October 22, 2019

Random Thoughts and Comments

Well, perhaps not so random.

Evidently there were violent protests outside a Trump rally in Mexifornia, where protesters, mostly of Mexican decent, jumped on police cars and other outstanding acts of idiocy, while waving Mexican flags. My comment is a question. If it so goddamn wonderful here in the United States, then why not wave the American Flag instead of the flag of the place you disliked so much you had to leave? Or is it somebody is paying them enough money to wave the Mexican flag so as to foment more hatred?

~~~~~

I do recall while I was in the U.S. Military during the early 1970s, everyone was required to take a government-crafted race relations class (wink, wink). I grew up in a northern, predominantly-white state and had no thoughts one way or another about race. As a matter of fact, a man I befriended while in Boot Camp, happened to be a black man. We hung out when we could and shared puffs on cigarettes, etc,…until the “brothers” threatened him with his life if he didn’t stop hanging out with a “whitey.” Thus began my real race relations schooling.

But, back to race relations class. After a week of classes, in which with each successive day I built up more anger and resentment toward the blacks, in general – something I never experienced before in my life – we were required to take two tests. The point of the tests, supposedly, was to prove that testing can be white-biased and/or black-biased, i.e. if a white man took a black-biased test, he might experience what black men face taking a, so-called, white-biased test, provided of course that such test taker was a product of government-sponsored education, propaganda and fomenting of hatred. If you happened not to be, Government was going to make sure you were one way or another.

I got a perfect score on both tests and was immediately kicked out of the class.

I wonder why?

Over the years I have learned that almost all events in life that originate from governments are designed to fail in positive ways, but winning is what we see in society today – more hatred and racism.

~~~~~

John Boehner is heard telling a group of people that Ted Cruz is “Lucifer in the flesh.” I made a comment the other day that if anyone should be able to recognize “Lucifer in the flesh” it would be him. Of course his comment was meant to be a joke. Bwahahahahahahahahaaha

Evidently Lucifer in the Flesh’s father didn’t like that comment and decided to lash out at Boehner by attacking Donald Trump. While claiming the high ground, Rafael Cruz said that Ted is essentially the only man in the world who knows, understands and follows God’s word. Really? I think I heard similar statements before….. and millions of people have died at the hands of the Vatican.

One has to wonder, that if a person is so heavily into God and his Word, how can he therefore exclaim, “If you vote according to the word of God, there’s only one candidate you can vote for,”

It is my thought that if you are following God’s word, you wouldn’t be participating in the biggest fraud and deception this country promotes that works so hard at destroying God’s word.

~~~~~

John Wayne Day in California isn’t going to happen because all the minorities that aren’t minorities anymore, are offended by John Wayne.  If that’s how the game is played, let’s make a list!

~~~~~

Idiots in the Media are saying that one football player, once believed to go high in the Draft, which began last night, instead of getting drafted in the top 5 or 6 fell to 13th, overall, because somebody released a video showing him with a gas mask on smoking pot with a bong. If that how the game is played, let’s make a list.

~~~~~

China is building military bases in the South China Sea. The United States doesn’t like that. So, how many military bases does the U.S. have scattered around the world? – 662 in 38 foreign countries comes to mind.

~~~~~

And finally, for all you devout Catholics who believe you must go to a confessional to tell the “father” all your secrets/sins in order to be worthy of….of….of….well, I dunno what it makes you worthy of. But soon, you will be able to spill your guts to the pope through a robot. I wonder if the machine will take paper money or credit cards only? What could possible go wrong?

Share

Black Conservatives Comment on Selma “Bloody Sunday” 50th Anniversary

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

WASHINGTON, DC — March 7 is the 50th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday,” when civil rights activists were attacked by Alabama law enforcement as they tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma at the beginning of a march to the state capitol. Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are commenting on this civil rights milestone that brought increased national attention to the cause of civil rights and in particular helped to secure voting rights protections.

Noting the great strides forward that have been made in the promotion of civil rights for all people, Project 21 members cautioned against using the solemn remembrance of the events in Selma to stir up racial animosity and demand redress for things that should not be blamed on an America that has grown and matured so much so quickly in its attitudes toward race.

“In the 50 years since Bloody Sunday, blacks went from suffering under legalized racial segregation to celebrating the election and reelection of the nation’s first black president. Blacks now head major corporations and are among our nation’s most admired citizens. That was entirely inconceivable back then,” said Project 21 member Derryck Green , a doctoral candidate in ministerial studies. “But those who now maintain a black grievance industry — the bastard child of the civil rights movement — want to make others think America is still like the Selma of decades ago. In doing so, they trivialize how our nation has matured. Racial disparities remain, but many of these pains are self-inflicted on a few while society as a whole enjoys social, economic and political benefits that those who suffered on Bloody Sunday could only imagine experiencing back then.”

“Black historian John Henrick Clarke said ‘history is a clock that people use to tell their political and cultural time of day.’ In Selma, the struggle for civil rights prevailed because people of all races came together to show self-determination, integrity, courage and strength in overcoming segregation and institutionalized racism,” said Project 21 member Stacy Swimp , an Apostolic minister and founder of the National Christian Leadership Council. “We need to remember this spirit and history as we check the time. We need to realize there are no permanent boundaries around us we do no place around ourselves. I am confident our predecessors would not appreciate it if we internalized their experiences as if they were our own. We cannot use their pain and sacrifice as an excuse to hate others, accept low standards among ourselves and refuse to commit to the advancement of American exceptionalism. That’s not what they wanted. We shouldn’t want it either.”

“It’s often been said that the accomplishments of any black American are made by standing on the shoulders of those who came before them. In the face of violence, degradation and inhumane treatment, those who marched in Selma 50 yeas ago did so for a long overdue cause. The march was a tide that truly raised all ships,” said Project 21 member Bishop Council Nedd II , the rector of St. Alban’s Anglican Church. “We cannot now go back to racial exclusivity. I don’t see the events of Selma as an exclusively ‘black’ event. Black Americans certainly gained the most from what transpired, but Americans of all walks of life stood together for what was necessary and right. Everyone cried out for equality. Everyone deserves equality. Yet we now live in a moment in time when people demand that ‘black lives matter.’ They do, but not more so than the innocent unborn or the persecuted Christians dying for their faith. At the end of the day, all lives matter.”

“Fifty years ago, this nation’s civil rights movement staged three marches for voting rights from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. They resulted in the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965. Racism, violence and discrimination were omnipresent in the lives of all too many black Americans — something that hardly required the flights of fantasies or fertile imaginations driving today’s protests and marches,” said Project 21 member Joe R. Hicks , a former executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles. “In contrast to the those who marched at Selma for realistic goals and objectives back then, those claiming to be today’s civil rights leaders make handsome livings from specious claims that America still has ‘so much farther to go’ in the struggle against racism. Unlike Dr. King and other civil rights greats, this new leadership spends most of its time looking in the historical rear-view mirror. It’s something that blinds them, perhaps opportunistically, to the amazing pace of progress that’s occurred since the awful violence of ‘Bloody Sunday.’ Mired in racial mythology, these leaders and activists insultingly argue black lives don’t matter in today’s society and that racist cops have declared open season on black youth. Drawn to the glow of TV cameras and political grandstanding, this bankrupt leadership turns away from the hard work of redeeming communities in preference to the cheap and easy lobbing of empty charges against white America. Yet the fact is, 50 years after Selma, Birmingham and Montgomery, and after the civil rights victories of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act, a once-oppressed people can hardly be described in that manner.”

Project 21 members were interviewed or cited by the media over 2,000 times in 2014, and have been interviewed or cited over 300 times so far in 2015. Outlets calling on Project 21 for comment have included TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, One America News Network, the Orlando Sentinel, Westwood One, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio as well as 50,000-watt talk radio stations such as WHO-Des Moines, KOA-Denver, WGN-Chicago, WBZ-Boston and KDKA-Pittsburgh. Topics discussed by Project 21 members have included civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, voter ID, race preferences, education, illegal immigration and corporate social responsibility. Project 21 members have provided substantial commentary regarding the Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Eric Garner judicial proceedings, and the organization is currently involved in two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Project 21 also defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer members come 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 (http://www.nationalcenter.org).

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

Share

Legal Scholar Slams Missouri Governor’s Rush to Justice

Press Release from National Center for Public Policy Research – Project 21:

Legal Scholar Horace Cooper Slams Missouri Governor’s Rush to Justice in Michael Brown Shooting Death

“A Rush to Judgment… Demeans the Justice System and the Rule of Law”

Washington, DC – Legal scholar Horace Cooper of the Project 21 black leadership network is condemning a statement by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon that appears to prejudge the investigation into the death of Michael Brown.

Cooper, who is co-chairman of Project 21 and a former professor of constitutional law at George Mason University, said this about Governor Nixon’s apparent rush to judgment:

A hallmark of the American justice system is that we protect the rights of all Americans, especially the accused. In this case, officer Darren Wilson deserves not only a presumption of innocence, but the right to expect an neutral and dispassionate investigation into the shooting incident in Ferguson.

A rush to judgment by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon or any other high-ranking officials demeans the justice system and the rule of law.

People of color should be especially sensitive to mob justice and the idea that the crowd can demand and obtain a prosecution regardless of the underlying merits of the case. Appeasing noxious crowds by allowing pre-ordained prosecutions is a relic of a bygone era that Americans have hoped was in the past.

Shame on Governor Nixon.

In a taped message, Governor Nixon presented a two-step goal to help quell the unrest in Ferguson, which has experienced protests and nightly rioting since Brown’s death on August 9. Nixon’s first goal is “ensur[ing] that those with peace in their hearts are not drowned out by those with senseless violence in their hands.” The second part of his plan, should he actually mean it, is ominous. Governor Nixon also said “a vigorous prosecution must now be pursued.”

A grand jury’s job is not to assess guilt or innocence, but only to determine if enough evidence exists to bring charges against a potential defendant. At that time, a prosecution can be mounted. A grand jury may not make a decision for months.

Project 21 members have completed over 40 radio and television interviews on the death of Michael Brown and unrest in Ferguson, Missouri in addition to being interviewed or cited by the media over 1,000 other times in 2014, 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 other 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, defended voter ID laws at the United Nations and provided regular commentary during the Trayvon Martin judicial proceedings. Its volunteer members come 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.

Share

Supreme Court Brief Filed Seeking Clarification on Disparate Impact in Fair Housing Act

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Black Conservatives File Supreme Court Brief Asking Justices to Clarify Disparate Impact in Fair Housing Act

Case Could Set Major Precedent for Race and Regulation

Court Accepted Two Similar Cases Settled Before Consideration — It’s Time for Court to Finally Rule on the Issue

Washington, DC – With the U.S. Supreme Court finished handing down opinions for its recently-completed term, members of the Project 21 black leadership network joined a legal brief that was recently filed with the Court that asks the justices to finally resolve the vexing issue of disparate impact claims regarding the Fair Housing Act and government-subsidized housing.

“Project 21 and the other organizations joined on this brief believe it is vital to bring this crucial test of disparate impact before the Supreme Court,” said Project 21 member Hughey Newsome, an industry professional in the field of financial planning. “The notion that disparate impact claims can go beyond the intent of the authors of laws and with the only burden of proof for the accused is, in itself, disproportionate harm. And, regardless of the purpose, it sets a dangerous precedent. Once such a precedent is set, it seems there is really no limit to what can be done in the name of justice.”

Project 21’s legal brief asks the justices to accept the case of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al. v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. for its upcoming term. In the case, ICP claims the state agency violated the Fair Housing Act by allocating housing tax credits to developers in a manner they say effectively keeps minorities in low-income minority-majority neighborhoods rather than giving them access to housing opportunities in wealthier majority-white communities in the Dallas metropolitan area. ICP charged the department’s tax credit distribution policy creates a disparate impact on black recipients of such credits.

The case is on appeal from the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The framers of our government pledged to us a society based on a simple premise — that every American would be treated equally under the law. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments made clear that this concept applied in matters of race,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a legal commentator who taught constitutional law at George Mason University and is a former leadership staff member for the U.S. House of Representatives. “The disparate impact doctrine runs counter to this notion and, in particular, it does so where racial lines are involved. If we’re going to permanently end the temptation by government to divide us into racial groupings, we’ve got to return to the principles embodied in our Constitution and the color-blind policy advocated by Martin Luther King.”

In the Project 21 brief, which was written by the Pacific Legal Foundation and also joined by the Center for Equal Opportunity, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Individual Rights Foundation and Reason Foundation, it is argued that the Fair Housing Act was written “to apply solely to disparate treatment, not acts having disparate impact on protected classes.” It is argued that the U.S. Supreme Court must “consider the threshold question of whether disparate impact claims are even cognizable under the Fair Housing Act” since “disparate impact claims do not depend on the intent of the action or policy.”

In the past few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has twice accepted cases similar to the case now being advocated by Project 21. The other cases, Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. and Magner v. Gallagher, were removed from the Court’s schedule after they were settled prior to argument.

“Politically-motivated settlements in the past have kept the justices from ruling on this important question of whether or not the Fair Housing Act should be officially expanded to apply to the impact of policies and not just outright discrimination as was envisioned by the lawmakers who crafted it,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon, a former senior counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. “The Supreme Court would be wise to take this opportunity to finally tackle this important question.”

Citing the fact that appellate court jurisdictions have already tried to resolve this issue, but have formulated different ways in which to deal with claims, the Project 21 brief points out that “[r]esolution of the question by this case would end the diversity of results that occur when different jurisdictions analyze substantially similar disparate impact claims.” Furthermore, “[s]ubjecting government defendants to disparate impact claims pressure them into engaging in unconstitutional race-conscious decisionmaking to avoid liability for such claims.”

“Lower courts try to answer this tricky question, and the result is a patchwork quilt of different remedies. Civil rights law cannot change from region to region. The Supreme Court needs to determine if such enforcement is even constitutional, and then — if it is — create a uniform way to deal with it,” said Project 21’s LeBon.

Project 21’s Cooper added: “It is one thing for the law to say that no person may be mistreated due to their race, but it is something alien and distinct to say that merely because of their race they’ll receive different treatment.”

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 .

Share

Black Leadership Network Condemns Race-Based Justice in Pennsylvania Bribery Case

Four State Lawmakers Caught in Government Bribery Sting; Accused of Taking Cash to Influence Actions on Government Contracts and Voter ID

State’s Attorney General Declines to Prosecute, Apparently Because Lawmakers are Black and Liberal

“It appears that Attorney General Kane picks and chooses the laws she will defend and the crimes she will prosecute based on a political litmus test,” says Project 21’s Episcopal Missionary Church Bishop Council Nedd II, a Pennsylvanian

Washington, DC – In the wake of a liberal walkout in the Pennsylvania state legislature and accusations that Pennsylvania’s attorney general is declining to prosecute four lawmakers allegedly caught in a government bribery sting operation because those lawmakers are black and liberal, members of the Project 21 black leadership network are calling on state officials to do their duty.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a Democrat, has refused to prosecute four Democrat state lawmakers who allegedly took bribes in a three-year sting operation, calling the operation “racially tainted” because the lawmakers who allegedly took the bribes are black.

The lead law enforcement agent running the operation himself is black, and he denies blacks were targeted. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that both Republicans and Democrats were offered bribes for actions including voting against the state voter ID law, but none of the Republicans took the bribes.

“It appears that Attorney General Kane picks and chooses the laws she will defend and the crimes she will prosecute based on a political litmus test,” said Project 21’s Bishop Council Nedd II, the rector of St. Alban’s Anglican Church in Pine Grove Mills, Pennsylvania and presiding bishop of the Episcopal Missionary Church. “But when the House State Government Committee convened to examine the evidence, liberal lawmakers on that committee who obviously must support this sort of behavior got up en masse and left. This is childish. It is disrespectful to their constituents and to anyone who values the laws of our republic.”

On May 6, the House State Government Committee was scheduled to hear from witnesses about what Committee Chairman Daryl Metcalfe (R) thought could constitute “misbehavior in office” by Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane. The hearing would consider if these examples might lead to impeachment charges against Kane.

Among the complaints against Kane is that she “openly defied her duty” by not upholding a state law passed in 1996 banning same-sex marriage and her “brazen unwillingness” to pursue a long-running and wide-ranging undercover operation in which public officials were accused of bribery. In the latter case, Kane quashed the probe, which recorded lawmakers participating in actions such as taking bribes for government contracts and to oppose the state’s voter ID law, for having what she considered a ‘disparate impact’ due to the fact that all of the accused lawmakers are black.

At the hearing, former U.S. Department of Justice lawyer J. Christian Adams testified that “[i]t is the obligation of the attorney general to ignore the race, religion and partisan affiliation of the wrongdoers in deciding whether to enforce the law.”

As the hearing began, however, liberal lawmakers on the committee immediately tried to adjourn it and tried to block the testimony of witnesses. These liberal lawmakers eventually walked out of the hearing altogether. The hearing resumed after the walkout.

“For all the hyperbolic rhetoric claiming that voter ID requirements disenfranchise minorities and the poor, it is particularly dismaying to see what the real story is after a criminal investigation of legislators takes place. It turns out at least one was willing to sell their position on voter ID to the highest bidder. That is tragic,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a former constitutional law professor. “It makes matters worse when the accused pretend that their allegedly illegal actions were somehow the result of a racial witch-hunt. It’s even worse still when there’s an obviously political decision by the commonwealth’s Attorney General to dismiss the charges merely because the people willing to sell the rights of blacks and the poor are black themselves. Shouldn’t this behavior be considered even more outrageous?”

Bishop Nedd added: “This was an important hearing on an important topic, yet the liberals on the committee chose to turn it into a partisan spectacle. If they truly believe Attorney General Kane to be innocent of the accusations against her, it would have been more productive for them to participate and disprove the witnesses. Their walkout only makes the need for answers more pressing.”

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 .

Share

Federal Race-Raters Dealt Major Court Defeat

Black Conservatives Helped Challenge Government Agency’s Race-Card Attack on Job Applicant Credit Checks

Hypocritical Federal Government Fought Company for Using the Same System Government Uses to Screen Hires

Washington, DC – In a case in which the Project 21 black leadership network supported the defendant with a legal brief, an appeals court just delivered a stinging rebuke to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for highly unprofessional methodology in attempting to prove racial disparities in a company’s job applicant credit checks.

“We decided to weigh in on this case because the EEOC’s effort to expand the use of disparate impact analysis went far beyond having any logical nexus with discrimination,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a former professor of constitutional law and former congressional leadership staffer. “Instead, such analysis would simply serve as a burdensome and costly barrier to job creation. When we found out about the bizarre ‘race-rating’ technique, we felt even more obligated to share our views. Yesterday’s ruling vindicates our concerns.”

In the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel on April 9 unanimously ruled to exclude the findings of the government contractor General Information Services and the testimony of statistical analyst Kevin Murphy in the case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, et al. This affirms the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and the summary judgment that ends the EEOC’s complaint against Kaplan.

In the opening paragraph of Judge Raymond Kethledge’s opinion, the jurist succinctly described the awkward nature of the EEOC’s complaint against Kaplan:

In this case the EEOC sued the defendants for using the same type of background check that the EEOC itself uses… [T]he EEOC runs credit checks on applicants for 84 of the agency’s 97 positions… For that practice, the EEOC sued Kaplan.

The EEOC alleged that Kaplan, a higher education provider that had experienced problems of financial improprieties among its employees and later hired several third-party vendors to perform credit checks on senior executive and other applicants who would be involved in financial matters, illegally created a disparate impact that negatively affected minority applicants. At issue in the case was the EEOC’s methodology of allowing contracted “race raters” who largely relied upon photos provided by state agencies that issue driver’s licenses. The photos were used to determine an applicant’s race. Companies doing the credit checks for Kaplan did not record applicants’ race.

“It defies logic that a federal agency would seek to punish a private company for instituting a widely-accepted business practice — especially since this agency engages in the same practice,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon, a former senior counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. “This is an example of the lengths to which this presidency will go to advance their divisive agenda. It also highlights the importance of the courts as a rational body to counter these types of policies.”

The legal brief to which Project 21 was a party, written by the Pacific Legal Foundation and also joined by the Cato Institute, Center for Equal Opportunity and Competitive Enterprise Institute, argued, in part:

[The EEOC’s] use of race raters directly contradicts its own directives. When the government refuses to rely on self-identification, it must resort to using so-called racial identifiers, and thus stereotypes and sweeping assumptions. By opting not to ask the individuals to identify themselves, EEOC unilaterally made itself the definer and decider of race. It is impossible to define race in such a simplistic way, stamp an individual with a racial classification and simultaneously treat them with dignity…

Equality before the law means that government will not categorize people based on unscientific, stereotypical criteria, and it allows each person to define himself or herself, and thrive as an individual.

Judge Kethledge called the lower court’s ruling “a meticulously reasoned opinion,” and concluded:

The EEOC brought this case on the basis of a homemade methodology, crafted by a witness with no particular expertise to craft it, accepted only by the witness himself. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Murphy’s testimony.

“Frankly, after seeing the district court’s ruling, I was surprised that the EEOC would even pursue such an appeal. The unanimous ruling by the 6th Circuit demonstrates just how untenable the EEOC’s position was,” added Project 21’s Cooper. “Telling employers who haven’t asked or in any way inquired about the racial status of applicants that they cannot adopt simple, widely-used preventative measures to ensure that potential employees won’t engage in wrongdoing is unfair. Using government contractors to scour applications and get third parties to provide photos to guess the applicants’ race to show how it might constitute racially-biased disparate impact is just plain bizarre.”

Project 21 is currently involved in the U.S. Supreme Court race preferences case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action as well as Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin on remand from the Supreme Court to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. In the previous U.S. Supreme Court term, it was involved in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin and the voting rights case of Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder.

Project 21 legal experts and other members of the organization have discussed these cases and others in media interviews in venues that include MSNBC, the Fox News Channel, HBO, Glenn Beck’s Blaze TV, the nationally-syndicated Jim Bohannon radio show, Florida Public Radio, the Christian Science Monitor, Reuters and many others.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 .

Share