Gerald Ford: Not Who You Thought He Was

In reading Jeffrey Toobin's over-rated book on the Supreme Court, "The Nine" (which essentially argues that liberal judges are in the real tradition of the Founders), I was suprised to discover that Gerald Ford had come out as a vocal defender of Michigan Unviersity's system of massive racial preferences during the bro-ha-ha over Grutter v. Bollinger, the Michigan Unviersity Affirmtive Action case. But even more eyebrow raising was this quote from a New York Times Op-Ed former President Ford penned entitled, "Inclusive America: Under Attack",

"A pair of lawsuites would prohibit Michigan and other unviersitys from even considering race as one of many other factors weighed by admision counslers such a move would condemn future college students to suffer the cultural and social impoverishment that inflicted my generation"

Perhaps I was wrong to affix this kind of liberalism to only those under 65 years of age. Ford is dead ofcourse. I thought his generation, that of the WW2, was proud of themselves and there nation and there culture. I didn't know they scorned the wholesome, united social and cultural atomsphere of the 1940's as "cultural and social impoverishment" inflicting them? If only Gerald Ford had turned on a TV in the last 20 years of his life and seen what a rap video is he probably wouldn't have written such nonsence. So according to Ford, we should scorn and throw away the culture of the American army on D-Day in favor of the American culture of 2009 when the chart topping refrain on the radios of the nation is "Move Bitch, Get Out the Way!"? Hmm.
This is a phenmonon in Modern America. Those who have spent little to no time in a black ghetto, never seen a hip hop video, never gone to school with African Americans in signfigant numbers, and who have, overall, the least knowledge of black or latino ghetto culture are consitantly the very ones speaking about how they know that increased spread of latino & black ghetto culture is not just good but "essential" at any Unviersity and know that Michigan Univiersity student will sufferer tremendously in the absence of black and latino culture on their campus. These people who have spent the least time in the black or latino communitys and who have the least knowledge of either, have the highest opinion of both and claim for a fact that the academic underachievment, chronically high rates of violence, crime, illegitimacy and poverty among both latinos and blacks in America is the result of white racism & white oppression.
However, those white people who actually know black hip hop culture, who actually know blacks and latinos, go to school with them, work with them, live in the same neigborhoods, have a radically different more modest view of blacks and how much they "deserve" the racial preferences that Ford supports. Those whites that have the most exsperience with and knoweldge of black Americans have a much less grandiously positive view of the African American community compared to those whites like Gerald Ford who have virtually zero familiarity with the black community that Ford claims he was deprived of as a young man at Michigan Unviersity. Those whites who actually know and live with or around black culture do not complaim like Gerald Ford about the lack of it (especially at the places they send there children). They don't rejoice it the fact that there kids who go to the diverse schools Ford loves, schools that are 60 or 80 or 90 percent African American and latino. No, they want, more than anything, to send there kids to the least "diverse" schools possible, the whitest, most asian schools. They don't think there kids are suffering from any lack of black aka hip hop culture (which is the exact kind of "diversity" Ford is writing about whether he knows it or not). To the contrary, the parents of white children who have real knowledge of black (and latino hip hop) culture, who live in mostly minority neigborhoods, think there children are suffering from the presence of viscerally anti-academic black/hip hop culture, which Ford thinks Unviersitys must have as much as possible of.

Is Affirmtive Action really breathing its last gasp?

For years, liberal apologists for legalized anti-white discrimination aka affirmtive action have been claiming, as a way of shuting up critics that affirmtive action won't be in place 20, 30, 50 years from now. I'm sorry to say as a former, current and soon to be future white male victim of affirmtive action and racial quotas, that its seems unlikely that affirmtive action will be going anywhere any time soon. In fact, I'd go so far as to not even see racial preferences against males been lifted in my life time or perhaps ever. in America. Why is this, you ask? Since, polls have been showing for years that more racism existists among blacks and latino than whites, and since the biggest victims of discrimination in the legal justice system are now whites. Cornell just came out with a study that shows that in the South a white man is more than 5 times more likely to be sentenced to death for the same crime as a black man is. Of course, if this where true in reverse it would be making blacks rich with discrimination lawsuites but whites are allowed to be systemically discriminated against. It's all part of "balancing the playing field". How is it far if white males don't have to exsperience blatant racism and discrimination, right?
The reason affirmtive action is here to stay and will certainly be in place in 50 years is, as with so much else, exsplained in the demographics. I've said before and I'll say it again, America is going to be demographicly/racially transformed in half a century from a overwhelmingly white/European nation to a majority-less nation where the dominant poltical entity or group will not be European-Americans but a latino-black voting bloc that will be much larger than it is today in very short period of time. Around 2050-2040 whites will no longer be a majority and then its downhill from there fast as whites fade rapidly into coomparable electoral irrelevence bythe year 2059 and the 2060's. By the 2030's and 2040's Jesse Jackson could very easily be president, thats how much the white vote will shrink. Things that naive whites think unimaginable will become commonplace poltically in the near future. I mean that Louis Farrakhan or Reverend Jermiah Wright will be able to get elected to the senate and possibly become minority or majority whips. Whites will complain bitterly about the new President Vasquez in 2032, as he appoints a nation of Islam racist to be his head of the department of Education. There will be alot of things soon enough making white Americans made as hell. As white Americans become electorally impotent, black and hispanic Presidents (there won't be anymore white ones after a certain point in the next few decades) will do things that will drive whites up the wall. They'll do stuff like get radical chicano communists to redue American history class textbooks and they will potray the Founders and the first 40 American Presidents as monsters, they will take out any mention of Paul Reverr, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, etc. and put in whole chapters devoted to biographying Mohawk chiefs and glorfying the Iroqious indians as the true inventors of democracy. The KKK will be mentioned 40 times in the book, Joe McCarrthy will be mentioned 29 times, Theodore Roosevelt will be mentioned once on page 123, Andrew Jackson will be mentioed 4 times, Polk will be potrayed as a war criminal rather than a hero who exstended the Union to the Pacific Ocean. You get my drift about who will not long from now be running this nation. It will be the era of "revenge" poltically in America inwhich the "oppressed" get control of the Goverment and put the new white minority through a century of hell, of huge taxes, and many other forms of humilation. This is to ignore the fact that because we will be a far less white nation taht America will no doubt be a far poorer nation with a worse culture, very overcrowded, etc.
But do you think that the blacks and hispanics when they get control of the nation are going to give up racial spoils? Do you the think Supreme Court circa 2020 when it has 1 orginalist on its bench is going to strike down anti-white legal discrimination and the like? Ofcourse not, black and hispanic politicians trust me, will only exspand affimrtive action, quotas and discrimination against whites more. The goverment will start doing what the South African goverment does which is give out loans to blacks only to start business, buy homes, etc (with whites and asians tax dollars oofcourse). I promise you that latinos and blacks will pay (as they do now) almost no taxes, and probably account for 6% of tax dollars collected from Americans, whites and asians will pay over 80% of the huge taxes blacks and hispanics will create, no doubt.
Another reason why the blacks and hispanics will never willingly give up racial preferences for themselves is the fact that they will need affirmtive action to even get into many elite schools at all. If affirmtive action where stopped tommorow at all American instuition, less than 10 blacks would be accepted to all ivy league schools the next year and no blacks would probably get into Princeton or Yale at all. So 1. they want to keep the racial spoils system and 2. they need it to even go to elite colleges (sad but true). The average liberal doesn't realize how large the achievment gap and the IQ gap between whites and blacks is, the public schools have been making tests easier and easier for 30 years in order to lessen the gap by cheating (e.i. they give a test that is so easy that most white students get 97% plus on it and blacks get an average score of 80% thats less of a gap but only because if the test ws proper, whites would get .....).


Here is a jarring fact: the white sons and daughters of parents from the lowest socio-economic strata the children of jaintors, wrestlers, etc. do better at school than the black children of black parents from the highest socio-economic level-in other words, the children of the Obama's.)

"American Orginal: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia" & Liberal Jurisprudence

I've been reading the more intresting sections of Joan Biskupic's biography of Antonin Scalia and the chapter focused on race related cases prompted ever-more realizations of the multi-faceted stupidity and fallacies of liberal jurisprudence when it comes to dispirate impact and racial preferences. Biskupic writes,

1. "some critics argued, he was abandoning the core responcibility of courts in America because the neutral rules he advocated could not bring about racial equality."

The "responcbility of courts in America" i thought was to go by the Constuinency not by what they would like the Law to be? So to liberal judges there job as judges in cases relating to race is to help "bring about racial equality", thats the Courts rule in this nation apparently according to them. Forget that racial exact equality will never be achieved if not by force, is achieving "racial equality" what the Founders said the Courts had to do? Is it our founding document? No.

2. In the book's "Dilemmas of Race" chapter a lawyer arguing for racial perference infront of the Supreme Court is questioned by Scalia who asks for the lawyer to provide a legal basis for the practise of nati-white discrimination he was arguing for. The liberal lawyer responds, "Segregation is harmful. Intergration...has benefits."

Isn't it funny how liberal jurists talk about "segragation" as if black Americans are constantly trying to integrate socially, culturally, georgraphically, etc. with white Americans and white Americans refuse. It's completely unreal. Blacks and whites are, segragated by there own will. Why is it the Supreme Court's business or duty or domaine to act in order to bridge gaps between racial groups or to create diverse enviorments. They can try to do that as private citizens if they love diversity but not as Jurists. Let's be frank, whites and blacks watch different TV, different movies, they dance differently, they eat different food at different places, they watch different amounts of TV, they play and watch different sports, they live in different neigborhoods, sit at different lunch tables, etc. All with little variation usually. But lets remember that this by whites and blacks choise. Whites don't force African Americans to be the biggest demographic for TV shows like "Molesha" and "Sista, Sista".

3. In the famous Michigan affirmtive action case in the early Bush years, you will remember the nation learned that the Michigan Unviersity point system accorded a applicant more points for being black than the points tsudents received for being a honor student a all state athelete and the editor of the school paper.
And why did they side with Michigan because they said creating a "diverse student body" was not just a plus in Michigans view but a essential need of Michigan to be adequete school. This is the claim that racial diversity is "essential" to a Unvieristy being excellent. Because if only 2 black girls are in a Algebra class how can the students in that class adequetly learn Algebra, right? Sure......

My conclusion is once again, that we don't have a Constuition so long as the left controls or neutralizes the Conservatives from actually following the Constuition. I don't know why so few conservatives have the gusto or balls to just say that liberals don't give a damn for our founding document. I mean, Brown v. Board of Education is simply unconstuitionial, so is Sotomayor's descion in the Ricci case. Like Scalia once remarked, "The Jurist that looks away from the Constuition invetiably looks into himself for their ruling." And with Sonya Sotomayor and Charles Ogletree, looking into one's self for a ruling means judging cases by your racial prejudice against white people as we see in boths records. Sotomayor had no true judicial philosphy, she didn't always ignore the Constuition as a Apellate judge i'm sure. But when it came to those important issues, when cases dealt with issues of race, Sotomayor let her race do her jurisprudence. Her jurisprudence on issues like dispirate impact and anti-white legal discrimination, Sotomayor could care less about judicial precedent or the Constuition, she just wanted to stick her finger in the eye of the Gringo every chance she got.