The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
 Asian-Americans Complicate
the Affirmative Action Narrative
by Arnold Ahlert
.
GW Law Professor Calls
Manafort Warrant Excessive, ‘Very Troubling’
by Nick Givas
{dailycaller.com} ~ George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley said Friday that the no-knock FBI warrant executed on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s home was “excessive” and “very troubling.”... “I actually think people are a little bit too thrilled to see [a] Trump associate subject to a no-knock warrant. I’ve been a critic of no-knock warrants for years,” Turley said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “It’s very troubling. I think it was gratuitous, I think it was excessive.” Turley added that no-knock warrants are usually reserved for violent offenders or drug traffickers. “It is not the norm to have a no-knock warrant in a white collar crime case. No-knock warrants were designed primarily for dangerous drug dealers,” he said...   http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/11/gw-law-professor-calls-manafort-warrant-excessive-very-troubling/
VIDEO at the site.
.
President Donald Trump Cuts Planned Parenthood-Run
Sex-Ed Programs, May Prepare for Abstinence Funding
by Micaiah Bilger
{lifenews.com} ~ President Donald Trump recently cut funding to a questionable teen pregnancy prevention program that has given millions of dollars to the abortion business Planned Parenthood... The Hill reports pro-abortion President Barack liar-nObama created the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program in 2010 to teach vulnerable populations of students about preventing pregnancy. Participants in the program recently learned that their grant funding will end next year, two years sooner than expected, according to the report. Trump’s administration notified the 81 grant recipients that funding for the program is being cut by about $200 million and their grants will end on June 30, 2018, the report states....  http://www.lifenews.com/2017/08/11/president-donald-trump-cuts-planned-parenthood-run-sex-ed-prog...
.
Is China Using North Korea To Test Trump?
by David Thornton
{theresurgent.com} ~ China figures strongly into the current North Korea crisis, but exactly how is a matter of dispute. President Trump seems to believe that China is the key to resolving the matter of North Korea’s nuclear weapons... but it is far from certain that China’s interests in the region align with our own. Beyond the fact that Trump was overtly hostile and, at times, insulting to China during the presidential campaign, China is in the midst of a long campaign to expand its power in Asia and beyond. Chinese island-building in the South China Sea is common knowledge. Less known is how Chinese influence is growing in the Middle East, Africa and even the Americas. As Chinese military and economic influence grows around the world, the inescapable conclusion is that China has dreams of replacing the US as the world’s dominant superpower. That being the case, it would be in China’s interest to make the US look bad in the confrontation with North Korea...  http://theresurgent.com/is-china-using-north-korea-to-test-trump/
.
Israel Going Underground For Protection Against Hamas
by Jeff Dunetz
{lidblog.com} ~ Israel’s Gaza wall is going underground. There is already a barrier along its border with Hamas controlled Gaza, now they are expanding their protection with an underground wall to prevent terrorist incursions via tunnels Hamas builds under the border... Before and during the last war between Israel and Hamas, the terrorist fighters used tunnels to attack civilians and blindside IDF troops. The underground barrier was announced three years ago but now the IDF says it will accelerate the construction of the underground wall and it will be done within two years: The Israeli army will spend $800 million on building a massive underground barrier along its border with Gaza. The wall will stretch along the entire 40-mile frontier and will be 40m deep...  http://lidblog.com/israel-building-wall-underground-gaza-border/
.
 VIDEOS
 
CNN Anchor Calls Out Hypocrisy of Anti-Trump Pro/liar-Hillary Lemming
.
Judicial Watch Attorney: Benghazi is Not Going Away
.
POTUS: Military Options Against North Korea Are “Locked and Loaded”
.
China To North Korea, You Strike First, You’re On Your Own
.
Florida Democrat Wants Debbie Wasserman Schultz OUT!
.
Sean Hannity Threatens To Hire Best Lawyers, Sue liar-nObama For The Most Money Possible, If He’s Been Unmasked
.
Dana Loesch Reacts To Congresswoman Rice Calling Her a Domestic Security Threat
.
.
 Asian-Americans Complicate the Affirmative Action 
 Narrative 
By Arnold Ahlert:  "The purpose of affirmative action is to promote social equality through the preferential treatment of socioeconomically disadvantaged people. Often, these people are disadvantaged for historical reasons like years of oppression or slavery." —HG.org, a legal resource website
          In 1961, President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925. It included a provision instructing government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 adding sex to the list, and again requiring federal contractors to promote the full realization of equal opportunity for women and minorities via affirmative action.
          Since then, the concept has been bastardized to promote a spoils system that makes a complete mockery of the word "equal" — as in the "equal protection of the laws" ostensibly guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
          Thus, progressive heads are exploding with regard to an internal memo obtained by The New York Times. It reveals the Justice Department is seeking attorneys willing to explore "investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions." The Times initially insisted this project is aimed at "suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants."
          Wrong. As DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores put it, the DOJ is pursuing a complaint filed in May 2015 by a coalition of 64 Asian-American groups against an unnamed university. Since such a coalition filed a federal complaint against Harvard in 2015 alleging racial discrimination, it's safe to say the Ivy League school is in the DOJ's crosshairs.
          The most problematic aspect of the case for the nation's progressive quota-mongers? One minority group is challenging allegedly preferential treatment given to other minority groups. It doesn't get more disruptive of the affirmative action narrative than that.
          One might be forgiven for noticing that in virtually all leftist diatribes about the victimization of minorities — diatribes that inevitably include excoriating America for its legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and numerous other race-based evils — Asian-Americans are rarely part of the mix. Perhaps it's because the culture of victimhood the American Left has successfully inculcated in many black and Hispanic communities is largely rejected by Asian-Americans, who do not view government's thumb on the scale as a prerequisite for their success. Even more problematic, they are unencumbered by America's slave-owning legacy progressives use to induce guilt and justify their quota schemes.
          Thus, in an effort to keep the narrative alive, CNN insists the Trump administration's real motive is to "play to a conservative base that has long abhorred practices that offer a boost to racial minorities, potentially at the expense of whites."
          In the last 30 years, the Supreme Court has wrestled with the issue on several occasions, ruling three times that race can be used as a "factor" with regard to admissions. In the most recent case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the Court ruled 4-3 in favor of such programs, provided universities present strong evidence they are narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of diversity by "ensuring that race plays no greater role than is necessary to meet its compelling interest," Kennedy wrote for a majority.
          What, exactly, constitutes compelling interest? As dissenting Justice Samuel Alito noted, UT didn't offer any evidence about how much race factors into admission decisions, whether its plan placed more minority students in classrooms that ostensibly lacked diversity, or why its plan favors black American and Latino students, even as it appears to damage the prospects of Asian-Americans. Alito wrote, "By accepting UT's rationales as sufficient to meet its burden, the majority licenses UT's perverse assumptions about different groups of minority students — the precise assumptions strict scrutiny is supposed to stamp out."
          Two University of Michigan cases from 2003 also highlight the institutional acrobatics used to justify quotas. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court struck down the use of a mathematical-based admissions system that awarded extra points to minority candidates — simply for being minorities. But in Grutter v. Bollinger, it upheld the law school's supposedly more individualized review, because it served "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
          Yet what, exactly, are those benefits, and how are they quantified? Several studies have asserted that diversity provokes more innovative thinking and better group performance in a variety of settings. Yet how such conclusions are reached in the absence of a "control group" suggests politics trumps science.
          Thus we are left with the dubious proposition that diversity is beneficial ... because to assert otherwise constitutes bigotry.
          Yet the cases SCOTUS and other courts have adjudicated revolved around minorities versus whites. By focusing on Asian-American complaints against Harvard, the DOJ is taking a sledgehammer to the presumption that racial quotas are a reasoned response to "white privilege."
          As The Wall Street Journal explains, the percentage of Asian students admitted to Harvard has remained around 20% since 1993, despite the fact that the Asian share of the U.S. population "has increased rapidly." The paper further notes Asian representation is much higher at University of California campuses — where the use of race as an admissions factor was banned in the 1990s.
          Yet the real discrimination is found in the race-based approach to Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores. "All else being equal," the paper reveals, "an Asian-American must score 140 points higher on the SAT than a white counterpart, 270 points higher than a Hispanic student, and 450 points higher than a black applicant, according to 2009 research from Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and co-author Alexandria Walton Radford."
          Harvard insists its "holistic" approach negates that disparity. Yet if that's the case, how does it explain that legacy students — children of former students — are two to three times more likely to be admitted than students whose parents didn't attend Harvard?
          "There is a version of affirmative action — legal, generally popular and arguably more meritocratic — that higher education has not yet even tried," wrote columnist Dave Leonhardt in 2012. Leonhardt revealed economically disadvantaged students "receive either no preference or a modest one, depending on which study you believe."
          It shouldn't take a study to figure out what merits genuine consideration in college admissions. The same public that despises race-based admissions heartily favors giving a break to low-income students and those whose parents didn't attend college.
          Would economics-based affirmative action mollify the bean-counters? In a column for Diverse Issues in Education, Emil Guillermo asserts Asian students are being used as proxies for whites in the battle to dismantle affirmative action. Like so many progressives, he recognizes the mortal threat of affirmative action litigation that doesn't include a Caucasian component.
          It will be fascinating to see how people whose power depends on the continued cultivation of minority group grievances against an "endemically" racist white majority manage to cope.
          Right now, "holistic," in all its intentionally ambiguous glory, appears to be the linguistic tool progressives will use to maintain race-based quotas in college admissions.
          If that fails? Perhaps "Asian privilege" will become part of the progressive lexicon.  ~The Patriot Post

Views: 33

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

The cartoonist's homepage, indystar.com/opinion/varvel

ALERT ALERT

Schumer Refusing To Help Border Kids
Wants To Hurt Trump Instead

The controversy over how underage illegal aliens are handled at the border is heating up — but Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer just rejected a good-faith proposal to fix the problem.

A growing number of people on both sides of the political aisle have expressed concern for border separations, which occur when migrants are caught breaking the law along the border while they have children with them, or when the often exploitative relationship between adults and minors at the border cannot be established.

A vast amount of mis-information and outright lying about the situation has muddied the water, making it tough to understand the situation in its entirety.

Both liberals and conservatives, however, have voiced their support for a better system that results in fewer family separations, and even President Donald Trump has indicated that he is willing to stand with Congress if they change the law.

Shockingly, however, it looks like one of the most well-known faces of the Democratic party isn’t willing to take action, and is instead playing politics in order to attack Trump.

On Tuesday, Schumer openly rejected a Republican proposal to fix the immigrant separation problem at the legislative level, and instead whined about the president.

“There are so many obstacles to legislation and when the president can do it with his own pen, it makes no sense,” Schumer stated, according to The Hill.

“Legislation is not the way to go here when it’s so easy for the president to sign it,” he complained.

Democrats Reject Bill To Keep Families Together At Border – Schumer Says He “Wants To Keep Focus On Trump”

Think about that for a second: The president’s job is to execute existing laws. The legislature’s job is to change or enact new laws when needed.

A senator elected to the legislature for exactly that purpose is now refusing to do his job and pass legislation, while simultaneously blaming the president for enforcing the existing laws, as he is sworn to do.

If there was any doubt that Schumer and the Democrats are playing politics instead of trying to actually help migrant families, the senator made his intentions clear: Obstruct and point fingers at Trump.

“Asked if that meant Democrats would not support a bill backed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to keep immigrant families together while seeking asylum on the U.S. border, Schumer said they want to keep the focus on Trump,” The Hill explained.

Make no mistake: The Democrats dragging their feet and refusing to back legislation already drafted by Republicans will prolong the problems at the border.

“Schumer’s opposition to a legislative fix means there likely won’t be a quick end to the emotional images of immigrant children being separated from their families unless Trump backs down,” The Hill reported.

“Democrats want to keep the pressure on Trump instead of having Congress assume responsibility for the growing crisis,” the news outlet continued.

Again: There’s a solution ready to go, with Republicans including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ready to support it. Yet Democrats like Schumer apparently believe that scoring political points against Trump is more important than helping broken families on the border, even as their own liberal voters demand action.

“Congress alone can fix it,” stated Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on Monday.

“I support, and all of the senators of the Republican conference support, a plan that keeps families together,” McConnell agreed.

“We need to fix the problem and it requires a legislative solution,” he said.

Yet Democrats refuse to budge.

This “do nothing but blame Trump” response from the left should prove beyond a doubt that all the tears and hand-wringing from liberals are disingenuous. They’re for show. If it was truly about helping innocent kids at the border, Schumer and his fellow Democrats could act right now.

If their priority was actually to solve the problem and help broken families, scoring points against Trump shouldn’t even be a concern. Even if they believed he was being stubborn on the issue, they could take the high road by doing their jobs and supporting bipartisan legislation.

They don’t, because solving the problem was never their goal. They are playing political games and using devastated children as pawns, while pretending that the president is the monster.

That’s sick… and the American people need to see exactly who is doing the obstruction.

SLAVEHOLDER??

Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service