranges to threaten the U.S. and its allies with nuclear weapons. Kim affirmed at the National Party Congress in May—the first held in 36 years—that North Korea will never negotiate away its nuclear weapons.
Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile tests this year have caused near unanimity of view on the necessity of having more expansive and effective sanctions. But questions remain as to how firmly China—and the Obama administration—will implement recently expanded sanctions authorities.
South Korea, though firm on sanctions, hesitates in deploying sufficient missile defenses to protect its citizens and U.S. forces deployed there. South Korea does not have any ballistic missile defenses against a submarine-launch ballistic missile. The SM-2 missile currently deployed on South Korean destroyers only provides protection against anti-ship missiles. The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, ballistic missile defense system that the U.S. wants to deploy to South Korea would enhance protection against North Korean land-based missiles such as the Scud and No-Dong.
Seoul has hesitated to allow deployment due to Chinese pressure.
U.S. Military Actively Supports Destruction of Christianity : God Is Not Welcome
And now we have moved another step closer to the destruction of our military as a viable and cohesive force to protect the homeland. This attack on an individual's right to free speech and his Constitutional right to his profession of religious affiliation has become a crime against the state.
Remember how this worked out for the Chinese and the Germans?
Know this is not accident but by design. There has been a willful and ideological move on the part of Mr Ogbjma and the progressive socialist liberal democrats to limit, if not totally eliminate any references to God on government properties and any where else where federal monies are in use, such as state schools, colleges and universities, but not limited in any way in all other parts of the country where groups gather to celebrate Christian religious beliefs if the population is willing to stands down. This includes churches.
Remember the attacks on sermons given by pastors in large Texas city that where found to be in conflict with the local politics? Progressive politics is corrosive and therefore ultimately a corrupting and destructive influence.
There can be only one god and that is god of government and those that are in control.
The infestation of progressives into all aspects of our society is becoming a force, not just a happenstance. They are emboldened to move as fast and as far toward their goal of a subservient and obedient society as there is little or no opposition. Republicans and Conservatives stand by like deer in the headlights.
Air Force Base Silences Veteran for Using the Word ‘God’ in a Retirement Speech
Leah Jessen / @_LeahKay_ /
Uniformed airmen forcibly removed an Air Force veteran from a military base because he invoked God in a speech for a retirement ceremony, according to the legal group that represents him.
They escorted Oscar Rodriguez Jr. from the “flag-folding” ceremony as the 33-year veteran began his remarks at Travis Air Force Base in California. “It was one of the most humiliating experiences of my life,” Rodriguez, who retired from the Air Force as a senior master sergeant, said in a June 20 press release prepared by his lawyers. He added:
Rodriguez enlisted in the Air Force Army Reserve in 1980. He started out training as an avionic technician and later was promoted to section chief. He retired in 2013 as senior master sergeant.
His speech mentions God about six times, Mike Berry, senior counsel and director of military affairs at First Liberty Institute, told The Daily Signal. “It is this one nation under God that we call, with honor, the United States of America,” a transcript of the speech says. “God bless our flag. God bless our troops. God bless America.”
Roberson’s unit commander at Travis Air Force Base tried to prevent Rodriguez from attending the ceremony, his lawyers say. They say the commander lacked the authority to prevent Rodriguez from attending, but then told Roberson that Rodriguez could not give the speech. Roberson and Rodriguez tried to clear the speech through higher authorities at Travis, but did not receive a response, according to First Liberty Institute. “Contrary to what the commanding officer here has told Chuck and Oscar, you can have religious speech in a retirement ceremony,” Berry told The Daily Signal, referring to Roberson and Rodriguez.
The ceremony initially went on as planned. When Rodriguez began his speech, though, uniformed personnel forcibly grabbed and removed him, Berry said. First Liberty Institute issued a demand letter to military leaders, asking them to apologize to Rodriguez and hold responsible parties accountable for their actions. “The United States military has no right to do this to a private citizen,” Berry said. Saying the actions against Rodriguez are unlawful and violate the Constitution, Berry told The Daily Signal:
“The Air Force Instruction 1-1 Section 2.12 makes it very, very clear” that the commander is responsible for everything that happens on the base, Weinstein said. Rodriguez’s rights are different on a military installation at an official ceremony than at a private, unofficial ceremony, he said.
“We feel the Air Force probably should have court-martialed [Roberson] here,” Weinstein said.
A Travis Air Force Base spokesman told The Daily Signal that there is a local investigation into the situation.
“The Secretary of the Air Force has directed the Air Force inspector general to conduct an independent investigation into events that took place April 3, 2016, at a retirement ceremony at Travis Air Force Base, California,” Capt. Brooke Brzozowske told The Daily Signal in an email.
Brzozowske added:
Remember how this worked out for the Chinese and the Germans?
Know this is not accident but by design. There has been a willful and ideological move on the part of Mr Ogbjma and the progressive socialist liberal democrats to limit, if not totally eliminate any references to God on government properties and any where else where federal monies are in use, such as state schools, colleges and universities, but not limited in any way in all other parts of the country where groups gather to celebrate Christian religious beliefs if the population is willing to stands down. This includes churches.
Remember the attacks on sermons given by pastors in large Texas city that where found to be in conflict with the local politics? Progressive politics is corrosive and therefore ultimately a corrupting and destructive influence.
There can be only one god and that is god of government and those that are in control.
The infestation of progressives into all aspects of our society is becoming a force, not just a happenstance. They are emboldened to move as fast and as far toward their goal of a subservient and obedient society as there is little or no opposition. Republicans and Conservatives stand by like deer in the headlights.
Air Force Base Silences Veteran for Using the Word ‘God’ in a Retirement Speech
Leah Jessen / @_LeahKay_ /
Uniformed airmen forcibly removed an Air Force veteran from a military base because he invoked God in a speech for a retirement ceremony, according to the legal group that represents him.
They escorted Oscar Rodriguez Jr. from the “flag-folding” ceremony as the 33-year veteran began his remarks at Travis Air Force Base in California. “It was one of the most humiliating experiences of my life,” Rodriguez, who retired from the Air Force as a senior master sergeant, said in a June 20 press release prepared by his lawyers. He added:
I have given more than three decades of service to the military and made many sacrifices for my country. To have the Air Force assault me and drag me out of a retirement ceremony simply because my speech included the word ‘God’ is something I never expected from our military.Rodriguez was set to deliver the flag-folding speech at Master Sgt. Charles “Chuck” Roberson’s retirement ceremony April 3 at Travis Air Force Base. Roberson had heard Rodriguez give the speech at a friend’s retirement ceremony and invited Rodriguez to give the same speech for him according to First Liberty Institute, a legal organization that defends the religious freedom of Americans.
Rodriguez enlisted in the Air Force Army Reserve in 1980. He started out training as an avionic technician and later was promoted to section chief. He retired in 2013 as senior master sergeant.
His speech mentions God about six times, Mike Berry, senior counsel and director of military affairs at First Liberty Institute, told The Daily Signal. “It is this one nation under God that we call, with honor, the United States of America,” a transcript of the speech says. “God bless our flag. God bless our troops. God bless America.”
Roberson’s unit commander at Travis Air Force Base tried to prevent Rodriguez from attending the ceremony, his lawyers say. They say the commander lacked the authority to prevent Rodriguez from attending, but then told Roberson that Rodriguez could not give the speech. Roberson and Rodriguez tried to clear the speech through higher authorities at Travis, but did not receive a response, according to First Liberty Institute. “Contrary to what the commanding officer here has told Chuck and Oscar, you can have religious speech in a retirement ceremony,” Berry told The Daily Signal, referring to Roberson and Rodriguez.
The ceremony initially went on as planned. When Rodriguez began his speech, though, uniformed personnel forcibly grabbed and removed him, Berry said. First Liberty Institute issued a demand letter to military leaders, asking them to apologize to Rodriguez and hold responsible parties accountable for their actions. “The United States military has no right to do this to a private citizen,” Berry said. Saying the actions against Rodriguez are unlawful and violate the Constitution, Berry told The Daily Signal:
We’ve seen enough instances of religious hostility in our military now over the last several years, and it continues to get worse and worse every year … I really think Congress needs to step in now and begin mandating constitutional training for our military leaders so that they understand that just because they wear a uniform and just because they have a large amount of authority as a commanding officer in the military, it doesn’t give them carte blanche to break the law or to trample over the Constitution.“Rodriguez ignored numerous requests to respect the Air Force prescribed ceremony and unfortunately was forcibly removed,” a Travis Air Force Base official said in a statement to FoxNews.com in April. Mikey Weinstein, founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, told The Daily Signal that the Air Force took the correct action by removing Rodriguez. Weinstein said it’s important to follow Defense Department directives, instructions, and regulations.
“The Air Force Instruction 1-1 Section 2.12 makes it very, very clear” that the commander is responsible for everything that happens on the base, Weinstein said. Rodriguez’s rights are different on a military installation at an official ceremony than at a private, unofficial ceremony, he said.
“We feel the Air Force probably should have court-martialed [Roberson] here,” Weinstein said.
A Travis Air Force Base spokesman told The Daily Signal that there is a local investigation into the situation.
“The Secretary of the Air Force has directed the Air Force inspector general to conduct an independent investigation into events that took place April 3, 2016, at a retirement ceremony at Travis Air Force Base, California,” Capt. Brooke Brzozowske told The Daily Signal in an email.
Brzozowske added:
Regarding the Air Force policy on retirement ceremonies, Air Force personnel may use a flag-folding ceremony script that is religious for retirement ceremonies. Since retirement ceremonies are personal in nature, the script preference for a flag-folding ceremony is at the discretion of the individual being honored and represents the member’s views, not those of the Air Force. The Air Force places the highest value of the rights on its personnel in matters of religion and facilitates the free exercise of religion by its members.
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Asian Americans Sue Ivy League Schools : Admission Denied by Race
And what just happened in the case that was just decided by the Supreme Court by a 4 to 3 decision in Texas school that saw race admissions was okay. What this is called is 'social engineering' by the progressives for the ultimate goal of leveraging society to meet the ideological outcome desired, and that is allowing individual freedom of choice to be replaced by a centralized power to regulate.
Asian-American Students Suspect Discrimination in Ivy League Admissions
Elizabeth Slattery / @EHSlattery /
Any day now the U.S. Supreme Court will hand down its decision in Abigail Fisher’s discrimination suit against the University of Texas at Austin. However the justices rule in that case, more lawsuits challenging schools’ discriminatory admissions programs are likely to come.
In May, the Asian American Coalition for Education and 130 other Asian-American groups asked the U.S. Department of Education and the Justice Department to investigate Yale University, Brown University, and Dartmouth College for their use of discriminatory admissions policies, which they claim amount to “race-based quotas” that lock out well-qualified Asian-American applicants.
They point to data from the Department of Education showing that Asian-American enrollment at Brown and Yale has been stagnant since 1995 and at Dartmouth since 2004 despite an increase in highly qualified Asian-American students applying to these schools during that time. The groups highlight in their complaint that Asian-American applicants with almost perfect SAT scores, GPAs in the top 1 percent, and excellent extracurricular records have been routinely rejected from top schools, while similar candidates of other races are accepted.
In fact, data show that Asian-Americans must score, on average, “approximately 140 point[s] higher than a White student, 270 points higher than a Hispanic student and 450 points higher than a Black student on the SAT, in order to have the same chance of admission.” The groups suspect Yale, Brown, Dartmouth, and other Ivy League schools “impose racial quotas and caps to maintain what they believe are ideal racial balances,” harkening back to the days of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
Like many other schools, Yale, Brown, and Dartmouth use a “holistic” approach to evaluate applicants, which allows race and ethnicity to become a large factor in the admission equation. In their complaint, the Asian-American groups assert that these colleges rely on stereotypes and biases to deny Asian-Americans admission. These include that Asian-Americans are not creative or well-rounded, lack critical thinking skills and leadership experience, and focus on studying instead of extracurricular activities.
Admission board reviewers’ notes track these stereotypes: “He’s quiet and, of course, wants to be a doctor” or her “scores and application seem so typical of other Asian applications I’ve read: Extraordinarily gifted in math with the opposite extreme in English….” Since the admissions policies at these schools are “shrouded in secrecy,” they freely discriminate against Asian-American applicants. In fact, Yale’s law school recently began destroying its admissions records, presumably to avoid having to disclose the criteria such as race and other standards they use to determine admissions.
The groups outline the harm these discriminatory policies cause, such as a cynical and negative view of the American higher education system and a lack of trust in the purported American meritocracy. The applicants themselves feel immense pressure to overachieve in order to gain one of the limited “Asian-American spots,” leading to more stress, an increased suicide rate, attempts to hide their racial identity, lower self-esteem, race-related conflict, and resentment.
Though the concept of race-preferential admissions undoubtedly came from a place of good intentions, it’s become increasingly clear that these policies are doing more harm than good. Indeed, there’s overwhelming evidence that giving applicants a significant boost based on race or ethnicity often sets them up for failure because they are “mismatched” with their schools and struggle to keep up with their peers. How do schools that receive federal funding get away with imposing racial quotas and caps without violating the equal protection guarantees in the Constitution?
Starting in 1978, the Supreme Court determined in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke that schools may use racial preferences as long as they are intended to promote the “educational benefits that flow from an ethnically diverse student body.” It was not until 2003 that the Supreme Court revisited the issue of racial preferences in college admissions. The Supreme Court held in Grutter v. Bollinger that a school’s goal of reaching a “critical mass” to advance diversity on campus was permissible, and in Gratz v. Bollinger that schools must pursue “race-neutral alternatives” to achieve diversity though they are not required to exhaust “every conceivable race-neutral alternative.”
In practice, few schools use race-neutral programs in place of racial preferences, and Abigail Fisher’s case shows how schools have skirted this requirement to try race-neutral measures before putting a thumb on the race scales.
The Asian-American groups have asked the Departments of Education and Justice to intervene but they ultimately may need to bring lawsuits against Yale, Brown, and Dartmouth to see any real changes. Suits are currently pending against the University of North Carolina and Harvard challenging their racially discriminatory admissions programs (the latter brought by Asian-Americans who were denied admission). Justice Clarence Thomas explained in Grutter:
Asian-American Students Suspect Discrimination in Ivy League Admissions
Elizabeth Slattery / @EHSlattery /
Any day now the U.S. Supreme Court will hand down its decision in Abigail Fisher’s discrimination suit against the University of Texas at Austin. However the justices rule in that case, more lawsuits challenging schools’ discriminatory admissions programs are likely to come.
In May, the Asian American Coalition for Education and 130 other Asian-American groups asked the U.S. Department of Education and the Justice Department to investigate Yale University, Brown University, and Dartmouth College for their use of discriminatory admissions policies, which they claim amount to “race-based quotas” that lock out well-qualified Asian-American applicants.
They point to data from the Department of Education showing that Asian-American enrollment at Brown and Yale has been stagnant since 1995 and at Dartmouth since 2004 despite an increase in highly qualified Asian-American students applying to these schools during that time. The groups highlight in their complaint that Asian-American applicants with almost perfect SAT scores, GPAs in the top 1 percent, and excellent extracurricular records have been routinely rejected from top schools, while similar candidates of other races are accepted.
In fact, data show that Asian-Americans must score, on average, “approximately 140 point[s] higher than a White student, 270 points higher than a Hispanic student and 450 points higher than a Black student on the SAT, in order to have the same chance of admission.” The groups suspect Yale, Brown, Dartmouth, and other Ivy League schools “impose racial quotas and caps to maintain what they believe are ideal racial balances,” harkening back to the days of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
Like many other schools, Yale, Brown, and Dartmouth use a “holistic” approach to evaluate applicants, which allows race and ethnicity to become a large factor in the admission equation. In their complaint, the Asian-American groups assert that these colleges rely on stereotypes and biases to deny Asian-Americans admission. These include that Asian-Americans are not creative or well-rounded, lack critical thinking skills and leadership experience, and focus on studying instead of extracurricular activities.
Admission board reviewers’ notes track these stereotypes: “He’s quiet and, of course, wants to be a doctor” or her “scores and application seem so typical of other Asian applications I’ve read: Extraordinarily gifted in math with the opposite extreme in English….” Since the admissions policies at these schools are “shrouded in secrecy,” they freely discriminate against Asian-American applicants. In fact, Yale’s law school recently began destroying its admissions records, presumably to avoid having to disclose the criteria such as race and other standards they use to determine admissions.
The groups outline the harm these discriminatory policies cause, such as a cynical and negative view of the American higher education system and a lack of trust in the purported American meritocracy. The applicants themselves feel immense pressure to overachieve in order to gain one of the limited “Asian-American spots,” leading to more stress, an increased suicide rate, attempts to hide their racial identity, lower self-esteem, race-related conflict, and resentment.
Though the concept of race-preferential admissions undoubtedly came from a place of good intentions, it’s become increasingly clear that these policies are doing more harm than good. Indeed, there’s overwhelming evidence that giving applicants a significant boost based on race or ethnicity often sets them up for failure because they are “mismatched” with their schools and struggle to keep up with their peers. How do schools that receive federal funding get away with imposing racial quotas and caps without violating the equal protection guarantees in the Constitution?
Starting in 1978, the Supreme Court determined in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke that schools may use racial preferences as long as they are intended to promote the “educational benefits that flow from an ethnically diverse student body.” It was not until 2003 that the Supreme Court revisited the issue of racial preferences in college admissions. The Supreme Court held in Grutter v. Bollinger that a school’s goal of reaching a “critical mass” to advance diversity on campus was permissible, and in Gratz v. Bollinger that schools must pursue “race-neutral alternatives” to achieve diversity though they are not required to exhaust “every conceivable race-neutral alternative.”
In practice, few schools use race-neutral programs in place of racial preferences, and Abigail Fisher’s case shows how schools have skirted this requirement to try race-neutral measures before putting a thumb on the race scales.
The Asian-American groups have asked the Departments of Education and Justice to intervene but they ultimately may need to bring lawsuits against Yale, Brown, and Dartmouth to see any real changes. Suits are currently pending against the University of North Carolina and Harvard challenging their racially discriminatory admissions programs (the latter brought by Asian-Americans who were denied admission). Justice Clarence Thomas explained in Grutter:
The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.Let’s hope that someday this view will prevail at the Supreme Court and the justices put this principle in place by banning racial preferences in college admissions.
Immigration Amnesty Stalls : Mr Ogbjma Shruges Off Ruling - So What!
Is there no end to the outright corruption of our social system of laws by Mr Ogbjma and his administration of Constitutional deserters that worship at his feet?
The absolutely destructive criminal actions on so many levels and frequency against the people of the United States by Mr Ogbjma and the progressive socialist liberal democrats, allows one to understand the fact that these people are not here to foster prosperity and freedom, but to destroy our society and rebuild it to meet their own personal ideology of centralized power, rendering the people helpless to defend themselves against becoming wards of the state.
The question that remains on so many minds now is who are these people, where did they come from and why do the people that suffering the consequences of systematic criminal actions allow them to succeed?
How do we not see the fact that Mr Ogbjma and his followers have forced the people of the United States, that believe we are one nation, a republic, under God, with liberty and justice to become enemies of the state?
Obama’s Amnesty Plan Effectively Struck Down
Elizabeth Slattery / @EHSlattery / Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky /
In a 4-4 split vote, the Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the preliminary injunction issued by federal district court Judge Andrew Hanen in the case brought by Texas and 25 other states challenging the Obama administration’s attempt to give legal status and work authorizations to almost 5 million illegal immigrants.
After Congress repeatedly refused to pass the DREAM Act, which would have enabled illegal aliens brought to the United States as children to receive relief from deportation or removal proceedings, President Barack Obama decided to take matters into his own hands.
In 2012, the Obama administration created the Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals program, enabling 1.7 million illegal aliens under 30 years old brought to the United States as children to apply for work authorization and deferred deportation. Then, in 2014, this program was expanded by, among other things, eliminating the age cap and increasing the term of deferred action and employment authorization from two years to three years. The administration also created the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program, conferring deferred action on illegal aliens whose children are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, provided no other factors make deferred action inappropriate.
In addition to lawful presence, DAPA grants deferred action recipients benefits such as work authorizations, driver’s licenses, Social Security, and other government benefits, costing an estimated $324 million over the next three years, according to the district court.
Texas and 25 other states sued in federal district court, and in February 2015, the district court judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Obama administration from implementing the DAPA program. He found that the states were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that DAPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law governing the issuance of new federal regulations. The injunction was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in November. With the preliminary injunction upheld, the case will go back to the federal district court, which will determine how the case goes forward. In essence, however, this likely means that the DAPA program is dead at least for the remainder of the Obama presidency.
Thursday’s ruling is also a victory for the separation of powers and limited government.
Even Obama once recognized that he lacked the authority to do what he ultimately attempted to do with the DAPA program, noting that he is “not the emperor of the United States” and that the president’s job is “to execute laws that are passed.”
Even though today’s decision did not decide the merits on the case, upholding the preliminary injunction takes the first step towards restoring the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of government. Let’s hope this will curb any other “audacious executive action” the administration had planned in Obama’s final year as president.
Still unresolved in the case are sanctions recently imposed on the Justice Department by the district court judge, Hanen. He accused Justice lawyers of unethical conduct, lying to him repeatedly in court about whether the DAPA program was being implemented in violation of his injunction order (it was). He ordered Justice lawyers who practice in the 26 states in the lawsuit to undergo annual ethics training, among other things, as well as ordering the Justice Department to provide him (under seal) with the names of all of the illegal aliens who were given deferrals.
The Justice Department has appealed the sanctions order and Hanen has stayed his order until a hearing in August.
The absolutely destructive criminal actions on so many levels and frequency against the people of the United States by Mr Ogbjma and the progressive socialist liberal democrats, allows one to understand the fact that these people are not here to foster prosperity and freedom, but to destroy our society and rebuild it to meet their own personal ideology of centralized power, rendering the people helpless to defend themselves against becoming wards of the state.
The question that remains on so many minds now is who are these people, where did they come from and why do the people that suffering the consequences of systematic criminal actions allow them to succeed?
How do we not see the fact that Mr Ogbjma and his followers have forced the people of the United States, that believe we are one nation, a republic, under God, with liberty and justice to become enemies of the state?
Obama’s Amnesty Plan Effectively Struck Down
Elizabeth Slattery / @EHSlattery / Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky /
In a 4-4 split vote, the Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the preliminary injunction issued by federal district court Judge Andrew Hanen in the case brought by Texas and 25 other states challenging the Obama administration’s attempt to give legal status and work authorizations to almost 5 million illegal immigrants.
After Congress repeatedly refused to pass the DREAM Act, which would have enabled illegal aliens brought to the United States as children to receive relief from deportation or removal proceedings, President Barack Obama decided to take matters into his own hands.
In 2012, the Obama administration created the Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals program, enabling 1.7 million illegal aliens under 30 years old brought to the United States as children to apply for work authorization and deferred deportation. Then, in 2014, this program was expanded by, among other things, eliminating the age cap and increasing the term of deferred action and employment authorization from two years to three years. The administration also created the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program, conferring deferred action on illegal aliens whose children are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, provided no other factors make deferred action inappropriate.
In addition to lawful presence, DAPA grants deferred action recipients benefits such as work authorizations, driver’s licenses, Social Security, and other government benefits, costing an estimated $324 million over the next three years, according to the district court.
Texas and 25 other states sued in federal district court, and in February 2015, the district court judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Obama administration from implementing the DAPA program. He found that the states were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that DAPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law governing the issuance of new federal regulations. The injunction was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in November. With the preliminary injunction upheld, the case will go back to the federal district court, which will determine how the case goes forward. In essence, however, this likely means that the DAPA program is dead at least for the remainder of the Obama presidency.
Even Obama once recognized that he lacked the authority to do what he ultimately attempted to do with the DAPA program.This is a huge win for Texas and all of the 26 states that challenged the president’s unilateral rewrite of federal immigration law, and a substantial loss for the administration. At its core, this case underscores the importance of each branch of the federal government respecting the limits of its authority and of each branch working to keep the others in check.
Thursday’s ruling is also a victory for the separation of powers and limited government.
Even Obama once recognized that he lacked the authority to do what he ultimately attempted to do with the DAPA program, noting that he is “not the emperor of the United States” and that the president’s job is “to execute laws that are passed.”
Even though today’s decision did not decide the merits on the case, upholding the preliminary injunction takes the first step towards restoring the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of government. Let’s hope this will curb any other “audacious executive action” the administration had planned in Obama’s final year as president.
Still unresolved in the case are sanctions recently imposed on the Justice Department by the district court judge, Hanen. He accused Justice lawyers of unethical conduct, lying to him repeatedly in court about whether the DAPA program was being implemented in violation of his injunction order (it was). He ordered Justice lawyers who practice in the 26 states in the lawsuit to undergo annual ethics training, among other things, as well as ordering the Justice Department to provide him (under seal) with the names of all of the illegal aliens who were given deferrals.
The Justice Department has appealed the sanctions order and Hanen has stayed his order until a hearing in August.
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Colorado's Universal Healthcare System : Voters Will Decide?
Again, changing a health care system that will be a 'one size fits all' disaster, just like OgbjmaCare is now. But Colorado is beginning to look a lot like California or maybe even Washington State in how the have slipped their common sense anchor.
They have to know 'universal health care' where it's most basic tenant has failed to deliver, 'everyone will be better off when everyone is covered no matter who you are or what you do'. They have to know this system will not deliver, right? Right?
The fantasy of single-payer healthcare in the states
By 6/20/16 12:03 AM
One of the defining characteristics of Bernie Sanders' socialism is single-payer healthcare, a fully taxpayer-funded universal medical system. Single-payer healthcare has long had a following in the United States, but it is unlikely to become federal policy. Obamacare's setbacks have made Americans less confident than ever that the federal government could operate such a system.So single-payer advocates are focusing on individual states. This November Coloradans will vote on single-payer healthcare. A couple of years ago, Vermont's governor tried to institute it, but gave up short of the finish line. Other states will surely try. I would put Oregon and (maybe) Hawaii at the top of the list of states to watch.
If successful, this would be a Canadian-style roll-out of single-payer healthcare, which began in individual provinces in the mid-20th century and subsequently won federal support. However, there are significant obstacles to any state instituting true single-payer healthcare in 21st-century America, even if the people or politicians choose it.
First, Medicare (which covers most senior citizens) is already fully federal. States have no role in either financing or organizing its care. The system is moving from fee-for-service to managed care delivered under arrangements whereby groups of providers bear financial risk for patient outcomes.
Different models have different labels ("Accountable Care Organizations," "Bundled Payments for Care Improvement," "Alternative Payment Models," "Merit-Based Incentive Payment System"). The models are designed by federal bureaucrats in an office in Baltimore, who are highly unlikely to ever yield power to state counterparts.
Second, Medicaid (which covers most low-income residents) is also largely federal, with over half the money coming from Washington. Although it is operated by the states as part of their welfare bureaucracies, states deliver benefits under strict federal constraints. Any change in the program, such as in how care is delivered to disabled patients at home, even if desired in only one county or city, requires a federal waiver, which is only won after lengthy, strained and complex negotiations between state and federal bureaucrats. And the waiver will be limited to a few years.
Block grants of federal funds to states' Medicaid programs (which would significantly reduce federal involvement) would be similar to the way the Canadian federal government subsidizes provincial single-payer systems, and it would make it easier for a state to migrate to single-payer. The irony is that federal block grants are proposed by Republicans in Congress and opposed by Democrats.
Third, most private health insurance is offered as group coverage through employers. Employers with more than 100 or so workers almost always take advantage of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to self-fund these benefits, which preempts state insurance laws.
So a state could not simply institute a single-payer system as the Canadian provinces did decades ago. It would have to get Congress to approve a transfer of both finances and statutory authority over these three groups (the elderly, the poor and those working for large businesses), which constitute the majority of the population.Such congressional approval is extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future. Both parties are solidly committed to federal control of seniors' access to healthcare, as executed by the federal Medicare office.
America's seniors are famously resistant to change. When House Speaker Paul Ryan proposed reforming Medicare for future beneficiaries who at the time were then under age 55, current beneficiaries (who were at least 65) got riled up and protested Further, America's large employers are extremely attached to the status quo. They have their own association, the ERISA Industry Committee, which protects their current benefits. Even states that might otherwise consider single-payer healthcare would retreat when faced with employer opposition. A prime example would be Washington state, which might go for single payer if not for firms like Microsoft and Boeing.
Even if Coloradans vote for single-payer healthcare in November, the obstacles to it or any other state actually instituting it are overwhelming.
They have to know 'universal health care' where it's most basic tenant has failed to deliver, 'everyone will be better off when everyone is covered no matter who you are or what you do'. They have to know this system will not deliver, right? Right?
The fantasy of single-payer healthcare in the states
By 6/20/16 12:03 AM
One of the defining characteristics of Bernie Sanders' socialism is single-payer healthcare, a fully taxpayer-funded universal medical system. Single-payer healthcare has long had a following in the United States, but it is unlikely to become federal policy. Obamacare's setbacks have made Americans less confident than ever that the federal government could operate such a system.
Different models have different labels ("Accountable Care Organizations," "Bundled Payments for Care Improvement," "Alternative Payment Models," "Merit-Based Incentive Payment System"). The models are designed by federal bureaucrats in an office in Baltimore, who are highly unlikely to ever yield power to state counterparts.
So a state could not simply institute a single-payer system as the Canadian provinces did decades ago. It would have to get Congress to approve a transfer of both finances and statutory authority over these three groups (the elderly, the poor and those working for large businesses), which constitute the majority of the population.
Friday, June 24, 2016
Face Book Biased Against Conservatives : Only Face Book???
Can anyone determine what institution in this country that can be seen as controlled by anything other then progressive socialist? As anyone that is awake can attest, neatly every department, agency or other integral part of our government is wholly owned and operated by progressive socialists.
Our progressive government and it's fellow travels like Face Book is has corrupted freedom of speech. In other words, our government and other organization that disseminates information is not functional to needs of the people, freedom or liberty.
This not by accident - this is a coordinated effort by design.
Facebook to Provide ‘Political Bias’ Training for Employees
Rob Bluey / @RobertBluey /
Facebook is adding a training program for its employees to address concerns that the company has a bias against conservatives.
Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, announced the addition of a “political bias” section to the company’s managing unconscious bias class during a Wednesday event at the American Enterprise Institute.
“We have a managing bias class that all of our leaders and a lot of our employees have taken that I was part of helping to create. And we focused on racial bias, age bias, gender bias, national bias, and we’re going to add in a scenario now on political bias,” Sandberg said. “So as we think about helping people understand different points of view and being open to different points of view, we’re dealing with political bias as well going forward.”
Sandberg’s announcement comes six weeks after a former Facebook contractor accused the company of suppressing conservative news on the platform. Since that Gizmodo report on May 9, Facebook has revamped how it operates the Trending Topics feature. The company also hosted more than a dozen conservative leaders, including Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint, at its Menlo Park, California, headquarters on May 18 to address the fallout.
AEI President Arthur Brooks, who attended the May 18 meeting, called the addition of “political bias” training both “interesting and encouraging.”
Sandberg used her appearance at AEI to articulate Facebook’s commitment to all points of view.
“Facebook is a platform for all ideas and all voices,” she said. “We have 1.6 billion people using the platform, which means all ideas have to be able to be expressed.”
“That’s a pretty important accusation and it’s one we take seriously,” Sandberg said. “It’s also one which frankly rang true to some people because there is concern that Silicon Valley companies have a liberal bias. And so we took it very seriously and did a thorough investigation, and we didn’t find a liberal bias.”
Those perceptions about Facebook are at least partly fueled by donations Facebook employees have made to political causes. According to a Reuters analysis of campaign finance data, 79 percent of Facebook employee contributions in 2016 have supported Democrats. Those employees donated more than $114,000 to Democrat Hillary Clinton—nearly $100,000 more than to the closest Republican, Sen. Marco Rubio, before he dropped out of the presidential race, according to The Hill.
Even though Facebook’s investigation found “no systematic bias,” Sandberg said the company decided to take steps to improve.
“We think a lot about diversity at Facebook. It’s something our industry has struggled with, we’ve struggled with,” she said. “We think to build a product that 1.6 billion people use, you need diversity. And what you really want is cognitive diversity … intellectual diversity.”
Sandberg noted that Donald Trump has almost as many Facebook fans as Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders—combined. She also praised Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., as a model example of a member of Congress who is using the platform effectively.
In her role as a leader at Facebook, Sandberg said, she encourages employees to speak up and disagree with her. She shared with Brooks two examples of how that played out at the company and why employees were rewarded as a result.
“You need people with different opinions and you need an environment where people can express those opinions,” she told the packed room at AEI’s 12th floor conference center in downtown Washington.
“People are not going to speak truth to power unless you make that apparent,” she added. “And that’s how we get not just different voices into the company but make sure we’re listening to different voices.”
At a time when publishers of all ideological perspectives use Facebook as a distribution platform, Brooks pressed Sandberg on the company’s role in the dissemination of news. But Sandberg dismissed the notion that Facebook wanted to be a media company.
“We’re clear about the industry we’re in and the company we’re in: We’re a tech company, we’re not a media company,” she said. “We’re not trying to hire journalists and we’re not trying to write news.”
Our progressive government and it's fellow travels like Face Book is has corrupted freedom of speech. In other words, our government and other organization that disseminates information is not functional to needs of the people, freedom or liberty.
This not by accident - this is a coordinated effort by design.
Facebook to Provide ‘Political Bias’ Training for Employees
Rob Bluey / @RobertBluey /
Facebook is adding a training program for its employees to address concerns that the company has a bias against conservatives.
Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, announced the addition of a “political bias” section to the company’s managing unconscious bias class during a Wednesday event at the American Enterprise Institute.
“We have a managing bias class that all of our leaders and a lot of our employees have taken that I was part of helping to create. And we focused on racial bias, age bias, gender bias, national bias, and we’re going to add in a scenario now on political bias,” Sandberg said. “So as we think about helping people understand different points of view and being open to different points of view, we’re dealing with political bias as well going forward.”
Sandberg’s announcement comes six weeks after a former Facebook contractor accused the company of suppressing conservative news on the platform. Since that Gizmodo report on May 9, Facebook has revamped how it operates the Trending Topics feature. The company also hosted more than a dozen conservative leaders, including Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint, at its Menlo Park, California, headquarters on May 18 to address the fallout.
AEI President Arthur Brooks, who attended the May 18 meeting, called the addition of “political bias” training both “interesting and encouraging.”
Sandberg used her appearance at AEI to articulate Facebook’s commitment to all points of view.
“Facebook is a platform for all ideas and all voices,” she said. “We have 1.6 billion people using the platform, which means all ideas have to be able to be expressed.”
“Facebook is a platform for all ideas and all voices.” —@SherylSandbergShe acknowledged, however, that Facebook and other tech companies are perceived to be liberal.
“That’s a pretty important accusation and it’s one we take seriously,” Sandberg said. “It’s also one which frankly rang true to some people because there is concern that Silicon Valley companies have a liberal bias. And so we took it very seriously and did a thorough investigation, and we didn’t find a liberal bias.”
Those perceptions about Facebook are at least partly fueled by donations Facebook employees have made to political causes. According to a Reuters analysis of campaign finance data, 79 percent of Facebook employee contributions in 2016 have supported Democrats. Those employees donated more than $114,000 to Democrat Hillary Clinton—nearly $100,000 more than to the closest Republican, Sen. Marco Rubio, before he dropped out of the presidential race, according to The Hill.
Even though Facebook’s investigation found “no systematic bias,” Sandberg said the company decided to take steps to improve.
“We think a lot about diversity at Facebook. It’s something our industry has struggled with, we’ve struggled with,” she said. “We think to build a product that 1.6 billion people use, you need diversity. And what you really want is cognitive diversity … intellectual diversity.”
Sandberg noted that Donald Trump has almost as many Facebook fans as Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders—combined. She also praised Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., as a model example of a member of Congress who is using the platform effectively.
In her role as a leader at Facebook, Sandberg said, she encourages employees to speak up and disagree with her. She shared with Brooks two examples of how that played out at the company and why employees were rewarded as a result.
“You need people with different opinions and you need an environment where people can express those opinions,” she told the packed room at AEI’s 12th floor conference center in downtown Washington.
“People are not going to speak truth to power unless you make that apparent,” she added. “And that’s how we get not just different voices into the company but make sure we’re listening to different voices.”
At a time when publishers of all ideological perspectives use Facebook as a distribution platform, Brooks pressed Sandberg on the company’s role in the dissemination of news. But Sandberg dismissed the notion that Facebook wanted to be a media company.
“We’re clear about the industry we’re in and the company we’re in: We’re a tech company, we’re not a media company,” she said. “We’re not trying to hire journalists and we’re not trying to write news.”
UT Race Based Admissions Okayed : Racism Alive And Well
If history is any indicator of future solutions to complex problems, the Supreme Court will prove beyond a doubt it is of no use as unbiased arbiters of the Constitution. With the four judges that are unashamed to be progressive democrats and vote their ideology of progressive liberal socialism, and now with only three judges that at least try to rule by the Constitution as written, it doesn't bode well for the rule of law and the survival of our country as a free nation.
With a progressive socialist Supreme Court and a congress that is totally ineffective as ruling body, and a president that believe he or she has the auditory to rule by fiat, what is left for government by and for the people?
If the next president is a progressive socialist liberal, Hillary Clinton, that will have the authority to name the next court justice and an avoid progressive, then rest assured the original intent of the Constitution will be lost and life in America will be changed, 'transformed' for generation to come.
Supreme Court Upholds Race-Based Discrimination in College Admissions
Elizabeth Slattery / @EHSlattery / Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky /
The Supreme Court issued its disappointing decision in Abigail Fisher’s case on Thursday against the University of Texas at Austin.
In an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, four members of the court ruled that the university’s race-conscious admissions program does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote dissenting opinions (Chief Justice John Roberts joined the latter; Justice Elena Kagan was recused from the case).
This case deals with whether it is constitutional for the university to discriminate on the basis of race in its undergraduate admissions decisions. Fisher, a white Texas resident, sued the school after she was denied admission, arguing that the school discriminated against her. Under the Supreme Court’s existing case law, schools may use race in admissions only if it is narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests.
The court explained in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) that before putting a thumb on the race scales, a school must pursue a “serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives that will achieve the diversity the university seeks.”
Texas adopted a plan in the mid-1990s that automatically admitted Texas students in the top 10 percent of their high school class to all state-funded universities. Following a 2003 Supreme Court decision that authorized schools to consider race or ethnicity as a “plus factor,” the university began subjecting applicants for the remaining spots to a “holistic review” that included preferences for certain racial minorities.
Fisher did not graduate in the top 10 percent, so her application for admission was in competition with candidates who received racial preferences. She challenged the university’s discriminatory admissions process in court after her application was denied because minority students with lower qualifications and grades than her were admitted to the school.
To Read More on This Topic: “Discriminatory Racial Preferences in College Admissions Return to the Supreme Court: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin“
The university argued that it needs to discriminate based on the race of applicants for the seats not filled by top 10 percent admittees to advance its interest in “qualitative diversity.” It claimed that the top 10 percent plan admits “too many” minority students from majority-minority schools—apparently they don’t provide the “right” kind of diversity, according to UT Austin admissions officials. This racial balancing is nothing more than government-sanctioned discrimination. And in the middle of the litigation, it was revealed that the university had another, secret admissions process that also provided special preferences for the sons and daughters of politically-connected individuals.
This is the second time Fisher’s case has reached the Supreme Court. Last time around, the justices told the university that it must prove that its use of race in admissions is narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest and chastised the lower courts for simply accepting the university’s claim without holding it to the strict evidentiary standard required by the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The case went back to the lower court, which essentially rubber-stamped the university’s claim once again.
In today’s ruling, a majority of the court decided to take the university at its word that it needed to use race-conscious admissions because the top 10 percent plan alone was not sufficient to meet its “diversity goals.” As Alito pointed out in his thorough and stirring dissent, this decision allows school officials to “justify systematic racial discrimination simply by asserting that such discrimination is necessary to achieve ‘the educational benefits of diversity,’ without explaining—much less proving—why the discrimination is needed or how the discriminatory plan is well crafted to serve its objectives.” He further noted that the university had never offered a “coherent explanation for its asserted need to discriminate on the basis of race” but instead relied on “unsupported and noxious racial assumptions.”
Thomas also dissented, arguing that the Constitution “abhors classifications based on race,” and that “does not change in the face of a ‘faddish theory’ that racial discrimination may produce ‘educational benefits.’”
This is a terrible loss for advocates of a truly colorblind society, a betrayal of our core beliefs as Americans, and fundamentally unfair to students. Rather than require the university to meet the strict standard required by the Constitution, a majority of the justices allowed the school to continue sorting prospective students by race and ethnicity.
Given the university’s defiant attitude throughout the length of this litigation, Kennedy also seemed a bit naïve when he says that the Supreme Court’s affirmance of UT Austin’s admissions policies doesn’t mean that the university doesn’t have an “ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies.” The only “reflection” UT Austin is likely to engage in is how to further discriminate. Luckily, other lawsuits are currently pending in federal district courts that challenge the racially discriminatory admissions policies of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The Harvard suit was brought by Asian-American applicants who claim they were denied admission because the university has put limits on the number of Asian-Americans it will admit, similar to the racist quotas and caps that Ivy League schools put on the number of Jewish students they would admit in the 1920s. The plaintiffs in the case against the University of North Carolina point out that the university did a study that showed that if the school dropped its racial preference policy and switched to a top 10 percent plan like Texas, the number of minorities would actually increase.
Additionally, more than 130 Asian-American organizations filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education to investigate the admissions policies at Yale University, Brown University, and Dartmouth College. Though it may be the end of the road for Fisher, the next wave of challenges to racially-discriminatory college admissions has only just begun.
As Roberts remarked in the 2007 Parents Involved case: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Let’s hope this view ultimately prevails at the Supreme Court.
With a progressive socialist Supreme Court and a congress that is totally ineffective as ruling body, and a president that believe he or she has the auditory to rule by fiat, what is left for government by and for the people?
If the next president is a progressive socialist liberal, Hillary Clinton, that will have the authority to name the next court justice and an avoid progressive, then rest assured the original intent of the Constitution will be lost and life in America will be changed, 'transformed' for generation to come.
Supreme Court Upholds Race-Based Discrimination in College Admissions
Elizabeth Slattery / @EHSlattery / Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky /
The Supreme Court issued its disappointing decision in Abigail Fisher’s case on Thursday against the University of Texas at Austin.
In an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, four members of the court ruled that the university’s race-conscious admissions program does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote dissenting opinions (Chief Justice John Roberts joined the latter; Justice Elena Kagan was recused from the case).
This case deals with whether it is constitutional for the university to discriminate on the basis of race in its undergraduate admissions decisions. Fisher, a white Texas resident, sued the school after she was denied admission, arguing that the school discriminated against her. Under the Supreme Court’s existing case law, schools may use race in admissions only if it is narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests.
The court explained in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) that before putting a thumb on the race scales, a school must pursue a “serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives that will achieve the diversity the university seeks.”
Texas adopted a plan in the mid-1990s that automatically admitted Texas students in the top 10 percent of their high school class to all state-funded universities. Following a 2003 Supreme Court decision that authorized schools to consider race or ethnicity as a “plus factor,” the university began subjecting applicants for the remaining spots to a “holistic review” that included preferences for certain racial minorities.
Fisher did not graduate in the top 10 percent, so her application for admission was in competition with candidates who received racial preferences. She challenged the university’s discriminatory admissions process in court after her application was denied because minority students with lower qualifications and grades than her were admitted to the school.
To Read More on This Topic: “Discriminatory Racial Preferences in College Admissions Return to the Supreme Court: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin“
The university argued that it needs to discriminate based on the race of applicants for the seats not filled by top 10 percent admittees to advance its interest in “qualitative diversity.” It claimed that the top 10 percent plan admits “too many” minority students from majority-minority schools—apparently they don’t provide the “right” kind of diversity, according to UT Austin admissions officials. This racial balancing is nothing more than government-sanctioned discrimination. And in the middle of the litigation, it was revealed that the university had another, secret admissions process that also provided special preferences for the sons and daughters of politically-connected individuals.
This is the second time Fisher’s case has reached the Supreme Court. Last time around, the justices told the university that it must prove that its use of race in admissions is narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest and chastised the lower courts for simply accepting the university’s claim without holding it to the strict evidentiary standard required by the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The case went back to the lower court, which essentially rubber-stamped the university’s claim once again.
In today’s ruling, a majority of the court decided to take the university at its word that it needed to use race-conscious admissions because the top 10 percent plan alone was not sufficient to meet its “diversity goals.” As Alito pointed out in his thorough and stirring dissent, this decision allows school officials to “justify systematic racial discrimination simply by asserting that such discrimination is necessary to achieve ‘the educational benefits of diversity,’ without explaining—much less proving—why the discrimination is needed or how the discriminatory plan is well crafted to serve its objectives.” He further noted that the university had never offered a “coherent explanation for its asserted need to discriminate on the basis of race” but instead relied on “unsupported and noxious racial assumptions.”
Thomas also dissented, arguing that the Constitution “abhors classifications based on race,” and that “does not change in the face of a ‘faddish theory’ that racial discrimination may produce ‘educational benefits.’”
This is a terrible loss for advocates of a truly colorblind society, a betrayal of our core beliefs as Americans, and fundamentally unfair to students. Rather than require the university to meet the strict standard required by the Constitution, a majority of the justices allowed the school to continue sorting prospective students by race and ethnicity.
Given the university’s defiant attitude throughout the length of this litigation, Kennedy also seemed a bit naïve when he says that the Supreme Court’s affirmance of UT Austin’s admissions policies doesn’t mean that the university doesn’t have an “ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies.” The only “reflection” UT Austin is likely to engage in is how to further discriminate. Luckily, other lawsuits are currently pending in federal district courts that challenge the racially discriminatory admissions policies of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The Harvard suit was brought by Asian-American applicants who claim they were denied admission because the university has put limits on the number of Asian-Americans it will admit, similar to the racist quotas and caps that Ivy League schools put on the number of Jewish students they would admit in the 1920s. The plaintiffs in the case against the University of North Carolina point out that the university did a study that showed that if the school dropped its racial preference policy and switched to a top 10 percent plan like Texas, the number of minorities would actually increase.
Additionally, more than 130 Asian-American organizations filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education to investigate the admissions policies at Yale University, Brown University, and Dartmouth College. Though it may be the end of the road for Fisher, the next wave of challenges to racially-discriminatory college admissions has only just begun.
As Roberts remarked in the 2007 Parents Involved case: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Let’s hope this view ultimately prevails at the Supreme Court.
Mr Ogbjma On Amnesty Ruling : So What? Who Cares!
Please explain why many among the talking heads, including this author, believes Mr Ogbjma has any intention of excepting the Constitution as the law of the land, and the legitimacy of it's meaning. Mr Ogbjma has never believed he was bound by the Constitution as he has started on many occasions.
He believes the Constitution has many flaws as it only says what the Constitution cannot do, but it should say what it can do. He truly believes he is the ''One" the country has been waiting for' and has moved to do just that.
I believe Mr Ogbjma will do what ever he wants and any opposition from congress or the people, which has been next to nothing, be dammed! Our country is under attack from within and from without. This is history being made. We, as citizens, are living history right now.
Obama Says He Won’t Let Defeat on Amnesty Deter Other Executive Actions
Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH /
President Barack Obama said the Supreme Court decision halting his executive actions to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants won’t discourage him from making other such moves without going through Congress.
“It does not have any impact from our perspective on the host of other issues we are working on because each one of these issues has a different analysis and is based on different statutes and different interpretations of our authority,” Obama said in the White House briefing room Thursday.
The president cited climate change as an example, saying his participation in related international efforts doesn’t involve the same principle as his executive amnesty, namely “a theory of prosecutorial discretion that in the past every other president has exercised.” Rather, Obama said, his climate change agenda is “based on the Clean Air Act, the EPA and previous Supreme Court rulings.”
The Supreme Court’s deadlocked 4-4 decision announced earlier in the day lets stand an appeals court decision upholding an injunction against the Obama administration actions in November 2014 to shield up to 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation and allow them to work here legally.
Texas and 25 other states filed the lawsuit, United States v. Texas. “On the specifics of immigration, I don’t anticipate that there are any additional executive actions that we can take,” Obama told reporters. “We can implement what we’ve already put in place that has not already been affected by this decision.” “We have to follow now what has been ruled on in the Fifth Circuit because our Supreme Court could not resolve the issue and we are going to have to abide by that ruling until an election and a confirmation of a ninth justice of the Supreme Court so that they can break this tie,” he said, “because we’ve always said we are going to do what we can lawfully through executive action.”
Obama has used executive actions on other high-profile issues such as gun control, the environment, transgender policy in schools, and his own health care law. Such moves prompted Republican members of Congress to question whether the president has the authority to act in such ways.
While the president may be correct that the Supreme Court decision has no legal bearing on other executive actions, he should not feel more comfortable in acting without Congress, said Elizabeth
Slattery, a legal fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
“He certainly shouldn’t feel emboldened to take even broader authority,” Slattery told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.
Slattery said she believes the president is on shaky legal ground in regard to executive actions.
“The president has an abysmal record in the Supreme Court. He lost 9-0, with his own court appointees ruling against him,” Slattery said, referring to a case in which the court rejected Obama’s attempts to make a so-called recess appointment to the National Labor Relations Review Board when the Senate actually was not in recess. “That’s not how the Constitution works,” she said.
House Speaker Paul Ryan said the final ruling was meaningful in upholding the Constitution’s separation of powers.
“Today, Article I of the Constitution was vindicated,” Ryan, R-Wis., said in a formal statement. “The Supreme Court’s ruling makes the president’s executive action on immigration null and void. The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws—only Congress is. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers.” In March, the Republican-controlled House voted to authorize Ryan to file a brief in support of the 26 states in the immigration case.
Obama dismissed the Supreme Court’s tie vote and used it to underline his own frustrated attempt to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February.
“The Supreme Court wasn’t definitive one way or the other on this,” Obama said. “The problem is they don’t have a ninth justice. So, that will continue to be a problem. With respect to Republicans, what it tells you is, if you keep on blocking judges from getting on the bench then courts can’t issue decisions. What that means is you’re going to have the status quo frozen.”
He believes the Constitution has many flaws as it only says what the Constitution cannot do, but it should say what it can do. He truly believes he is the ''One" the country has been waiting for' and has moved to do just that.
I believe Mr Ogbjma will do what ever he wants and any opposition from congress or the people, which has been next to nothing, be dammed! Our country is under attack from within and from without. This is history being made. We, as citizens, are living history right now.
Obama Says He Won’t Let Defeat on Amnesty Deter Other Executive Actions
Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH /
President Barack Obama said the Supreme Court decision halting his executive actions to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants won’t discourage him from making other such moves without going through Congress.
“It does not have any impact from our perspective on the host of other issues we are working on because each one of these issues has a different analysis and is based on different statutes and different interpretations of our authority,” Obama said in the White House briefing room Thursday.
The president cited climate change as an example, saying his participation in related international efforts doesn’t involve the same principle as his executive amnesty, namely “a theory of prosecutorial discretion that in the past every other president has exercised.” Rather, Obama said, his climate change agenda is “based on the Clean Air Act, the EPA and previous Supreme Court rulings.”
The Supreme Court’s deadlocked 4-4 decision announced earlier in the day lets stand an appeals court decision upholding an injunction against the Obama administration actions in November 2014 to shield up to 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation and allow them to work here legally.
Texas and 25 other states filed the lawsuit, United States v. Texas. “On the specifics of immigration, I don’t anticipate that there are any additional executive actions that we can take,” Obama told reporters. “We can implement what we’ve already put in place that has not already been affected by this decision.” “We have to follow now what has been ruled on in the Fifth Circuit because our Supreme Court could not resolve the issue and we are going to have to abide by that ruling until an election and a confirmation of a ninth justice of the Supreme Court so that they can break this tie,” he said, “because we’ve always said we are going to do what we can lawfully through executive action.”
Obama has used executive actions on other high-profile issues such as gun control, the environment, transgender policy in schools, and his own health care law. Such moves prompted Republican members of Congress to question whether the president has the authority to act in such ways.
While the president may be correct that the Supreme Court decision has no legal bearing on other executive actions, he should not feel more comfortable in acting without Congress, said Elizabeth
Slattery, a legal fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
“He certainly shouldn’t feel emboldened to take even broader authority,” Slattery told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.
Slattery said she believes the president is on shaky legal ground in regard to executive actions.
“The president has an abysmal record in the Supreme Court. He lost 9-0, with his own court appointees ruling against him,” Slattery said, referring to a case in which the court rejected Obama’s attempts to make a so-called recess appointment to the National Labor Relations Review Board when the Senate actually was not in recess. “That’s not how the Constitution works,” she said.
House Speaker Paul Ryan said the final ruling was meaningful in upholding the Constitution’s separation of powers.
“Today, Article I of the Constitution was vindicated,” Ryan, R-Wis., said in a formal statement. “The Supreme Court’s ruling makes the president’s executive action on immigration null and void. The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws—only Congress is. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers.” In March, the Republican-controlled House voted to authorize Ryan to file a brief in support of the 26 states in the immigration case.
Obama dismissed the Supreme Court’s tie vote and used it to underline his own frustrated attempt to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February.
“The Supreme Court wasn’t definitive one way or the other on this,” Obama said. “The problem is they don’t have a ninth justice. So, that will continue to be a problem. With respect to Republicans, what it tells you is, if you keep on blocking judges from getting on the bench then courts can’t issue decisions. What that means is you’re going to have the status quo frozen.”
Freedom to Chose Is Powerful : England Leads - History Repeats Itself?
Truly we are living history on many fronts, perhaps more so then any time since 1941 and maybe when George W. Bush left office and Barry(Barack)Ogbjma was sworn in to office in 2009. Mr Ogbjma brought his promise of bringing "fundamental Change to America", a transformation of American society from one based on individual freedom to one based on dependence for survival.
Mr Ogbjma's ideology of transformations is unpresented in American history. His philosophy of 'no one can be better then anyone else' has caused chaos in American society.
Here Great Britain has shown us, and the world, why that nation has the word "Great" in its name, as they have decided freedom to chose their own destiny was more important then being subservient to unelected bureaucrats outside of Britain. A historical moment for the Brits.
But while many in this country will be pleased that Britain has shown a will to be free and proved it by their votes, actions and not just rhetoric, many in America will not be pleased as they are wholly committed to their transformation agenda and ideology from independence to a nation that is dependent on others making all the decision for the population. Progressive liberal socialism.
Major among those not pleased with this vote will be Mr Ogbjma and his fellow travelers in the progressive socialist liberal democrat party, a socialist collective that understands this vote strikes directly at the heart of socialism and it's promise of historical failure. The British people could see the problems first hand of historic socialist failures of the past as members of the European Union to deliver on promises of one size fits all, and then stood up and voted for freedom.
The freedom to chose destroys socialism and it's promises of' to each according to one's needs and from each according to one's abilities'.
Yes, many will celebrate this vote for freedom, but as history can attest to contrary ,views on what freedom means to chose one's destiny in years proceeding the Delectation of Independence of 1776, many back then were not on board with leaving the mother country and go it alone. Many never did come to accept freedom but wanted to leaving others in control. And that country just happened to be Great Britain.
History repeats it self - could be. Who knew?
Why Americans Should Celebrate the Brexit Vote
Nile Gardiner / @NileGardiner /
The momentous victory for the Brexit campaign signals a new era of freedom for the British people.
The vote for Brexit (52 percent of Britons cast ballots to leave the EU) is a vote for sovereignty and self-determination. Britain will no longer be subject to European legislation, with Britain’s Parliament retaking control. British judges will no longer be overruled by the European Court of Justice, and British businesses will be liberated from mountains of EU regulations, which have undermined economic liberty.
Indeed, Brexit will result in a bonfire of red tape, freeing the city of London and enterprises across the nation from European Union diktat. And at last, Britain is free again to negotiate its own free trade deals, a huge boost to the world’s fifth largest economy.
The United States should seize upon Brexit as a tremendous opportunity to sign an historic free trade agreement with the United Kingdom—a deal that would advance prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic. Brexit will also strengthen the Anglo-American special relationship, the most important bilateral partnership in the world. Britain outside the EU will be a stronger ally for the United States, from confronting Russian aggression in Eastern Europe to defeating the Islamist terror threat.
Britain’s decision to leave the EU should be a cause for celebration here in America. Brexit embodies the very principles and ideals the American people hold dear to their hearts: self-determination, limited government, democratic accountability, and economic liberty.
A truly free and powerful Great Britain is good for Europe and the United States.
As Margaret Thatcher famously declared after the liberation of the Falkland Islands by British forces in 1982: “Rejoice.” The Iron Lady believed firmly that Britain would be better off outside the European Union. The British people can rejoice in their rediscovered freedom. It is a cause for celebration for America, too.
Mr Ogbjma's ideology of transformations is unpresented in American history. His philosophy of 'no one can be better then anyone else' has caused chaos in American society.
Here Great Britain has shown us, and the world, why that nation has the word "Great" in its name, as they have decided freedom to chose their own destiny was more important then being subservient to unelected bureaucrats outside of Britain. A historical moment for the Brits.
But while many in this country will be pleased that Britain has shown a will to be free and proved it by their votes, actions and not just rhetoric, many in America will not be pleased as they are wholly committed to their transformation agenda and ideology from independence to a nation that is dependent on others making all the decision for the population. Progressive liberal socialism.
Major among those not pleased with this vote will be Mr Ogbjma and his fellow travelers in the progressive socialist liberal democrat party, a socialist collective that understands this vote strikes directly at the heart of socialism and it's promise of historical failure. The British people could see the problems first hand of historic socialist failures of the past as members of the European Union to deliver on promises of one size fits all, and then stood up and voted for freedom.
The freedom to chose destroys socialism and it's promises of' to each according to one's needs and from each according to one's abilities'.
Yes, many will celebrate this vote for freedom, but as history can attest to contrary ,views on what freedom means to chose one's destiny in years proceeding the Delectation of Independence of 1776, many back then were not on board with leaving the mother country and go it alone. Many never did come to accept freedom but wanted to leaving others in control. And that country just happened to be Great Britain.
History repeats it self - could be. Who knew?
Why Americans Should Celebrate the Brexit Vote
Nile Gardiner / @NileGardiner /
The momentous victory for the Brexit campaign signals a new era of freedom for the British people.
Britain outside the EU will be a stronger ally for the United States.After more than four decades of being shackled to the European Union (previously the European Economic Community), Great Britain has declared its independence.
The vote for Brexit (52 percent of Britons cast ballots to leave the EU) is a vote for sovereignty and self-determination. Britain will no longer be subject to European legislation, with Britain’s Parliament retaking control. British judges will no longer be overruled by the European Court of Justice, and British businesses will be liberated from mountains of EU regulations, which have undermined economic liberty.
Indeed, Brexit will result in a bonfire of red tape, freeing the city of London and enterprises across the nation from European Union diktat. And at last, Britain is free again to negotiate its own free trade deals, a huge boost to the world’s fifth largest economy.
The United States should seize upon Brexit as a tremendous opportunity to sign an historic free trade agreement with the United Kingdom—a deal that would advance prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic. Brexit will also strengthen the Anglo-American special relationship, the most important bilateral partnership in the world. Britain outside the EU will be a stronger ally for the United States, from confronting Russian aggression in Eastern Europe to defeating the Islamist terror threat.
Britain’s decision to leave the EU should be a cause for celebration here in America. Brexit embodies the very principles and ideals the American people hold dear to their hearts: self-determination, limited government, democratic accountability, and economic liberty.
A truly free and powerful Great Britain is good for Europe and the United States.
As Margaret Thatcher famously declared after the liberation of the Falkland Islands by British forces in 1982: “Rejoice.” The Iron Lady believed firmly that Britain would be better off outside the European Union. The British people can rejoice in their rediscovered freedom. It is a cause for celebration for America, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
