"The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge."
Yes, the above represents the mainstream media view of the Supreme Court decision in the New Haven (home of Yale: no coincidence) firefighter case.
Note how the above "news" report is WRONG. Abosolutely, totally WRONG. Wrong in an evil way which misapprehends the role of the judiciary in a free society (as distinguished from a dictatatorship). You may think I am overreacting to a single word, but I am not. That word represents the core of what is wrong with leftist thinking about "the law", and the role of judges.
The Supreme Court did NOT rule that white (who says they are "white"? Who says Hispacis are not "white"? Who says Obama is "black"? There is NO way to define these terms, unless you are a RACIST) firefighters were "UNFAIRLY" deined promotion. It is only leftists who think that the judiciary is there to FORCE the leftists view of "fairness" upon us all---the leftist view of what the law ShOULD be, instead of what the law is.
What the court held was that New Haven UNLAWFULLY violated the RIGHT of white firefighters not to be discriminated against on the gasis of RAE (and ethnic origin). That is supposedly the law of the land, except for racist leftists out there. Did I just call 4 members of the United States Supreme Court racist, as well as Sotomayor. Yep. I did.
What is the fundamental definition of "racist"? Is it not "a person who identifies people by the superficial fact of their APPARENT 'race', rather than as an individual, and wansts to assign "rights" and "privileges" based on that apparent 'rac'"? I dare any leftist out there to come up with a better definition--one that makes sense, that is. The leftist "definition" of racism, of course, is: "dscrimination against anyone, EXCEPT 'whte people' (whoever, they are--as Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, "what do you mena 'we' are in trouble, white eyes"), on the basis of their race". Oh, I forgot. Leftists are also willing to disriminate against ORIENTALS, JEWS, and MIXED RACE people, depending on the circustances. They also have never quite explained how Hispanics are not "white", and why Hispanics recently immigrated into the United States (which is a high percentage of them, depending on how you define "recently") can claim they were "discriminated" against previously (by WOMOM? The government of MEXICO, or some other Latin country?).
It is ironic that conservatives are routinely accused of "racism", when it is conservatives who want our society to be COLOR BLIND, and for everyone to be treated solely as an individual (whatever their race, color or creed). It is the left that wants to identify people by race, and make race determinative of the rights of people. That is why I have said all along, in this blog, that leftists are the PRIMARY racists in today's society--long ago having outdistanced the steadily diminishing supply of redneck racists of the Ku Klux Klan type.
The Constitution does not say anything about "white" people. Neither do our civil rights laws. This LABELING of people as "white", or "black", or "brown" (Italians?--nope, Reverend Wright considers them "white Europeans")--this LABELING of peple by the superficial tone of the COLOR OF THEIR SKIN is totally--in today's world--a leftist thing.
I have mentioned n this blog before that I made many of these points, circa 1972 or 1973, in an op-ed published in The Daily Texan (uncer my name, Gordon Stewart), while I was a law student at the University of Texas. As previously described, I leftists did not believe in free speech, even then, and my article was published (dspite the numberous leftist op-eds taking the opposite point of view) only after I complained the the Texas Legislature about a student newspaper being ussed totally for leftist propaganda.
I stand by that 1972-73 article today (wirttine during the controversy over the Bakke decision--showing how long this matter of "reverse discrimination" has consumed the racists on the left). I was right then, and I am right now.
But say I was wrong in 1972-73 (hard as that is to imagine). Say that "affirmative action" (the left made up the term to CONCEAL their goal of "reverse discrimination"--a typical leftist tactic which continues to this day) was "needed" because past discriminatioin (against people then living in Mexico?) made it "unfair" to treat people as individuals, when some had a grave disadvantage. Well, at what point do we STOP, and treat people as INDIVIDUALS. For FORTY YEARS leftists have been pusuing discrimination based on race, "to "make uP" for "past discirmination" (not usuallly, of course, engaged in by the people the left is discriminating AGAINST on the basis of race). We have now elected a BLACK (sort of--by whose definition?) PRESIDENT. Is it not time now to be COLOR BLIND?
Dirty little secret: the left NEVER wants to be color lind. They want to definite people based on race and ethnic origin FOREVER. That is partly a matter of POWER, and politics, since the left gets a lot of votes that way, and hopers for more.
As I have said before, by (somewhat suspect) family history, I am 1/8 Indian (Native Amercian). That is why I repeated the Tonto joke above. My daughters are 50% Hispanic (in addition to whatever Indian princess blood they may have). Obama, of course, is of MIXED RACE--almost surely more "white" that black (when you add in the apparent Arab heritage, although I guess we cannot be sure that there were "white" Muslims in his rediscovered "roots"). This whole idea of basing rights based on a superficial, and indefinable, characteris like race/ethnic origin has always been a bad one. It was a bad idea when the Ku Klux Klan did it, and it is a bad idea when the newly minted racists of the left do it. It becomes a worse idea every year that passes. Yet, the left still hangs on to its racism, as it still hangs on to the central planning idea of the Soviet Union (long after it failed in the Soviet Union).
Yes, this Supreme Court decision is another small step toward a COLOR BLIND society. However, you should be disturbed by how near we are to adopting RACIMS as the official policy of the United States. Obama wants to do that. Four members of the Supreme Court want to do that. Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court wants to do that (luckily, she ould replace one of the four, rather than one of the five, but that may not be true next time). The Supreme Court, of course, reversed Sotomayor--hardly a recommendation of her for the Supreme Court. She is a person who wants to impose her idea of "fairness" on us all. That is a very bad thing.
Final note (and criticism of above quoted "news" paragraph): The Supreme Court found, in its decision, that New Haven violated "THE LAW" of the land. This illustrates again that leftists have NO respect for "the law", despite their seemingly fanatic invoking of that phrase when it suits their agenda. For the hypocrites of the left, "the law" is what leftists WANT it to be. It is a phrase with no objective meaning.
Illegal immigrants violate "the law". Leftists do not care. California voters define "the law" on homosexual marriage. Leftists do not care. Voters tried to define "the law" on abortion. Leftists did not care. They just wanted judges to impose their view on the rest of us. Then they accused abrotion opponents of not respecting "the law" because they continued to fight the Suppreme Court decision--a dictatorial decsion by judicial fiat.
The Supreme Court has again held that "the law" prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race (which "the law" clearly says, by the way). Do you expect the left, including the mainstream media, to accept that determination of what "the law" is? Don't be silly. These are the worst hypocrites who ever walked the Earth on two legs, and the only version of "the law" they accept is their own version.
P.S. No proofreading on any entry this long, as it simply takes too long--even spell check, where I caNnot see the highlighting well at all. You will just have to accept the typos as the price for the article existing for you to read. There is no other price,after all. For some, this price may be too high. Too bad. I do have SOME sympathy for those who fight through the verbosity to try to make sense of these long entries. However, I really lost all sympathy I was born with at age 10, and therefore any sympathy I have is just scraps thrown away by other people after all of my original sympathy was used up. "Cutting" and "honing" are WORK (said with horror of Maynard G. Kregs of Dobie Gillis), and I still am not getting paid for his So the verbosity is another price you just have to pay for the (substantial) benefit of my wisdom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment