We established as law the “civil right” of every person in this dear country of ours to be treated as an equal “without regard to race, color or national origin.” Every government agency in every village and hamlet of America acquired the duty and the obligation to make no distinction between its citizens on the basis of the color of their skin or the origin of their ancestors when those citizens interacted with their government.

And, so it is well established that America has evolved a culture of equality established over 227 years ago and nurtured along through much pain, turbulence and, even death.

On June 23rd of this year, the highest court in the land, with a stroke of the pen, essentially said, there is nothing sacred about our Declaration of Independence.

About the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, the Court declared: “The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

With that ruling, the Supreme Court confronts the American people with some rather basic questions: Is the principle of equality so devalued that we are willing to brush it away without a moment's hesitation and on the whim of five people? Do we not believe in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? Are we not obligated to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Do we have so little confidence in the American spirit and in yet unborn Americans of African and Mexican descent that we consign them to another generation of presumed inadequacy? Is it fair to say to a black parent: your child to be born eight years from now will still need a preference when he or she applies to college in the year 2028?

I cannot describe to you the anger and humiliation that fills me as a "black" man to be viewed with such misplaced pity and misguided patronization.

Immediately following the proclamation about our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there is an equally significant passage: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Those words summon us to consider our options in responding to this unjust decision.

I happen to notice yesterday that a prominent law professor proclaimed that the Supreme Court has ushered in a "new civil rights movement, " one that acknowledges a "new national consensus in favor of affirmative action."
I suggest to that professor and others who subscribe to this perspective that you leave the walls of ivy of your sheltered academic setting and you have a cup of coffee at a few truck stops, go to a soccer game, go to a few factories, and I believe you will conclude as I have that the American people are quite content with the old civil rights movement which embraced equal treatment under the law, not preferences based on race.

To deny Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter access to UM in the name of "diversity" is a distinction without difference in denying James Meredith access to "Ole Miss" because of his race. The presumed nobleness of the cause does not wash away the fact that discrimination has occurred and an injustice has been perpetrated. Justice O’Connor and her colleagues in the majority are fully aware of this fact. Why else would they openly use the term “race preferences” and suggest that the Court might, maybe, perhaps, revisit this issue in 300 months?

“Gee, thanks, your honors!”

To the justices of the Court, I say, we will not wait 25 years for the principle of equal treatment to be restored.

No matter how much we respect and rely on our universities of this nation to provide leadership, guidance and to serve our communities, there is no compelling reason in the hearts and minds of most Americans that they should be above the law. To the contrary, they ought to be the moral conscience of this nation in the defense of our fundamental values of equal treatment, liberty and justice. We are not content to be governed by admissions officers instead of the Constitution.

In their newfound love for state's rights, by allowing each university to discriminate on the basis of race in order to create a "critical mass" based on race, I wonder how Justice O'Connor and her colleagues in the majority would rule if the University of Michigan concluded that "diversity" isn't all that they previously claimed?

What if they concluded that having black students on campus created too much tension and distracted students from learning? Would it be acceptable, then, to turn black and Hispanic students away or subject them to a higher academic standard?

I am persuaded to believe that the outcome of such a hypothetical case would be far different from the ruling in Gratz and Grutter. I am equally persuaded that those who are now so enamored with the concept of "diversity" would take a quick refresher course on the true meaning of civil rights.

This is not 1963…there is no governor blocking the school house door…there is no Sheriff Bull Connor with snarling dogs straining to attack black people…this is not about simple access to college. None of those circumstances exist, thanks to the Almighty and to an American spirit that embraces the principle of “equal treatment for every person.”

And so today, I am pleased to announce that we, the people hereby assembled, will begin a campaign to place on the November 2004 Ballot what will be commonly known as the “Michigan Civil Rights Act.” This initiative will be patterned after the 1964 Civil Rights Act and California’s Proposition 209 to prohibit discrimination and preferences in public education, public employment and public contracting


That was written by a black man Ward Connerly...
There are many other black people out there that feel this way...


Why is that you feel the need to have a point system in place? If we are to get rid of AA completely we would have to get rid of the legacy clause as well. I believe that's fair. (just to answer your question colonel about the legacy clause)

A point was brought up about athletics as well last night.

If you are an athlete, whether your a rower or a hockey player, if your good enough, you will be offered a scholarship... I don't see a problem with that.

That has nothing to do with race, gender, ethnicity...

The main thing about AA is race discrimination...

Not only have black people been discriminated against, but white people have as well, oriental's, and spanish..
There are other's as well...


Don't you agree that the point system at U of M favors black people, hispanics, and chinese???

What happens if your a white person living in inner city detroit and you sit right beside a black person, your both hoping to attend U of M but for some reason the black person gets 20 points, and the white person gets none....

There is a discrepency in this system


first and foremost, not every white man is a privelaged individual, last night the one attorney for AA kept saying that everyone in Oakland county was "privelaged"

well guess what, they aren't, you drive around oakland county and there are shacks.. This was held in a bowling alley last night and the people that were bowling were not that "privelaged"

The lawer kept saying if you wipe away AA then U OF M is going to turn into an all white school...

What is wrong with this guy??

You know what he's really saying??? That school is going to be all white because he believes "all" black people are stupid without the point system...

Isn't that insulting?? I would of gotten up and punched him...

Not all white people are privelaged, i know plenty poor, and I know plenty poor black people too..
I know wealthy black and whites too....


The government of the united states doesn't understand this keeps the wheels turning on racism...

You can sugar coat it all you want and say your discriminated against everyday so a point system is necessary for people of colour, but that's not right.

That's like me saying because I was discriminated against a chinese person I need a point system to make up for it.



I lived in a city around niagara falls and I had many friends that were of different origin...

I come here, and it seems nobody wants anything to with me because i'm white...

Guess what, I'm not a bad guy!


The saying goes and the saying stands, A is A, not b or c.


You can try and make the equation so to suit your needs to be deemed fair, but it doesn't add up because it all comes back to logic and ethics...


I can't believe that some people believe this is right, when it's blantantly obvious this system is racist.

A racist is a racist, racist equals discrimination...
The only people who believe this to be true are the one's who believe there should be a system in place to make it not so, even though they are the one's that are creating it.

I said this before and i'll say it again, the only people that believe they are oppressed will be oppressed by the oppressor which is themself.

Alot of time people are their own worse enemy.

I believe this is to be true...

And guess what, i'm not racist, I don't believe in unequal treatment.

Unequal treatment IS discriminatory.....
which leads to racism...

Quit trying to deny this!!!
IT IS...
IT'S OBVIOUS....

You steer your own boat nobody steers it for you...
And don't let anyone steer it for you. Your not a victim unless you allow yourself to be....




[Edited on 23-1-2004 by TrueLies]

Originally posted by kramtronix
Most black dudes I know are not with Affirmative Action. I, along with them, think it lowers the moral of blacks in America. to me, it's a way of saying, "Hey you're dumb. Let me help you." It's a disgrace.

EXACTLY.

That's using common sense.

We must not have a dissenting opinion from the liberals, nor are we allowed to convey our support for others who have dissenting opinions lest' we run the risk of being asccused of being "insensitive bigots packing up' like wild animals".

(amusing isn't it?)

[Edited on 1-23-2004 by krankinkx]

[Edited on 1-23-2004 by krankinkx]

Or repugnant for not sugar coating what it really is.

Kind of contradictory isn't it...

This whole thing is contradictory for what they say they stand for.

They want racism to go away but yet they will allow
preferential treatment....


FYI everyone, I want racism to go away and I want preferential treatment to go away because it enables racism....

Originally posted by TrueLies
FYI everyone, I want racism to go away and I want preferential treatment to go away because it enables racism....

Not only does preferential treatment enable racism...it fosters it, in much the same way that Liberal social programs foster a dependance on government.

It is truely unfortunate that Liberals/ Democrats look to enslave people with these programs.

Originally posted by krankinkx

Originally posted by TrueLies
FYI everyone, I want racism to go away and I want preferential treatment to go away because it enables racism....

Not only does preferential treatment enable racism...it fosters it, in much the same way that Liberal social programs foster a dependance on government.

It is truely unfortunate that Liberals/ Democrats look to enslave people with these programs.

Americans are too dependent on government, and politicians are taking advantage of it.
Rep. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., this week addressed a Heritage Foundation forum examining America's growing dependence on "entitlement" programs.

"Americans are becoming increasingly addicted to government, and politicians are becoming the dealers of the drug named 'dependency,'" DeMint said.

Everyone Line Up at the Trough

"Everyday in America, more and more people are receiving benefits from the federal government, getting their income and their health care from the federal government, and fewer and fewer people are paying for it," he said.

"We must figure out how to convince people that they are most secure when they hold their own future in their own hand, that they're most secure when they're most free," DeMint added.

Government dependency is the "antithesis of liberty," he said.

"Those who get government housing forfeit the right to determine where, how, and with whom they live. Those who get food stamps have given up the choices as to where and for what to shop, and those who depend on government for education have given up the ability to choose where their kids or how their kids are going to be taught," he said.

Kirsanow believes there are now more than 100 major federal programs that foster dependency.

'Modern Serfdom'

"It's degrading, demeaning, and dehumanizing. And it's not an exaggeration to say that it's modern serfdom," he added.

The former chairman of the board of the Center for New Black Leadership blames much of the dependency problem on what he sees as the inherent unfairness in the tax code.

"When citizens have figured out that they can vote themselves benefits paid for by others, they're going to do so with unbridled gusto," he said.

"This is fed by a radically progressive tax code where the top 25 percent of taxpayers pay 80 percent of all taxes, the bottom 50 percent pay only four percent of all taxes, and that doesn't include the millions who pay no taxes whatsoever," he continued, "and those who pay little or no taxes are the ones most likely to access dependency programs."

Kirsanow says those who receive benefits must be made to perceive their costs if they are ever to support change.

To track those costs, the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis has developed the "Index of Dependency." The index charts the growth of five categories of federal programs that substitute for similar initiatives from lower levels of government or private organizations:


Housing assistance: 30 percent.

Health and welfare support: 25 percent.

Retirement income: 20 percent.

Post-secondary educational subsidies: 15 percent.

Rural and agricultural services: 10 percent.
The percentage after each category is the "weight" of that individual category in the index, based on its relative importance.

William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis, says the weights center on the year 1980 because that year is believed to mark "the beginning of the decline of left-of-center public policy and the emergence of right-of-center challenges" to those policies.

Therefore, when the historical data dating back to 1962 and projections through 2020 are viewed, the year 1980 appears as a "100" on the graph.

"If Congress and the administration continue to spend, they will be outstripping the growth rate of the index in the Carter and first Bush administrations," he said.

The index stands at 138, its highest ever. It has declined only twice since 1962, once during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, and again after Republicans were elected to a majority in Congress in 1994.

"Several key policy debates over the next few years - welfare reform, higher education support, health care reform - will likely determine the index's rate of change for the next decade, if not well beyond," Beach added.

Strategies

DeMint says conservatives must use a "liberal means" to reach a "conservative end" in those policy debates.

"We must recognize that there are some people who are disadvantaged that need help," he said.

"We have to convince them, on these major entitlement programs, that they're going to actually get more in terms of benefits if they own their own Social Security, that they will have more flexibility with their health care if they actually have a medical savings account that the government contributes to, whether it be through Medicaid or Medicare," DeMint said.

It is the difference, he says, between cutting spending and spending smarter.

"That's the challenge that we face. The illusion that we are going to take all the folks who are dependent and win them to the idea of cutting benefits; it isn't going to happen," DeMint added.

He cites the bill that he and House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, have introduced to change the nation's supplemental retirement income system as an example.

"It guarantees Social Security at the current level for every American," DeMint explained. "It only creates an up side for the future generation as their accounts get larger than the current program."

He believes people will willingly participate in alternative programs that obviously produce greater benefits, including the benefit of independence.

"We're going to make people better off by transforming a benefit that makes you dependent into one that's actually wealth creating and creates independence," DeMint concluded. "We're going to have to entice them out of dependency.



AND THERE YOU GO

Originally posted by TrueLies
Government dependency is the "antithesis of liberty," he said.

"Those who get government housing forfeit the right to determine where, how, and with whom they live. Those who get food stamps have given up the choices as to where and for what to shop, and those who depend on government for education have given up the ability to choose where their kids or how their kids are going to be taught," he said

This is the fulcrum on which Democratic Republics and Communistic Societies teeter.

Let us hope the Coummunist/Liberals are not winning!!

Did you ever notice that you two were the only ones talking to each other?

Originally posted by krankinkx

Originally posted by TrueLies
Government dependency is the "antithesis of liberty," he said.

"Those who get government housing forfeit the right to determine where, how, and with whom they live. Those who get food stamps have given up the choices as to where and for what to shop, and those who depend on government for education have given up the ability to choose where their kids or how their kids are going to be taught," he said

This is the fulcrum on which Democratic Republics and Communistic Societies teeter.

Let us hope the Coummunist/Liberals are not winning!!

It's going to be tight, I don't agree with either side.
It's unfortunate that our choices for choosing who's going to be president have come down to choosing between who's going to be the best bull#ter, and who's going to be the best bull#ting scumbag.

They all suck imo, why can't people start looking towards different parties that want to make good?

This whole thing is lame. You all know damn well that whichever dude gets into office is going to piss you off at one time or another, and all of them are going to try to amend your constitutional rights.

Patriot act
Social security, which is bs.
Internet tax??
Martial law... yes, it's here.

anybody got any other's they can list???

And don't be ignorant and point fingers at a certain party because you know damn well that both sides are trying to fook you...

I believe it is best to stay in the middle with the Independants and watch the rest of them self destruct.

TrueLies
When I said "Democratic Republics" I meant the one in which we live.

Although you are right, the extremes of either party are equally as bad

Originally posted by krankinkx

Originally posted by McGotti
ya well...seems like not to many people care about the constitution in america anyway...{the list is long for all the things that are "unconstitutional"..there are so many unconstitutional things going on in the u.s. im suprised people have not just thrown out the constitution all toghether.

mcgotti

I'm sure you would have us throw out the Constitution, It seems as though it doesn't fit your purposes does it. It gives the people unalienable rights...I have a feeling you don't like that.

There is no one keeping you here in this Great Land is there?? If you you don't agree with the Constitution please leave!

This is complete garbage that you spew out...what the hell makes you think that I would want to throw out the constitution??? your just making huge assumptions and..like most of what you say...your wrong.and fairly stupid if you didnt even notice that you have the riped off version of the same quote in your sig as I do...ya..im realy against our liberties..learn to read and process the imformation ..then make an intellegent observation.Ok ..thats how you do it..you may try it now.



[Edited on 23-1-2004 by McGotti]

Originally posted by McGotti

Originally posted by krankinkx

mcgotti

I'm sure you would have us throw out the Constitution, It seems as though it doesn't fit your purposes does it. It gives the people unalienable rights...I have a feeling you don't like that.

There is no one keeping you here in this Great Land is there?? If you you don't agree with the Constitution please leave!

This is complete garbage that you spew out...what the hell makes you think that I would want to throw out the constitution??? your just making huge assumptions and..like most of what you say...your wrong.and fairly stupid if you didnt even notice that you have the riped off version of the same quote in your sig as I do...ya..im realy against our liberties..learn to read and process the imformation ..then make an intellegent observation.Ok ..thats how you do it..you may try it now.



[Edited on 23-1-2004 by McGotti]

Boy are you hostile....someone pegs you for what you are and all of a sudden you pop a gonad (You do have gonads don't you?)

I am aware that I coined my signature from Benjamin Franklin, I like to keep it short and I like his style...... I wasn't aware that there were rules for choosing a signature.....If I have violated them then "I prostate myself before you and beg your forgiveness" (Jim Carey "Ace Ventura - Pet Detective")