April 24, 2017

Risky Business…or You’ve Proven My Point

*Editor’s Note* – Below is an article written by James Beers in which he expresses his point quite well. Those with understanding will agree, the rest don’t want to and thus, to them, he is wrong. I would, however, like to take a moment to further comment on, not what Beers wrote, but what I read that was, evidently, a letter/email the chancellor of the University of Wisconsin – Stout, sent to his students about why he removed two paintings from a heavily traveled hallway, and hid them is more difficult to find locations within the university.

Before I do, let me remind readers of an article I wrote only a few days ago called, “Why Blind Ignorance Persists…Blindly.” What the chancellor wrote, proves my point, exactly. Here’s why.

The letter states that he decided to move the two paintings because, “their current uncontrolled access poses a risk of having a harmful effect on our students and other viewers.” (emboldening added) Hold that thought for a moment.

The chancellor then attempts to explain what he was thinking (I use this term very loosely), “it was never my intent to “censor” these paintings or remove them from public view. I simply wanted to get them into situations where we had some control over who would view them.” (emboldening added)

The chancellor uses the the word “censor” as a verb, and thus the definition of “censor,” as a verb, is: “examine (a book, movie, [painting] etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.” He says he did not intend to censor the paintings and yet, because from his perspective as being the sole holder of truth and all others are wrong, he exactly censored the paintings, then pulled a typical politicians move to deny he did it.

Once the chancellor described the previous location of the paintings an “uncontrolled access” the mere term describes the lack of being able to censor. Once the paintings were moved, the chancellor eagerly admits that he wanted to get the paintings to a location where he had “control over who would view them.” Isn’t that precisely the definition of censorship?

But, I’m sure from the chancellor’s perspective, because any dialect these days is only right and left, and regardless of the false paradigm team you are on, your side is the only one that holds the “truth,” he has done nothing wrong and is justified in deciding which history is remembered and who gets to discover that history. 

To be so ignorant to deny censorship while exactly describing an act of censorship, I believe is a perfect example of the product of post-normal thinking, which is the result of propagandizing and indoctrination from Communitarianism’s control over what we casually in this country call education. Communitarianism, the creator of Common Core produces non thinking robots willing to subject their rights and independence to the authority of the common good.

If a person actually knew the difference, why would they want to spend the thousands of dollars at a university in which the result of your investment would be blind ignorance?

Risky Business

By James Beers

WARNING GRAPHIC INFORMATION, Definitely NOT Suitable for All Ages or Persons.  (BE WARNED!)

Welcome to the Upper Midwest; actually welcome to the Great Lakes States.

This is the part of the country (WI, MN, MI) where we all “love” wolves.  Where we all must (or we are disinvited from all ludafisk festivals and ice fishing contests) argue that the disappearance of moose; the loss of moose hunting; the decline in deer; the decline in deer hunting; the deaths of all manner of dogs from beagles and hounds and pets and bird dogs; the losses of cattle, calves, sheep, lambs, etc.; and the attack on a Minnesota camper and the death of a Wisconsin lady…. all of these things and many more; like over 30 diseases and infections of great and mortal danger to humans, wild animals and domestic animals; and the constant danger to children in rural yards, going to and from and waiting at rural bus stops or elderly rural residents checking mailboxes or mistakenly going “out back to get the neighbor’s dog” that turns out to be a wolf — all either do not exist or are the result of ticks, global “warming/climate change/whatever”, “tough” winters, or criminal “jack pine savage” (i.e. redneck) poachers that should be “cleared” from the land and imprisoned or banished back to whatever non-Muslim (of course) country they or their ancestors came from.  Future immigrants to these states should be “vetted” by federal “vetters” for any such “poaching” or “animal’s aren’t equal to humans” tendencies and if observed to have such tendencies forbidden to enter or obtain a visa.  Future illegal immigrants with any connections to harvesting, controlling or in any way harming wild animals should be sent to Guantanamo Bay and held there indefinitely and sterilized so that they will no longer “pollute” the USA gene pool we are building thanks to Progressive thinkers and their “partners” and “cooperators” in government and especially the UNIVERSITIES!

Think that is hyperbole, pilgrim?  Nationwide, the Universities are the main education/propaganda/justification hotbeds that:

–          Justify politician’s, both state and federal, unjustified pandering to and profiting from ignorant urban voters and radical environmental/animal “rights” activist’s interest in forcing their fellow Americans to submit to and endure all of the unjust laws (Endangered Species, Wilderness, etc.) and unjust takings (Critical Habitat, Access closures, rural economic elimination, Local government submission, etc.) that build their hegemony and that are destroying this once-great nation.

–          “Cooperate” with and “partner” with federal and state bureaucracies by creating faux biology and romance biology disguised as “science” to get grants, publicity, tenured teachers, increased staffs and funding, etc. to supply the propaganda demands of politicians running for re-election and bureaucrats larding their empires and careers.

–          “Educate” the teachers who get more power over our children every year.  Teachers that indoctrinate our children to accept what we know to be morally reprehensible or entirely false while turning out more and more academically-challenged “graduates” every year to bolster arguments for the need for more and more foreign students to fill the “technology gap”.

–          Create the whole aura of a “scientific elite” that increasingly must rule the rest of us ignorant boobs for our own good because the world is getting more complex and we are getting dumber.

Now the University of Wisconsin has, ever since the Vietnam War/”free”-love/drugs-for-all days been rightly known as “the Berkley of the Midwest”.  This title applies equally to their subsidiaries like UW-Stout from whose “Chancellor” the following Wall Street Journal tidbit emanates.

Note the titles of the paintings “French Trappers on the Red Cedar” and “Perraults Trading Fort”.  The Catholic priests like Father Marquette and Father Hennepin explored and worked to convert the native people of these states in the 1600’s. It is arguable that since the above-mentioned 1960’s the practice of the Catholic faith has dwindled in the Upper Midwest due to the same societal and cultural factors affecting trapping, hunting, wolves, rural clearances and the growth of amoral government and laws.

Fur trappers from Montreal were among the first Europeans that, simultaneously with those priests, explored the country, traded with the native people, and provided the basic foundation and transition for the inevitable change from a hunter/gatherer, use-of-natural-resources society to the settled and more-beneficial (to human society) landscapes that were the pride of these states up until the infamous 1960’s.  The sanctification of wolves, the total demolishment of major sport fisheries, explosion of harmful and injurious plants and animals, and the diminution of hunting and trapping have accompanied the complete and ongoing vilification of trapping, trappers and the worldwide fur market.

What you are about to read is merely the latest move by those destroying this nation.  If a state, like Wisconsin, can and will bamboozle a gullible public about history while justifying wolves and their effects why not just make the Great Lakes States like New Jersey and ban even the possession in your own home of a trap?  If New Jersey can ban even the possession of a trap on your wall; why not the art on your wall just like on some University “Hall wall”?  Are the state “educater-educators” teaching their “graduates” to do the same in the schools and perhaps even support encouraging children to inform on parents having “sensitive” or “banned” art on the walls of their homes?  Evidently, there is no extreme these pandering ninnies will not go to.  Why not just have a big bonfire of books and art objected to by these tax-paid propagandizers at the next UW-Stout Homecoming?  Joseph Goebbels would be proud!

Just read the following article.  My disgust for these bozoes and their incessant “it was never my intent to ‘censor’ these paintings or remove them from public view” and “the concerns Native Americans have expressed about how they are portrayed in the paintings” excuses about how, like guns and hunting, grazing and logging, private property rights, and state and local government eradication; it is never about doing-in those things; it is always about some higher good as, in this case rewriting history to please an interest group or denigrating both trapping and the arrival of a much more advanced society that we are dismantling as we simultaneously deny we are doing so.

Jim Beers

19 August 2016

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net   

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

This is a copy of the email/letter sent to students:

Bob Meyer, chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Stout, in an Aug. 5 email to students, faculty and staff:

I am providing an update on the status of the two paintings in Harvey Hall that I have decided should be removed from two hallways in that building because their current uncontrolled access poses a risk of having a harmful effect on our students and other viewers. . . .

“French Trappers on the Red Cedar” on the second floor will be relocated to the Dean’s Conference Room on the first floor of Harvey Hall. “Perrault’s Trading Fort” on the first floor of Harvey Hall will be relocated to room 504A in the Robert S. Swanson Library and Learning Center, the future location of University Archives. . . .

I also want to emphasize that, despite opinions to the contrary, it was never my intent to “censor” these paintings or remove them from public view. I simply wanted to get them into situations where we had some control over who would view them. These relocations will achieve that objective. . . .

. . .[T]hey will be made available for public viewing, along with a document that explains their historical significance and the concerns Native Americans have expressed about how they are portrayed in the paintings. After all, a university needs to encourage a free flow of ideas, even if those ideas make some people uncomfortable, as long as we don’t foist those ideas on unaware or unwilling recipients.

 

 

Diversity Fraud

Today I learned that the University of Wisconsin – Stout has removed two paintings from a central area on the campus stating that, “…students just couldn’t take the trauma of seeing a bygone era.” Also part of the group of idiots responsible for the obvious censorship, resulting in the destruction of history – evidently we only learn history that makes us “feel” good – is the Diversity Leadership Team. The Diversity Leadership Team promoted their support for removing the paintings by suggesting that such paintings perpetuated racial stereotyping.

You can read about some of this at Pajamas Media.

However, last evening I turned on the television. I decided to check out what was going on in Brazil where sports are being played. (Note: Out of fear of violating trademarked names and hashtags, I hope I have given enough information so that you know what I’m talking about.)

Men’s basketball was being played between the United States and Venezuela. I generally do not watch the game, for various reasons, and in particular refuse to watch any basketball involving professional performers from the National Basketball Association.

The game itself did not interest me. What did interest me was, in the context of the above story about diversity and racial stereotyping, that the USA men’s basketball team, comprised of 12 players, were all black. Not one white guy on the team as a player.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a crybaby that concerns myself with racial stereotyping and diversity. But, those crybabies, as we have seen above, and the millions of other crybabies who scream racial discrimination, racial diversity and stereotyping, isn’t it the epitome of all those things that the United States of America would select an all black basketball team to represent the country in the sporting games in Brazil?

Personally, for whatever it’s worth, for purposes of such events, the best team should represent the country and it matters not what color they are. What is absolutely ridiculous is that for those wanting to censor art and history because it might make somebody not feel very good, or out of fear of suggesting racial stereotyping, somebody sure did a piss poor job in fielding a “diverse” men’s basketball team. I’m sure there must be those that don’t “feel” very good that whites are excluded from the team.

Where’s the diversity in the diversity? Would there be the same acceptance of an all white team as there has been for this all black team?

I wonder.

Gun Laws: Creeping Toward Fascist Rule

FascesPresident Barack H. Obama is presently meeting with his legal advisers to examine how he can “legally” erode the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms, through Executive Action. Because of a listless society and a corrupt Congress, providing for presidents, current and past, to write laws via a method of bypassing Congress, we are headed toward dictatorial, fascist rule…inch by inch. Historically, this has happened before. We live in dangerous times, with many reasons to fear, such usurpation is on our doorstep.

While it may be already too late, a first step necessary to stop the bleeding is to recognize where the blood is coming from and how the injury happened.

Here is a brief examination of one example of how it happened and a comparative look at what’s happening today. Perhaps it’s time to stop denying truth and Wake Up, America!

wake up america

There is real danger in America’s bent to make everything politically correct. The term itself, political correctness, is representative of American culture today in that we find misleading or poor representative terms and phrases to give something title instead of calling it what it is. In this case, political correctness is nothing more than censorship. To the intelligent, censorship is a loss of our right to free speech.

Censorship, is a taking away of the rights of free men. All laws are, to some degree, the taking away of the rights of free men. We have been taught to believe that all laws are proper and necessary for the protection of a free society. This is an oxymoron of epic proportions – a disease with seemingly no cure. We see it in several parts of our political and societal existence – believing we are creating a cure for a problem only to discover the created cure exacerbates the problem.

Political Correctness has more far-reaching dangers than most realize. In a post-normal society, like that of the United States, history is being repeated, not only because it is not being taught, or not being taught honestly, but it cannot be taught accurately because history has been hijacked, the end result, some of which is, political correctness.

The censorship of free speech, i.e. political correctness, forces all of us to teach half-truths in history, while often failing to address the root causes of prominent social, economic and political issues. Therefore, there is no learning process because history is watered down, while sinister processes ensure no discussion of truthful matters perpetuates the valuable lessons that should be learned from historic events. Perhaps none is more evident than modern speech and censorship when attempting to discuss the results of fascist rule of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. The most prominent of political correctness can be seen whenever anyone attempts to make any kind of correlation with current events and those of Hitler. Even if some of us have learned from history, isn’t the censorship a tool to cover up the horrors of fascist rule? Perhaps the censorship in this instance is a planned event. I happen to think it is. For those seeking ultimate power and control over all people and resources, nothing would be more detrimental to that agenda than bringing to review the actual historic accounts of repressive, murderous regimes like Hitler’s.

Before Hitler gained power in Germany, certain events took place that laid the groundwork for, not only the elevation of the Hitler regime to political prominence, but what was to take place after that power was ceded away from the socialist-democratic government of Germany.

Nearly every American is willing to cede his/her rights because they have been bred to believe it is necessary for safety, the rule of law and national security, while at the same time willing to blindly follow their government, wishing never to believe their government would ever resort to Fascism and/or dictatorial reign. By giving away those rights, it places the control of that part of you into the hands of a centralized government. History should have taught us that the bigger and stronger a centralized government becomes, the smaller our freedoms and liberties become. Yet, we follow the wrong path.

As such, a majority of Americans are convinced that something called “reasonable gun control laws” are necessary for various reasons and something that fits into a progressive society. Such benign behavior has resulted in the murder of millions of people throughout the world.

We must, therefore, compare and correlate what led up to the takeover of the Hitler Regime in Germany and events taking place in America today. The comparisons are so similar, one would have to question whether or not the same evil that brought about the disarming of Germany and the Holocaust is in play in the United States today. In history we read such things that took place in Germany in the early 1900s that clearly set the stage for Hitler’s fascist rule. These events read as current events in the U.S.

Prior to the Hitler Regime, Germany consisted of independent states, with the liberty to create their own laws, similar to the way the U.S. once was. History reveals that many of these states would begin campaigns to disarm feared political opponents and those who might threaten the existing governments. This fear was of a “communist” take over perpetuated by those with political influence. This eventually led to laws aimed at disarming the citizenry.

It seemed that in Germany, a country that once allowed for the private possession of weapons, not that much unlike those of the United States, a new regime of social democrats began an effort to limit the right to keep and bear arms, based on the fear that communists, who might be able to buy and possess arms, would become a threat to the ruling party. History should have taught us that a fearful society is a society ripe for the picking.

Even prior to the 1928 enactment of the Weimar Republic, the chaos that existed in Germany led to the passage of  “the Verordnung des Rates der Volksbeauftragen über Waffenbesitz (Regulations of the Council of the People’s Delegates on Weapons Possession). This gun control law demanded the immediate surrender to the central government of all weapons and ammunition. Failure to do so would lead to imprisonment.

This law passed because of the fear generated that another war might start if guns and ammunition were not controlled. This law was later repealed and replaced with different gun laws that, on the surface, appeared more benign, but would ultimately lead to the easy pickings by a fascist regime.

These draconian gun laws were responsible for the onset of semi-governmental groups of thugs and those who took it upon themselves to be the enforcers of new gun regulations. Unfortunately, at least one of these groups was the foundation of the move in Germany to National Socialism.

In 1920, the Law on the Disarmament of the People passed. This law gave a Reichskommissar the authority to decided which guns were “military” in style – perhaps better understood by Americans to define an “assault weapon,” – and who could and could not buy or possess.

By 1928 and the rule of the Weimar Republic, it was decided to pass a “comprehensive” gun law – Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law required a license for anyone interested in making, assembling or repairing guns and ammunition and the sale thereof. In addition, the same law prohibited any selling of arms and ammo at fairs, shooting competitions or related events.

Anyone wishing to own a weapon, now had to apply for a license. Those wishing to carry a firearm, had to obtain another license. All of these regulations certainly should be familiar to most Americans. If they don’t already exist, totalitarians continue to demand exactly what the German national socialists were demanding.

But the laws didn’t stop at licensing. Authority was given to the Reichskommissar to make sure that a license was given only to “persons whose reliability is not in doubt, and only after proving a need for them.” (Background checks to show you are not listed on some fake “domestic terror watchlist,” had psychiatric treatment or some other “condition” left up to the discretion of a man or panel of men.) In certain cases of undesirable classes of people, a right to own and/or carry a gun was automatically denied.

If you were legally licensed, there were limits as to how many guns and how much ammunition you could have on hand. These limitations varied depending upon what the “proving a need” involved. Hunting provided guns of certain types different than target shooters. Hunters had to buy a license to hunt and that license provided further gun and ammunition regulations that were strictly enforced. And remember, these licenses were issued to only those the government deemed completely trustworthy and were not known to be in opposition to the central government, later the Nazis.

Eventually, it became illegal to manufacture any weapon that could be, “rapid disassembly beyond the generally usual extent for hunting and sporting purposes.” (more assault weapons to be banned)

Prison terms were established for violation of these laws, including laws that required immediate notification to authorities in the event that someone inherited a gun or ammunition.

The Reichskommissar at the time, Kuenzer, in an explanation of the need to implement the new gun regulations, explains: “The law necessitated long consultations in the Reichsrat [legislative assembly] because it interferes strongly with the police authority of the Länder [states].”

Included in this “comprehensive” gun law, was the prohibition of individual states to make any gun laws on their own. All states were now subject to the wishes and whims of gun control of the central government.

Reichskommissar Kuenzer explained the reason it was necessary to implement a “comprehensive” (reasonable) gun law: “The purpose and goal of the law at hand are to get firearms that have done so much damage from the hands of unauthorized persons and to do away with the instability and ambiguity of the law that previously existed in this area. The difficult task was to find the appropriate limits between this necessity of the state on the one hand and the important interests of the weapons industry that was employing a large number of workers and had been heavily damaged through the peace treaty, the interests of the legal sporting industry, and the personal freedom of the individual.”

Now that gun manufacturing was completely controlled by the central government, all guns manufactured commercially had to be stamped with the name of the company that made it, or sold it; “in the interest of solving criminal acts committed with firearms.” 

All of these “reasonable” gun regulations should sound very familiar to Americans. We have listened to the demands of totalitarians for more gun control, while voicing all the same claims as those in Germany 100 years ago. Germans, after World War I, lived in fear and chaos, much because the government and other political factions, pounded the fear of communism into the people’s brains. Eventually they believed that it was necessary to give up their rights if it would protect them from the communists.

In America today, we have our government pounding into our heads fear of terrorism from “radicalized Muslims,” and other events like mass shootings. Now that terror attacks, by “radical Muslims” have occurred in this country, the centralized government is demanding more gun restrictions, convincing more and more people that with stricter laws, terrorists will not be able to inflict harm on the people. It seems that this was the same reasoning that Reichskommissar Kuenzer used in his explanation to the German people.

The above historic synopsis of German gun rights, all happened BEFORE the Hitler Regime took control. There is no doubt these actions set the stage for fascist rule.

We know some of what Hitler did. We know that he completed the gun grab, taking all guns away from anybody he did not want to have them. It should be noted that Hitler, shortly after taking power, basically suspended the German Constitution and gave himself the authority to write and implement laws, without the authority or approval of the Reichsrat.

Examination of the events in the United States reveals that the U.S. Constitution has, for the most part, been suspended. Many laws are written by Congress and signed by the president that do not conform to the constitution. In addition, all actions, whether legal or not, carried out without opposition, sets precedent and therefore becomes law by default. This same shameful act happens in the Courts. With each administration “policy” is established. Once again, history, unlearned, reveals that “policy” becomes the law of the land by unchallenged precedent.

When Hitler first came to office, he worked with his administration and departments, to implement his Third Reich ideology. As we have learned, eventually he was given the power to write any laws he wanted. In America today, we now see the growing, illegal act of presidents writing their own laws through “executive actions.” The longer this goes unchallenged, the more Americans run the risk of dictatorial rule as we saw with Hitler.

Over 100 years ago, people didn’t believe anyone or any government as dark and sinister as the Hitler Regime could attain power into any country. Even when Hitler was carrying out his genocide, Americans, and much of the rest of the world denied it was happening. Where did that denial lead us?

Today, we live with the same denials. We go about our business believing that any gun laws are mostly benign and that any “reasonable” gun laws are done for the safety of the people and to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. History proves this never happens. History proves that disarming the people, leads to Fascism.

Political Correctness results in efforts to prohibit free speech about Hitler and the most effort goes into finding ways to block any discussions that make comparisons of Hitler with anyone or anything in America today. The denial and repression of truth will lead to death.

 

It’s a Mad World

Colorado park stays closed because too many people are trying to take selfies with bears – source

“We’ve actually seen people using selfie sticks to try and get as close to the bears as possible, sometimes within 10 feet of wild bears,” said Brandon Ransom, Denver Water’s manager of recreation. Before it was closed, a bear chased a biker in the canyon.

Because Waterton Canyon has more than 100,000 visitors a year, its management is worried that these dangerous selfies would lead to a bear attack.
Perhaps it’s the dope heads who don’t know any better. I say let the pot heads alone. Let them take selfies. As a matter of fact, place signs directing them how to persuade the bear to come and take a group photo, placing the bear in the middle.

IDIOTS!

ObamaBear

Source:

Affirmative Action Returns to the U.S. Supreme Court

Black Conservatives Join Supreme Court Legal Brief Demanding End to Race-Based University Admissions

Schools Accused of Trampling Constitution for Politically-Correct Diversity Goals

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Same Racial Preferences Case Twice in Almost Two Years

 

 Project 21, a leader in the promotion of black conservative public policy opinion and activism, has joined a new legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court opposing racial preferences in school admissions.

Project 21 joined an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) legal brief written by the Pacific Legal Foundation and also joined by the Center for Equal Opportunity, American Civil Rights Institute and National Association of Scholars in the case of Abigail Noel Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, et al.

This is the second time the Fisher case will come before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the case, Abigail Fisher, who is white, claimed that race preferences prevented her acceptance at the University of Texas at Austin in favor of a lesser-qualified minority applicant.

In 2013 the Court ruled 7-1 that race-conscious admissions policies must be narrowly tailored in order to be constitutional, and sent the case back to the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to be reheard. The Supreme Court justices told the 5th Circuit to retry the case under standards of “strict scrutiny.” The lower court sided with the University of Texas at Austin again. In July 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case for a rehearing to determine if the 5th Circuit properly followed the Supreme Court’s instructions.

A date for oral arguments at the Supreme Court has not been announced. A decision is expected by June 2016.

“The Supreme Court’s earlier rulings make it clear that quotas and other kinds of broad-based racial preferences are impermissible,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a legal commentator who taught constitutional law at George Mason University and was a leadership staff member for the U.S. House of Representatives. “One would think that, in 2015, no school would think it necessary to rely on a racial test to balance out its student body. In this case alone, however, the Court has given every opportunity for the lower court and the University of Texas itself to reassess its race-based admissions policy. Yet it appears only direct intervention by the Court will now be sufficient. The days for race-based social engineering are numbered.”

Project 21’s Cooper is a University of Texas at Austin graduate.

Fisher and her supporters, including Project 21, asked the Court to determine if the lower court followed the orders of the justices to thoroughly and thoughtfully re-examine if the University of Texas at Austin’s race-conscious admissions policy is narrowly tailored and consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that race preferences for the sake of campus diversity were permissible, the University of Texas at Austin immediately instituted the race-conscious admissions policy challenged in the Fisher case. It was instituted despite other schools’ use of additional considerations to achieve their own diversity goals, factoring in things such as parental income, parental educational histories, general family history and even a Texas policy that guaranteed state-run university enrollment for students in the top percentages of their high school graduating classes. The Project 21 brief notes:Washington, DC –

There is no evidence that the University considered many of these race-neutral options, nor has it documented why these options would fail to produce a critical mass of underrepresented students and the educational benefits a diverse student body provides.

The brief also argues that “the University has failed to prove that its race-conscious program is narrowly tailored” to benefit alleged diversity goals because the assertion is not proven, the university has not seemed to weigh the costs and benefits of a race-conscious admissions policy nor has it proved it pursued all available alternatives to a race-conscious policy.

Furthermore, the brief explained this problem is not limited to the University of Texas at Austin:

There is no evidence that universities have weighed the undeniable costs of racial preferences against the benefits that purportedly result from classifying individuals on the basis of race. And there is no evidence that universities have given serious thought to whether these benefits can be achieved through race-neutral means. This demonstrates that universities nationwide continue to flout the Court’s limits on the use of race in admissions decisions.

Because the situation is not unique, Project 21 and the other organizations on the PLF-written brief noted the Court must definitively address the issue of the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies:

This Court’s most recent decision in Fisher – emphasizing the need to exhaust race-neutral measures before turning to race-based classifications – has not changed the behavior at our nation’s public universities…

[P]ublic institutions are not considering the costs attendant to racial preferences, and whether those costs outweigh the purported benefits.

“Over a century ago, Justice John Marshall Harlan said ‘Our Constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.’ The justices who underwhelmed almost everyone by sending the Fisher case back to the 5th Circuit in 2013 now have another chance to reaffirm Constitutional principle,” said Project 21’s Joe R. Hicks , the former executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference’s Greater Los Angeles chapter. “Justice Clarence Thomas got it right on Fisher when he wrote ‘I would… hold that a state’s use of race in higher education admissions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.’ And, as my friend Richard Sander — a UCLA law professor and expert on social and economic equality — has patiently explained, race preferences hurt the supposed beneficiaries. These students, he wrote in The Atlantic, ‘fall behind from the start and become increasingly lost as the professor and her classmates race ahead… the experience may well induce panic and self-doubt, making learning even harder.'”

The brief additionally cites “academic mismatch” as a perilous byproduct of poorly-crafted race-conscious admissions policies, noting that “racial preferences… cause acute harm to those who receive them.” By placing minority students in schools above their academic aptitude so that the institution can achieve its diversity goals, the brief noted “[t]he result is a significant gap in academic credentials between minority and nonminority students at all levels.” This may lead to changed majors, dashed hopes and – worst of all – disparate dropout rates among minority students.

Project 21’s Hicks added: “The broader debate surrounding ‘affirmative action’ has changed since the Court last ruled on this case. This time, they are thankfully afforded a second chance to end the divisive practice of race preferences.”

In sum, the Project 21 brief points out to the justices that:

When an educational institution discriminates on the basis of race, narrow tailoring requires that it prove independently how racial preferences are the least harmful means to secure the educational benefits of diversity… The Court can ensure that students are treated equally under the law by holding that the University’s decision fails to satisfy the narrow tailoring requirements of the Equal Protection Clause.

Additional information about this case and the amicus brief just filed can be found in a blog post by the author of the brief, attorney Joshua Thompson, at the Pacific Legal Foundation website here.

Project 21 members have been interviewed or cited by the media on current events and politics in tens of thousands of instances since its founding in 1992. Most recently, this has included Fox News Channel programs such as “Special Report with Bret Baier,” the “O’Reilly Factor,” “Fox and Friends” and “The Kelly File” as well as CNN’s “The Situation Room,” HLN’s “Dr. Drew,” Blaze TV, America One News Network, TVOne, RT and Newsmax TV. On radio and in print, Project 21 members have appeared on or been cited by the Salem Radio Network, Sean Hannity, Jim Bohannon, Bill Martinez, Radio America, American Urban Radio Network, Bill Cunningham, Roger Hedgecock, Mike Siegal, Dana Loesch, Thom Hartmann, the Progressive Radio Network, EurWeb, Orlando Sentinel, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and 50,000-watt talk radio stations that include WGN-Chicago, WBZ-Boston, WJR-Detroit, KDKA-Pittsburgh and WLW-Cincinnati.

Project 21 has participated in many cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights and defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.

Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are available for media comment on this case as well as the overall issue of race preferences in what some call a “post-racial” contemporary America.

A leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, Project 21 is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Rescuing the 21st Century [or Bringing Back Self Determination?]

“Yet somewhere over the next decade a strange reversal took place. Everyone was astonished to learn the future was really the 8th century. In the major capitals of the West it became fashionable to don a keffiyeh, burka or grow a beard. British public figures started converting to Islam. But there was more. Set to challenge the 8th century for supremacy of the coming century was a resurgent 19th. Malthus, in the shape of Global Warming and Marx in the guise of political correctness and “positive rights” were back in intellectual vogue. Socialism, which had collapsed of its own weight in the late 20th century was again resurrected, for the nth time, as the Coming Thing.”<<<Read More>>>

Trademark Attack on Washington Redskins Condemned by Black Leadership Group

From the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Obama Administration Trademark Attack on Washington Redskins Condemned by Black Leadership Group

Federal Punishment for Not Changing Name Sets “Dangerous Precedent”

Government Retribution Against Private Business Should Concern All Americans, Even Those Who Don’t Like Redskins Name

Washington, DC – By cancelling protected trademarks of the Washington Redskins professional football team, members of the Project 21 black leadership network say, the Obama Administration’s Patent and Trademark Office is setting a dangerous precedent.

The Washington Redskins lost six trademark protections on the team’s name after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that the protections “must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans.”

“There are Native Americans and others who object to the Washington Redskins name, and they have every right to complain about it and organize people behind their cause to change that name. For the Obama Administration to come along and use the power of the government to economically hurt the team in an attempt to force a name change is a gross abuse of power,” said Project 21’s Stacy Swimp “If the government can go after the Washington Redskins football team in this way, the government can likely go after any disfavored business, organization or social group that has similar protected trademarks, patents and copyrights if it chooses to do so. It sets a dangerous precedent that should strike fear into people everywhere and on both sides of this issue because it shows how government can take sides in political disputes and bring harm upon those it opposes.”

The ruling does not force the Washington Redskins to change its name. It does reduce the economic value of the team’s name because the lack of trademark protection means that other companies can use and produce items featuring the Redskins name and likenesses without having to adhere to any licensing agreements or pay any royalties to the team.

“Is there any sort of politicization of the federal government the Obama Administration will not sanction? First, President Obama appears to have sent the IRS and Lois Lerner after his enemies list, now he has the Patent and Trademark Office going after the Washington Redskins,” said Project 21’s Council Nedd II, a bishop with the Episcopal Missionary Church. “Maybe Obama has plans to start manufacturing bootleg Redskins gear after he leaves the Oval Office and he doesn’t want to pay royalties to Redskins owner Dan Snyder. Whatever the case, this shows how dangerous a virtually unchecked and all-powerful government can be.”

Redskins officials have already said they plan to appeal the ruling. They can appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or bring a civil suit at the federal district court level. A similar ruling against the team in 2009 was overturned at the appellate level.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who previously rallied fellow liberal senators against the Washington Redskins and called the team name “racist,” noted his approval of the executive-level action against the team. On the floor of the U.S. Senate, Reid said “it’s just a matter of time until [Snyder] is forced to do the right thing and change the name.”

To Reid’s comments, Project 21’s Nedd replied: “If Harry Reid wants more to do, maybe he should focus on affairs in Nevada rather than mucking around with my hometown team. Maybe he can bird dog prosecutions of polygamy cases, land sale fraud or the federal government launching attacks on ranchers.”

In 2014, Project 21 members have been interviewed or cited by the media over 800 times — including TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fox News Channel, Westwood One, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and 50,000-watt talk radio stations such as WBZ-Boston and KDKA-Pittsburgh — on issues that include civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, race preferences, education and corporate social responsibility. Project 21 has participated in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights and defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer membership comes from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated .

Political Correctness

A guest post by David Miller: What is wrong with some people? During a recent inventory of paintings and photographs at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle Barracks, PA. an individual listed as “A Unidentified Official” wanted to know why two generals who fought against the United States (Robert E. Lee & Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson) are there. Now the War College is “mulling over what to do” with their holdings of these two great Americans. I can only begin to imagine who this individual is, but a few “Officials” come to mind as possibilities.

Just maybe the Army needs to outright tell the “Unidentified Official” that great and honorable American’s fought on both sides of that war (which by the way was a “Civil War”). And after that war we again became the United States. Also, it should be noted that both generals were graduates of West Point and served with distinction in the Mexican American War. Also, long after that war General Robert E. Lee was reinstated in 1975 by Congress as a U.S. Citizen as a final act to heel the old wounds of that war. In my humble opinion what should have occurred is that all who fought for the south should have been “officially” given back citizenship.

This so called “Unidentified Official” most likely isn’t up to date on historical facts in that both were and are great American’s and that General Robert E. Lee is considered the best military tactician that we as a nation have ever produced. He was revered by both sides during the war as such, and has been ever since by both the U.S. Military and Historians alike. My family fought in that war on the side of the North; had we been southern born we most likely would have fought on that side. Because the bottom line is that all men (both North & South) fought for their homes, friends, and way of life.

Both of these Great American Generals should maintain their place of Honor in the walls of the U.S. Army War College. Not be driven into obscurity by some want to be politically correct individual or a misguided soul. Our history is a great one made up of our struggles as a nation. There are those among us who are trying to change that for varied political reasons. Our educational systems are currently teaching history and civics that have been modified for political reasons. We need to ensure our children learn our true history.

David Miller
Lexington TWP, ME

    The Washington “ThinSkins”? “ForeSkins”?

    At His Majesty’s Superior Residency, begun and held in Washington, D.C. in the fifth reign of Barack Hussein Obama I, by the grace of Government, socialism, political correctness, and social justice, King, Defender of the Faithless, has, by his greatness, and moral superiority, thus declared that the racist and bigoted offensive name “REDSKINS” should be changed to a more fitting and progressive title, worthy of the mediocrity it so deserves.<<<Read More>>>

    Offensive Name of Washington Red Skins Problem Solved

    washingtonredskins