Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #26 

Multiculturalism and the rise of Islamic terrorism

Ralph Sidway has posted an item by William Kilpatrick who offers a broad analysis of how "the multicultural experiment of elevating other cultures by denigrating our own" fosters widespread detachment from our civilizational identity, and breeds allies for Islamic supremacism:  "As befits two movements with global ambitions, the leftist-Islamist alliances are cropping up all over the planet… Sometimes the alliance goes beyond moral and financial support and manifests itself in actual violence."

"Multiculturalism and the Rise of Domestic Terrorism," by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine, August 18, 2015:

image17.jpg

In a speech launching a five-year plan to combat homegrown terrorism, UK Prime Minister David Cameron said that "Many people born in Britain have little attachment to the country and that makes them vulnerable to radicalization."

It's not as though Muslims who live in Britain don't eat fish and chips or root for their local football club. But, apparently, a not insignificant number can indulge in British pastimes and still feel unconnected to the country they live in. In her 2006 book Londonistan, Melanie Phillips described how a separate and alien culture had developed in England as a result of Britain's experiment in multiculturalism -- an experiment that had been fostered by British elites in media, government, and even in churches.

The problem was, said Phillips, that in order to make room for other cultures, the elites had hollowed out their own culture so that "British society presented a moral and philosophical vacuum that was ripe for colonization by predatory Islamism." She laid much of the blame on educators:

The British education system simply ceased transmitting either the values or the story of the nation to successive generations, delivering instead the message that truth was an illusion and that the nation and its values were whatever anyone wanted them to be.

A similar process has been underway for a long time in the U.S. For many years, America has been deeply invested in the same multicultural experiment of elevating other cultures by denigrating its own. Our educational, media, and entertainment establishments have subjected young people to decades of anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Christian conditioning. As it turned out, the flip side of "tolerance for diversity" was intolerance for one's own culture and the things that make it distinctive.

The result? As Robert Spencer observed, "people who are ashamed of their culture will not defend it." Such people might even feel that attacks on our country are justified by our history of slavery, racism, colonialism, and imperialism. Still others will feel justified in carrying out the attacks. In England, the police are now uncovering on average one jihadist plot per day.

The situation is not yet as desperate in America, but we seem nevertheless to be generating a steady supply of homegrown terrorists. On the surface, they blend in with the culture. Major Nidal Hasan was an Army psychiatrist, the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston were into sports and school, and Mohammod Abdulazeez, the Chattanooga shooter, seemed in many respects to be the all-American boy. On the outside, they appeared to be ordinary Americans. On the inside they were more like the pod people in Invasion of the Body Snatchers -- aliens with alien ambitions.

The worrisome thing is, our educational system, along with other institutions of cultural formation, seems to be on course to creating a whole nation of pod people -- people with little attachment to their country or countrymen.

This detachment can take three forms. In some cases, individuals turn away from involvement in their culture to self-absorption. To assuage the loneliness of the unconnected self, they might turn to drugs or pornography or serial sex. Except for the world of pop entertainment, they are unconscious of the larger world. Like the clueless young people interviewed on the Watters' World segment of the O'Reilly Factor, they might be unsure who the first president was, in which century the Civil War was fought, or who John Kerry is. None of that seems important to them. If a group of bearded men wearing long robes and speaking Arabic moved into the apartment above, they'd probably think, "that's cool" and light up another joint.

The second form that the detachment takes is a transfer of allegiance from one's own history and culture to a neo-Marxist perspective. Thanks in large part to our educational system, a growing segment of our population has come to look upon its own culture as the root of all the world's evils. Unlike the self-absorbed detachers, they are politically engaged, but their political aims have to do with undermining traditional society and radically transforming it. The "Occupy Wall Street" movement is representative of this group.

The third group, the one that Prime Minister Cameron is primarily concerned about, is composed of those whose first loyalty is to the ummah -- the worldwide community of Muslim believers. They may live in the UK, France, or the U.S., but their allegiance lies elsewhere. They may have always felt this way, or they may have undergone a conversion. The majority in this category pose no direct threat to the larger society; they simply prefer to lead their lives separate from it. These separate communities do, however, provide the soil in which the radicals take root. They are, to use another metaphor, the sea in which the jihadis swim. The radical Muslims themselves are in some ways similar to the anti-Western Westerners who repudiate the Western tradition. The radicals not only reject Western culture, they see it as evil and they want to bring it down.

Because they have the same goals -- the destruction of Western and Christian civilization -- the members of the second group often act as enablers of Muslim radicals. I've written before about the leftist-Islamist alliance -- the leftist professors who support the cause of Hamas, the left-leaning foundations which finance the "Islamophobia" campaign, and the left-leaning politicians who support the Muslim Brotherhood. But sometimes the alliance goes beyond moral and financial support and manifests itself in actual violence. The best example of this are the antifa or "antifascist" gangs in Europe who use brownshirt tactics to suppress any protest against Islamization or the leftist policies -- such as mass immigration -- which promote Islamization. Numerous anti-Islamization rallies and marches in Europe have been broken up by much larger groups of young antifas throwing punches and sometimes bricks and bottles.

As befits two movements with global ambitions, the leftist-Islamist alliances are cropping up all over the planet. In Australia recently, an organization called Reclaim Australia held a series of rallies to protest Islamization. They were met by violent "anti-racist" counter-demonstrators, some of them wearing face coverings. Here's an account of one such encounter in Melbourne:

I made my way onto Spring Street, where there was an even larger mob, maybe 500 or 600 people, some with megaphones… There were a few late comers or stragglers attempting to get through to the 'Reclaim Australia' section. It was futile. As soon as anyone in the mob identified a person as a Reclaimer, a large horde of 20 or 40 of the mob would rush to them, and in many incidents I witnessed, assault them, knock them to the ground, and kick them on the ground. It became a mob mentality. Anyone with an Australian flag had it stolen from them and was assaulted. Almost every assault I witnessed was by twenty or more on one.

So if you're worried about the advance of global jihad, it's not just the young Muslim browsing radical sites on the Internet that you need to worry about. You also have to worry about all those college grads who majored in Marxism and Peace Studies, and are dead set on ridding the world of "racists" and "fascists."

By comparison, the first group of detachers -- those who are mainly into themselves -- seems the least dangerous of the three. That's generally true. On the other hand, the self-absorbed sometimes become disenchanted with the pursuit of self and seek to find their identity in a larger cause. Sometimes they end up in church, sometimes in the radical left, and sometimes in radical Islam. Judging by his blog posts, the Chattanooga jihadist, Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez seems to have traveled this route. Having tried out drugs, drink, fast cars, and other vain pursuits, he finally found a purpose in jihad.

However, the main threat posed by those who seek constant diversion is that they are too distracted to notice the larger world and the dangers lurking in it. They are oblivious to anything outside their own pleasure zone. Thus, they can be of little help in resisting the twin threat posed by leftism and Islamism. The same can be said to a lesser degree of those we might call the semi-detached (or semi-attached, if you prefer). Such people don't reject Western and Christian values, but they are not actively engaged in promoting or defending them. They don't hate America, but they are too busy earning a living or raising a family to think much about existential threats to their society. Thanks to years of relentless indoctrination from the schools and the media, their links to core cultural principles are tenuous. The result is a certain passivity concerning events over which they supposedly have no control: "Ho-hum, I see there's been another jihad attack. I hope the authorities will do something about it."

An individual's will to resist tyranny, whether of the leftist or Islamic variety, depends to a large extent on the strength of his attachments -- particularly attachments to family, church, and country. But the liberal state does everything it can to weaken those ties. And once the ties that bind are slackened sufficiently, it's difficult to care strongly about anything. If the current attacks on marriage, family, religion, and patriotism -- up until recently the main glue of society -- are as successful as the social engineers hope, there will soon be nothing left worth fighting for.

Which raises a question: What happens when the leaders of a society are themselves detached from that society? What happens, for instance, when the leaders of the U.S. government begin to see themselves not as representatives of the American people but as members of a worldwide order of global elites -- a sort of non-religious "ummah"?…



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #27 

Bureaucrats plan to destroy Special Forces with affirmative action

Dave Blount says hopefully we won't be needing our special forces for long, because it won't take liberals long to use Affirmative Action to destroy them:

Elite units in the military are by and large both white and male. Pentagon officials, however, are hoping for a major demographic shift, citing the benefits of diversity…

The benefits of diversity, which is an antonym for indispensable cohesion, are either political or fictional.

Data provided by each individual service to USA Today illustrates current disparities, which are most prominent in units like the Navy SEALs and the Army's Green Berets. For instance, in the Army, blacks comprised 17 percent of the force in 2013, a figure slightly higher than their representation in the overall population. As the ranks start climbing, the numbers shift. Blacks amount to only 9.4 percent of officers in the military.

Since we are not allowed to mention the word "aptitude," the only possible explanation is imaginary racism, which can only be fixed by inflicting real racism against more qualified whites.

In the Navy SEALs, just 2 percent are black, while Native Americans make up about 4 percent, or 99 SEALs.

Only 5.6 percent of enlisted Green Berets are black. But in the Air Force, among para-rescuers, the number drops even further down to .6 percent.

The Pentagon considers this to be a problem.

Obama has had years now to purge the Pentagon of soldiers who care about real problems, like our radically diminished capacity to win the sort of wars Obama's projection of weakness is likely to force us to fight in the future.

The Pentagon in general has made bolstering diversity a major priority in the last several years, with Defense Secretary Ash Carter leading the charge with public pronouncements about the benefits of a diverse force and a recent decision to review the ban on transgender service members.

You can't blame Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Ali Khamenei, and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for snickering gleefully.

The military, Carter has argued, needs to reflect the demographic makeup of the future.

That is, the white minority, homosexualized future our liberal ruling class has planned for us.

As such, the services have made a concerted effort to favor minorities, assigning more weight to race when considering officer promotions.

The effect on morale and retention of letting it be known that promotions are largely based on not being a non–cross-dressing white male should be obvious.

"Diversity makes us a better fighting force," a senior defense official told USA Today. "It's not simply a question of equity."

What utter equum stercoris.

A country that has rejected the concept of merit in favor of political correctness is not going to be winning wars for very long.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #28 

ObamaWorld -- where diversity transcends security

John Brennan, CIA, June 30, 2015

In January 2014, I commissioned a comprehensive study, known as the Diversity in Leadership Study (DLS), to examine factors limiting diversity in senior leadership positions across our organization. I was deeply concerned that the senior levels of CIA did not reflect the diversity of the Agency workforce or of the Nation we serve, and that this problem had persisted despite repeated efforts by Agency leaders to address it.

To lead the study, I turned to a group of outside experts led by Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., a member of our External Advisory Board and one of our Nation’s most respected voices on civil rights. In conducting its research, the group worked closely with a team of Agency officers representing all Directorates and levels of our organization, reviewed the scholarly literature, and gathered data from thousands of CIA officers via surveys, focus groups, and interviews. Today, we are pleased to release the group’s final report, which you can access here.

As you will see, the study group took a hard look at our Agency and reached an unequivocal conclusion:  CIA simply must do more to develop the diverse and inclusive leadership environment that our values require and that our mission demands.

The study found cultural, management, and organizational issues that contribute to a lack of diversity in the Agency’s leadership. Several of these challenges echoed themes that we heard in the Director’s Advisory Group (DAG) on Women in Leadership and the 90-Day Study that established our Modernization Program. Specifically, the DLS concluded that the Agency does not sufficiently prioritize the development of its officers, hold itself accountable for maintaining a diverse and inclusive workplace, or consistently promote an inclusive culture.

I have discussed these conclusions with several former CIA Directors. Every one of them believes very strongly in the importance of diversity and inclusion and has sought to move our Agency forward on the issue. Each understands how difficult this challenge is and knows how crucial it is to reach our goal:  having both a workforce and leadership team that better resemble the Nation we help protect.

Achieving that outcome is not only a matter of fairness and integrity, but one that is absolutely critical to CIA’s success. Given our global mission, no government agency stands to benefit more from diversity and inclusion than does CIA.

Excellence in foreign intelligence demands broad perspectives, both in our understanding of a complex world and in our approach to challenges and opportunities. Diversity–of thought, ethnicities, backgrounds, and experiences–is essential to CIA’s mission success, and we need it at every level of our enterprise.

Therefore, in response to the study group’s findings and recommendations, I have ordered immediate actions at the highest levels of our Agency:

  • By 1 October, a new performance objective for Senior Intelligence Service officers will require that they be evaluated on their actions to create, maintain, and sustain a diverse and inclusive environment.
  • Within the next year, every officer on my senior leadership team will attend diversity and inclusion training.

Even before the study was completed, our senior leadership team took several steps to address issues related to the study’s findings. These include:

  • Requiring supervisors to participate in a 360-degree feedback program to raise their awareness of employees’ perceptions.
  • Engaging regularly with Agency Resource Groups, which represent diverse segments of our workforce, to hear firsthand about their concerns and priorities and to support their initiatives.
  • Establishing the Talent Center of Excellence, which will take an integrated approach to making the most of the Agency’s talent.

These initial actions are only the beginning of a comprehensive implementation process. In anticipation of the study’s completion, in February, I appointed a senior Agency officer with significant experience leading change, to spearhead the DLS implementation effort across CIA. This officer has a team in place and is crafting an implementation strategy.

Making the DLS recommendations a reality will reinforce and strengthen the new organizational model that we are developing under the Modernization Program. Both efforts will be critical to enabling CIA to make the most of its extraordinarily talented workforce.

I want to thank Vernon Jordan and everyone involved in the DLS study for their leadership and dedication. And I urge every Agency officer to answer the study’s call to action and to join me in making CIA a place where all of America’s talent and perspectives are welcome and included, and where all individuals are empowered to reach their full potential.

It's happened folks! The inmates have taken over the institution.

The problem is this institution is the CIA!


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #29 
Where does it end? ......when he and his commies are removed from office
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #30 

Obama aims to "diversify" American neighborhoods

video

Cincinatus' Wife says that Obama has moved on from spreading the wealth to spreading the crime. What's next? When you Secton 8 the upscale neighborhood, the gimmedats will scream they don't have Audis and BMWs. Will we then start a program to subsidize their purchase of luxury cars? How about boats? It isn't fair that Marco Rubio has an $80,000 boat when people across town don't have one.....where does it end?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #31 

Saying, "America is the land of opportunity," is now forbidden at the University of California

Down.jpg

Arnold Ahlert says the progressive storm troopers at the University of California are ramping up their PC agenda. A faculty seminar discussing "diversity in the classroom" held at nine of the 10 UC campuses during the 2014-2015 school year came with a worksheet entitled "Tool: Recognizing Microagressions and the Messages They Send." "Microaggressions are the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership," states the opening sentence. The ultimate cure for such "hurtful" behavior? Tossing free speech on the ash heap of history.

The worksheet is divided into three columns, Themes, Microagression Examples, and Message. In one Theme section, under the subheading of "Ascription of Intelligence," professors are informed about the potential pain engendered by "Assigning intelligence to a person of color or a woman based on his/her race/gender."

And just in case professors are insufficiently erudite or "sensitive" enough to figure out exactly what produces such suffering among the student to whom they are tasked with disseminating this newfound wisdom, faculty trainers provide specific Microagression Examples. These include trigger statements such as, "You are a credit to your race," and "Wow! How do you become so good in math?" Two more examples are apparently for the more obtuse faculty members as they spell out which ethnic group is targeted. "To an Asian person, 'You must be good in math, can you help me with this problem?' and "To a woman of color: 'I would have never guessed you were a scientist.'"

Again, one might consider such obvious information to be sufficient warning from these doyens of hypersensitivity. Nonetheless what such statements "really" mean is spelled out in the Message column: "People of color are generally not as intelligent as Whites," "All Asians are intelligent and good in math/science," and "It is unusual for a woman to have strong mathematical skills."

It apparently hasn't occurred to these trainers this particular lesson reeks with the stench of their own biases, the first and foremost of which is the pernicious and faddish notion that every white male, regardless of circumstances, benefits from "white privilege."

Thus it is no surprise that these progressive hacks indicate as much in the Theme entitled "Color Blindness," a concept they believe indicates a white person neither needs, nor wants, to acknowledge racial inequality. Thus the traditional notion that America is melting pot, or that people can look beyond color is re-imagined as an effort to force people of color to "assimilate to the dominant culture" or deny the significance of a person of color's "racial ethic experience and history" -- or their racial/cultural being itself.

That "thud" you hear is Martin Luther King Jr. and all of his achievements being tossed under the faculty trainers' jitney.

Moving on to the Hate America part of the agenda, the worksheet brings up the "Myth of Meritocracy," a category that makes it clear these trainers worship at the altar of victimization and the notion that racism, homophobia and misogyny are endemic parts of the American cultural ethos. Thus one can be triggered by "ugly" ideas such as "I believe the most qualified person should get the job," "America is the land of opportunity," and "Everyone can succeed if they work hard enough." The trainers make it clear such statements fly in the face of the inherently biased nation America really is.

Three other Themes, "Criminality/Assumption of Criminal Status," "Pathologizing Cultural Values/Communication Styles," and "Second Class Citizen," all reinforce the idea that bigotry is the default position from which faculty members must extract themselves. Once again the "dominant" white culture and any attempts at assimilation that undercut the multicultural experience are dismissed with unbridled contempt.

And again the level of obliviousness is astounding because it begs an obvious question: why would in-state, on campus students spend $34,500, and out-of state, on campus students spend a whopping $58,524 per year for nothing more than being subjected to a faculty trained to relay the message of inevitable rejection and failure that awaits their entry into an irredeemable society?

Naturally no list of professorial dos and don't would be complete without addressing "Sexist/Heterosexual Language" and "Traditional Gender Role Prejudicing and Stereotyping," where being forced to choose male or female when filling out basic forms, or having only two options, single or married to describe relationships are obvious slights. This is due to the assertion that the male experience is "universal" while the female and LBGT experiences are "invisible." It is even insidious to look "quickly" at a woman's ring finger if one is told that woman is over age 30.

University President and former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano extended the invitation to this seminar, "Fostering Inclusive Excellence: Strategies and Tools for Department Chair and Deans," to those department heads and deans, urging them to participate in an effort designed to "foster informed conversation about the best way to build and nurture a productive academic climate." In addition, the seminar taught faculty how to approach prospective hires and current minority faculty using a theatrical production entitled "Ready to Vote?" The synopsis of the production talks about the nominating of a female Asian professor for tenure, and the minefield of perceived microagressions that attend such a "perilous" meeting.

Almost unbelievably, there was another handout included in this presentation. "Tool for Identifying Implicit Bias" is a compendium of warnings for faculty members outlining the pitfalls that may attend the hiring of women or minority faculty members. Professors are warned against making Snap Judgments about potential candidates, engaging in Elitist Behavior, embracing both Negative and Positive Stereotypes or a host of other topics all presumed to be "shortcuts" in the hiring process that can lead to "erroneous conclusions" and "adversely effect the fairness and equity of a review process."

Conservative website The College Fix contacted the UC Office of the President, rightly inquiring as to whether such guidelines might have a "chilling effect" on professors' ability to exercise their free speech rights. Representative Shelly Meron responded with an email."These seminars are not an attempt to curb open dialogue, debate or classroom discussions," it stated. "The seminars are part of the President's Postdoctoral Fellowship Program. Deans and department heads who attended the seminars could choose whether they wanted to convey the information to their faculty."

As to the numerous and largely innocuous quotes considered microaggressions, Meron remained unmoved. "The quotes you referenced are taken directly from research done on this topic," she explained. "We present this research literature/climate survey responses as examples so that faculty leaders can be more aware of the impact their actions or words may have on their students, and to provide faculty members with potential strategies to create an inclusive learning environment for all students."

Inclusive? More like totalitarian, a reality epitomized by self-professed liberal college professor Edward Schlosser whose liberal students "terrify" him. "The student-teacher dynamic has been reenvisioned along a line that's simultaneously consumerist and hyper-protective, giving each and every student the ability to claim Grievous Harm in nearly any circumstance, after any affront, and a teacher's formal ability to respond to these claims is limited at best," he explains.

Comedian Jerry Seinfeld was even blunter saying comedians avoid college campuses because they're "too PC" and that students use term like "racist" and "sexist" without knowing what they mean. Gay college student Anthony Berteaux responded with an open letter, whacking Seinfeld for sexist and racist humor "that can no longer exist in comedy because these concepts are based on archaic ideals that have perpetrated injustice against minorities in the past…So, yes, Mr. Seinfeld, we college students are politically correct. We will call out sexism and racism if we hear it. But if you're going to come to my college and perform in front of me, be prepared to write up a set that doesn't just offend me, but has something to say."

Or else, it would seem.

Ironically, all of these suppressive reflexes are a hopeful sign that the revolution is on the verge of eating its own. Coupled with the skyrocketing costs of attending these de facto Marxist finishing schools that saddle thousand of underemployed students with thousands of dollars of debt, it won't be long before college campuses resemble little more than anarchic caldrons of competing, infantilized grievance groups bearing their increasingly weighty crosses (or mattresses) of irreconcilable micro- and macro-aggressions until their burden of "hurt feelings" becomes too much to bear. "Right now, there's nothing much to do other than sit on our hands and wait for the ascension of conservative political backlash," writes Schlosser. Not backlash, professor. Sanity.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #32 

The dumbing down American education in the name of diversity

DumbDown.jpg

Micahel Schaus is reporting that a federal judge ruled Friday that the exam used to test New York teaching candidates was racially discriminatory because statistics showed that minorities were more prone to fail.

The Liberal Arts and Sciences exam was designed to replace a version that was ruled discriminatory by the court in 2004 for the same reason. The new version was administered until 2012, when activist groups noticed that minority candidates still had a higher rate of failure than their white counterparts.  Those statistics caused a group of prospective teachers who couldn't pass the test to sue, alleging the exam was racially discriminatory.

Judge Kimba M. Wood agreed, and ordered education officials to prove the content of the test was necessary, according to The New York Times. Because officials were unable to prove the necessity of evaluating a candidate's knowledge of liberal arts and science, Wood ruled that it can no longer be used to evaluate prospective employees.

In practice, the ruling means New York education officials will have to create new evaluations that accommodate a higher percentage of minority teachers, even if that means lowering the standards.

Potentially less qualified teachers, however, won't be the only side effect. Joshua Stone, a partner at the law firm representing prospective teachers, said thousands of teaching candidates who were denied employment because of their test results might also be eligible for reconsideration, and even back pay.

"Instead of beginning with ascertaining the job tasks of New York teachers, the [test] began with the premise that all New York teachers should be required to demonstrate an understanding of the liberal arts," Wood wrote in her decision. According to Wood, demonstrating knowledge of liberal arts and science are not necessary enough job requirements to justify the exam.

Wood's decision is the latest in a string of setbacks for New York education officials. An earlier incarnation of the test was also deemed racially biased for similar reasons, and Wood has expressed concern over another exam used to evaluate potential teachers for similar reasons.

Rewriting the requirements for becoming a teacher, simply to accommodate more minority candidates, isn't going to do much for the education system in New York. But at least Judge Wood will be able to pat herself on the back for caring so much about diversity.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #33 

Equality -- progressive style

Douglas Belkin is reporting that a complaint filed Friday alleged that Harvard University discriminates against Asian-American applicants by setting a higher bar for admissions than that faced by other groups.

The complaint, filed by a coalition of 64 organizations, says the university has set quotas to keep the numbers of Asian-American students significantly lower than the quality of their applications merits. It cites third-party academic research on the SAT exam showing that Asian-Americans have to score on average about 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanic students and 450 points higher than African-American students to equal their chances of gaining admission to Harvard. The exam is scored on a 2400-point scale.

The complaint was filed with the U.S. Education Department's Office for Civil Rights.

"Many studies have indicated that Harvard University has been engaged in systemic and continuous discrimination against Asian-Americans during its very subjective 'Holistic' college admissions process," the complaint alleges.

The coalition is seeking a federal investigation and is requesting Harvard "immediately cease and desist from using stereotypes, racial biases and other discriminatory means in evaluating Asian-American applicants."

 Robert Iuliano, Harvard's general counsel, said the school's admissions policies are "fully compliant with the law." The school says its admissions process takes into account a variety of factors besides academics, including applicants' extracurricular activities and leadership qualities.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #34 

An honest mistake

Mistake.jpg

I can't imagine how constricting Islam is on a child -- what it is like for that little girl?

Do you wonder if she's allowed to have a doll?

Multiculturalism is insane!



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #35 

Let us count the gulags

David Solway explains why utopian dreams inevitably become totalitarian nightmares, saying there are many threats to the continuity of the modern world, of which Islam in its manifold guises -- international terrorism, unfettered immigration, Iranian nuclear ambitions -- is the most prominent.

But the Islamic agenda would not be what it is without the "progressivist" mentality and attendant policy making that are handing the barbarians the keys to the city. Islam and progressivism, to cite Jamie Glazov, are United in Hate. Indeed, as Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, Stephen Schwartz remarks in First Things, the deep complicity between Islam and the Left goes a long way back, to the writings of the chief Communist impresarios, Marx and Lenin, as well as to lesser lights like Bolshevik intellectual Karl Radek. The far-Left, pro-Muslim Obama has merely continued the dismal tradition.

Thus, we need to consider the broader canvas to which the camel in the room directs our attention. The obsession with multiculturalism that is destroying our civilizational patrimony is a sign of the feverish intoxication with the humanly improbable that characterizes leftist thinking: that we are all born equal (true with respect to rights, but not with respect to talent, intelligence or personal qualities); that sociopolitical changes can eradicate the flaws and blemishes of our nature (demonstrably wrong); that competition is a social evil that must be eliminated for the general advantage (pure fairyland); that education should be politically motivated to promote what is absurdly termed "social justice" (the death knell of critical thought); that tolerance for the "Other," however defined, trumps due process in the courts (the erosion of equity); that ancient guilts require present expiation (rank unfairness); and, the great canard of our time, that all cultures are on an existential par, none being "better," more ethical or more advanced than any other (manifestly false).

Hence the dogma of cultural and moral equivalence to which the liberal/Left adheres, and as practiced most conspicuously by the jerk in the White House and by the majority of our political, community and institutional leadership. No culture, religion or civilization, apparently, is superior to any other, an axiom derived, as I observed in a 2011 PJM article, "The Origins of Postmodernitis," from the early anthropologist Franz Boas. Boas laid it down in his seminal The Mind of Primitive Man that all cultures should be regarded with sympathy, that we should hold the conviction that all "races" --  today we would say "ethnicities" --  have "contributed to cultural progress in one way or another" and that they are equally capable of "advancing the interests of mankind." Unfortunately, as I conclude there, what started out as a methodological discipline in the field of anthropology has mutated into an intellectual sickness that regards our own culture as nothing more than a provisional adaptation. We are all, it appears, moral and cultural isomorphs.

The utopian malady runs deep in the leftist psychodrama. Consider the irony of the Charlie Hebdo attack. As Clash Daily contributor William Spencer-Hale points out, "The employees, artists, writers and editors of Charlie Hebdo were all true to life followers of the Church of Leftism. They…eagerly embraced all the tenets of liberalism. They, like so many of their fellow countrymen, voted to implement those policies that are the hallmark of the modern leftist -- among them being gun control and unfettered immigration." The fantasy world continues to impinge upon the real one, regardless of deadly consequences.

There is a lesson to be learned from contemplating the lasting damage that such torpid maunderings and emotional convulsions can inflict.  Of course, one should try to be circumspect and impartial in one's judgments. I recall in this connection James Madison's summation in Federalist #55:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence."

In other words, both facets of human nature need to be taken into account in forming our view of life, arriving at a mature conception of morality and determining the substance of our political commitments. A strong element of human sympathy leavens Madison's skepticism. But he had already recognized in Federalist #37 just where choice and temptation tend to lead, making him -- like the Founders in general -- a reliable authority on the follies and perils of uninstructed human nature and their political implications. The "brighter aspects" of our nature, he wrote, "serve only as exceptions to…darken the gloom of the adverse prospects to which they are contrasted." Madison is referring chiefly to narcissism, self-righteousness and bickering self-interest leading to political faction.

Such vices are inherent in the utopian prepossession, issuing inevitably in the assumption of infallibility and the application of ruthless force. Utopianism envisages a world in which the concepts of merit, achievement, genuine novelty and civic responsibility have been retired in favor of the misguided and banausic program of affirmative action, mandated mediocrity and cultural self-abasement. And, according to its promoters, it is a world that must be imposed, whether through violence or legislation. As such it cannot be separated from what Madison in #37 calls the "infirmities of human character," or what we might call the tyranny of results. As Milan Kundera memorably puts it in The Book of Laughter and Forgetting:

"Once the dream of paradise starts to turn into reality…people begin to crop up who stand in its way. And so the rulers of paradise must build a little gulag on the side of Eden. In the course of time this gulag grows ever bigger…while the adjoining paradise gets even smaller and poorer."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #36 

The cancer of multiculturalism

Walter Williams says Barack Obama surprised many at the National Prayer Breakfast when he lectured us, "Lest we get on our high horse and think this (barbarity) is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ." Obama went on to explain, "In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often (were) justified in the name of Christ." In Obama's mind, Western outrage at Islamic barbarism should be tempered by the remembrance of what Christians did a thousand years ago in the name of Christ. Plus, that outrage should be chastened by our own history of slavery and Jim Crow.

Obama's vision is that of a man brainwashed through an academic vision of multiculturalism, in which American exceptionalism has no place. It's a vision that has been shaped by a longtime association with people who hate our country, people such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Weather Underground leader and Pentagon bomber William Ayers and Ayers' onetime fugitive wife, Bernardine Dohrn. A vision that sees a moral equivalency between what Christians did centuries ago and today's Islamic savagery is quite prevalent in academia. It's part of what's worshipped on most college campuses as diversity and multiculturalism.

College campus idiots -- and that includes faculty members and administrators -- call for the celebration of and respect for all cultures. In their eyes, it's racist Eurocentrism to think that Western values and culture are superior to others -- but that's the height of stupidity. Ask your campus multiculturalist who believes in cultural equivalency: Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern countries, a morally equivalent cultural value? Slavery is practiced in Sudan and Niger; is that a cultural equivalent? In most of the Middle East, there are numerous limits on women -- such as prohibitions on driving, employment, voting and education. Under Islamic law, in some countries, female adulterers face death by stoning, and thieves face the punishment of having their hand severed. Some multiculturalists are members of campus LGBT groups. Ask them to what extent the Muslim culture would tolerate their lifestyle.

At the very heart of multiculturalism is an attack on Christianity. Much of that attack has its roots among hypocrites in the intellectual elite. For example, Duke University sponsored Muslim calls to prayer in the name of promoting "religious pluralism," until external pressures forced it to cancel the practice. Earlier, Duke administrators removed Chick-fil-A as a campus vendor because of CEO Dan Cathy's comments regarding his religious opposition to homosexual marriage. So much for religious pluralism, tolerance and free speech.

Some public school boards have attempted to ban songs containing references to Santa Claus, Jesus or religious Christmas symbols. One school district banned a teacher from using excerpts from historical documents in his classroom because they contained references to God and Christianity. The documents in question were the Declaration of Independence and "The Rights of the Colonists," by Samuel Adams.

Western values are by no means secure. They're under ruthless attack by the academic elite on college campuses across America. These people want to replace personal liberty with government control; they want to replace equality with entitlement; they want to halt progress in order to worship Mother Earth. As such, they pose a far greater threat to our way of life than any Islamic terrorist or group. Visions of multiculturalism and diversity are a cancer on our society. We stupidly fund them with our tax dollars and generous charitable donations.

Islamists and leftists attack not only Christianity but also free market capitalism. They do so because Christian nations, which have a great measure of economic liberty, have been at the forefront of the struggle for personal liberty and private property rights for centuries. Personal liberty and private property are anathemas to people who want to control our lives. That is part and parcel of the multicultural and diversity movements infecting the Western world.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #37 

Multiculturalism and the myth of compromise

[img152]

Deana Chadwell says that for the last few decades, Western civilization has been attempting to avoid the difficult levels of thought -- analysis, synthesis, and most of all, evaluation. No one wants to be the one to point a finger and say, "That's just wrong." For one thing, as we learned from Charlie Hebdo, doing so can get you killed. But we also know that repercussions can take other forms as well -- job loss, lawsuits, public ridicule, and personal rejection (I don't have as many friends as I used to). We have been basking in the luxury of sloppy, pseudo-intellectual mock thinking and it may cost us everything. The horrors of 9/11, the Boston bombing, the Fort Hood shooting, and the Paris massacre demand that civilized people adjust their thinking about two closely-related ideas: multiculturalism and compromise.

As a long-time veteran of public schools I can speak to the influence of multiculturalism in our education systems. It appears to be the result of our attempt to rid the public square of Christian influence and replace it with a purely human credo; rather than teach students to discern good from bad in the biblical sense, we've taken the easy road and decided to go with "tolerance" also known as "multiculturalism." If nothing is truly bad, then we can all skip down the road together, holding hands and singing "People of the World". No judgment, no shame; no shame, no retaliation; no retaliation, no war. That's the dream.

That works just fine as long as the cultures we have to deal with are not noticeably different from our own. Western societies, steeped for so many centuries in the Christian worldview, can live side-by-side without the necessity for repudiation, but throw in a mindset that has rejected biblical justice since Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, and we have a different challenge: if we don't wake from this Prozac-laced, guilt-ridden haze and realize that not all cultures can be safely welcomed, we will lose it all.

I once had a college professor who said repeatedly, "Culture is just one group's way of getting to the waterhole, " and there's a certain truth to that, but what my professor didn't acknowledge is that not all cultures make it to the waterhole, and  some get to the waterhole by hitching a ride on the backs of those who already have created a clear path, and then opening fire on them. That's what happened in Paris last week.

There's little point in going to the "most Muslims are good" argument; it's irrelevant. Most Germans were good as well, but that didn't help the Jews. Perhaps the radical jihadists are just aberrations similar to Torquemada -- nevertheless, they exist and they can't be dealt with if the West continues to swallow its morality like a piece of gristle and welcome these hideous people with open arms. Shortly after 9/11, during a discussion with an honors English class, my students -- every one of them -- insisted that the 19 terrorists responsible for the attack were not guilty of anything awful because they were just following their beliefs. It made me furious, but not with the kids; it made me furious with my colleagues who taught them such drivel, taught them to bow to the god of multiculturalism, regardless of the human sacrifice he demanded.

The sister of this sloppy thinking is "compromise." That's the recommended method for dealing with the inevitable conflicts between cultures; it is the chief doctrine of liberalism, but it doesn't mean what it sounds like it means, and it has invaded areas where it has no business being.

The concept of compromise is not, and should not be, applicable to moral issues. For one thing, the logical Law of the Excluded Middle prohibits such a thing -- it is either right or wrong to murder a child; such a thing cannot be compromised on; there is no middle ground here on which to stand. What would a compromise on that issue even look like? It's okay to kill a kid but only on alternate Wednesdays? It's okay to murder little Johnny if he is deemed by his parents to be substandard, or if his existence is inconvenient?

Can we compromise on issues like the national debt? It's good to yoke our children to the oxen of perpetual obligation if – if – what? What can possibly mitigate that wrong? Can we compromise on health care? Is it copacetic to deny the elderly care so those younger can have it cheaper? Is that morally acceptable? No, of course not, but that's the deal the Democrat Congress passed and the president signed. Can we compromise with terrorists? According to Hillary we must respect their views -- how do we respect female genital mutilation? How do we pretend that they aren't beheading children, raping little girls, or crucifying Christians, committing atrocities that society hasn't seen for hundreds of years? How do we compromise on that? Limit the numbers they torture per month?

On the other hand, we can easily compromise, and should be willing to do so, on non-moral issues. I want a blue chair, but my husband wants red, so we agree to buy the red and blue striped Lazy-Boy. That's an acceptable compromise.  John wants to go to the races, Mary wants to go to the ballet, so they compromise -- she goes with him to watch cars whiz around in circles and later that night they both dress up and watch people hop around a stage in toe shoes. No moral issue there, either.

For one thing, compromise requires trust. I couldn't negotiate with my husband about the living room chair if I didn't trust that he would order the chair we agreed upon. Mary couldn't consent to go to the races unless she was sure that John would follow through and take her to the ballet. So if we transfer this idea to politics or foreign policy, there's going to be a problem.

So, of course we shouldn't compromise with those who say clearly and loudly that they want to kill us, or with those whose "moral" code clearly gives them permission to lie. Can we turn a blind, oh-so-tolerant eye to the heinous crimes committed by these people? Can we say, like my students, "Oh, they're just following their religion," and cave to whatever demands they make in the name of compromise?

And we have been caving to their demands: we are teaching our public school students about all the blessings of Islam, allowing special prayer time for Muslim students in public schools where the Christian kids are not allowed to openly pray. We are altering school menus so as not to offend the 1% of students who don't want to be in the presence of pork. (We've never done that for our Jewish students, but then they never threatened reprisals if we didn't.) We have allowed this president to pack his administration with Muslims -- as compromise? as a bow to multiculturalism? Or, perish the thought, under that guise committing a form of treason.

The trouble with the myths of multiculturalism (or political correctness) and compromise is that they are as shape-shifting and shadowy as a ghost, as duplicitous and sneaky as a thief, and as vicious and unmerciful as the Assyrian hordes. America will rue the day she invited them in -- unless we take a deep breath, screw up all our courage and send the both of them packing.  


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #38 

How multiculturalism caused the Paris terror attacks

It wasn't the Mohammed cover art that caused the Charlie Hebdo terror attacks in Paris; it was the multicultural treatment of Muslims in France -- another scorcher of an Afterburner from Bill Whittle.

From the comments:

If you replace the hyphen with the word "not" -- then you a get a truer picture of who that person is: 

German-American = German not American.

African-American = African not American.

Muslim-American = Muslim not American


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #39 

Multicultural suicide

Victor Davis Hanson says fueling the Western paralysis in dealing with radical Islam is the late 20th century doctrine of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is one of those buzzwords that does not mean what it should. The ancient and generic Western study of many cultures is not multiculturalism. Rather, the trendy term promotes non-Western cultures to a status equal with or superior to Western culture largely to fulfill contemporary political agendas.

On college campuses, multiculturalism not so much manifests itself in the worthy interest in Chinese literature, Persian history, or hieroglyphics, but rather has become more a therapeutic exercise of exaggerating Western sins while ignoring non-Western pathologies to attract those who see themselves in some way as not part of the dominant culture.

It is a deductive ideology that starts with a premise of Western fault and then makes evidence fit the paradigm. It is ironic that only Western culture is self-critical and since antiquity far more interested than other civilizations in empirically investigating the culture of the other.  It is no accident that Europeans and Americans take on their own racism, sexism, and tribalism in a way that is not true of China, Nigeria or Mexico. Parody, satire, and caricature are not Chinese, African, or Arab words.

A multicultural approach to the conquest of Mexico usually does not investigate the tragedy of the collision between 16th-century imperial Spain and the Aztec Empire. More often it renders the conquest as melodrama between a mostly noble indigenous people slaughtered by a mostly toxic European Christian culture, acting true to its imperialistic and colonialist traditions and values.

In other words, there is little attention given to Aztec imperialism, colonialism, slavery, human sacrifice, and cannibalism, but rather a great deal of emphasis on Aztec sophisticated time-reckoning, monumental building skills, and social stratification. To explain the miraculous defeat of the huge Mexican empire by a few rag-tag, greedy conquistadors, discussion would not entail the innate savagery of the Aztecs that drove neighboring indigenous tribes to ally themselves with Cortés. Much less would multiculturalism dare ask why the Aztecs did not deploy an expeditionary force to Barcelona, or outfit their soldiers with metal breastplates, harquebuses, and steel swords, or at least equip their defenders with artillery, crossbows, and mines.

For the multiculturalist, the sins of the non-West are mostly ignored or attributed to Western influence, while those of the West are peculiar to Western civilization. In terms of the challenge of radical Islam, multiculturalism manifests itself in the abstract with the notion that Islamists are simply the fundamentalist counterparts to any other religion. Islamic extremists are no different from Christian extremists, as the isolated examples of David Koresh or the Rev. Jim Jones are cited ad nauseam as the morally and numerically equivalent bookends to thousands of radical Islamic terrorist acts that plague the world each month. We are not to assess other religions by any absolute standard, given that such judgmentalism would inevitably be prejudiced by endemic Western privilege. There is nothing in the Sermon on the Mount that differs much from what is found in the Koran. And on and on and on.

In the concrete, multiculturalism seeks to use language and politics to mask reality. The slaughter at Ford Hood becomes "workplace violence," not a case of a radical Islamist, Major Nidal Hasan, screaming "Allahu Akbar" as he butchered the innocent. After the Paris violence, the administration envisions a "Summit on Countering Violent Extremism," apparently in reaction to Buddhists who are filming beheadings, skinheads storming Paris media offices, and lone-wolf anti-abortionists who slaughtered the innocent in Australia, Canada, and France.

The likes of James Clapper and John Brennan assure us of absurdities such as the Muslim Brotherhood being a largely secular organization or jihad as little more than a personal religious journey. Terrorism is reduced to man-caused violence and the effort to combat it is little more than an "overseas contingency operation." The head of NASA in surreal fashion boasts that one of his primary missions for the hallowed agency is to promote appreciation of Muslim science and accomplishments through outreach to Islam. The president blames an obscure film-maker for causing the deaths of Americans in Benghazi (when in reality, it was a preplanned Al-Qaeda affiliate hit) -- and then Obama makes it a two-fer: he can both ignore the politically incorrect task of faulting radical Islam and score politically correct points by chastising a supposedly right-wing bigot for a crime he did not foster.

What is the ultimate political purpose of multiculturalism? It certainly has contemporary utility, in bolstering the spirits of minority groups at home and the aggrieved abroad by stating that their own unhappiness, or failure to achieve what they think they deservedly should have, was due to some deep-seated Western racism, class bias, homophobia, or sexism otherwise not found in their own particular superior cultural pedigree that was unduly smothered by the West.

For the useful idiot, multiculturalism is supposedly aimed at ecumenicalism and hopes to diminish difference by inclusiveness and non-judgmentalism. But mostly it is a narcissistic fit, in which the multiculturalist offers a cheap rationalization of non-Western pathologies, and thereby anoints himself both the moral superior to his own less critical Western peers and, in condescending fashion, the self-appointed advocate of the mostly incapable non-Westerner.

Multiculturalism is contrary to human nature. Supposedly if Muslims understand that Westerners do not associate an epidemic of global terrorism and suicide bombing with Islam, then perhaps Muslims -- seeing concession as magnanimity to be reciprocated --  will appreciate such outreach and help to mitigate the violence, all the more so if they also sense that they share with the more radical among them at least some legitimate gripes against the West.

So multiculturalism is the twin of appeasement. Once Americans and Europeans declare all cultures as equal, those hostile to the West should logically desist from their aggression, in gratitude to the good will and introspection of liberal Westerners. Apologizing for the Bush war on terror, promising to close down Guantanamo, deriding the war in Iraq, reminding the world of the president's Islamic family roots -- all that is supposed to persuade the Hasans, Tsarnaevs, and Kouachis in the West that we see no differences between their cultural pedigrees and the Western paradigm they have chosen to emigrate to and at least superficially embrace. Thus the violence should cease.

At its worst, multiculturalism becomes a cheap tool in careerist fashion to both bash the West and simultaneously offer oneself as a necessary intermediary to rectify Western sins, whether as a -studies professor in the university, an activist journalist or politician, or some sort of community or social organizer.

It is always helpful to turn to Al Sharpton for an illustration of the bastardized form of almost any contemporary fad, and thus here is what he once formulated as the multicultural critique of the West: "White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires. … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it."  Note that Sharpton was not calling for new mathematics academies in the inner city to reclaim lost African arts of superior computation. Note also that Sharpton himself did not dream up  these supposed non-Western superior African achievements.

In the psychological sense, multiculturalism also serves as a way of dealing with affluent Western guilt: one does not have to put his kids in an inner-city school, visit the barrio to shop, or invite undocumented aliens over for dinner, when one can both enjoy a largely affluent and apartheid existence in the concrete, while praising the noble Other in the abstract.  In the European context, the liberal French or British elite welcomes in the Muslim Other for low-wage jobs and to feed his multicultural sensitivities -- only to outsource the immigrants to outlander suburbs that devolve into no-go zones even for the police. In the Clinton context, when Hilary lectures us that we must understand and even empathize with the minds of our enemies, we assume that Chelsea is not on the barricades trying to fathom what drives the violent Other.

Ultimately multiculturalism is incoherent, claiming that all cultures are equal, but then (privately) disturbed that Iranians behead gays or Saudi women cannot drive a car -- or radical Muslims prefer to live in Europe than among the believers in Yemen.  Yet even multiculturalism cannot quite equate honor killings with the glass ceiling.

Radical Muslims both emigrate to the West and yet, once there, seek through Sharia law to destroy the very foundations of what made the West attractive to them in the first place. Clean water, advanced medicine, entitlement support and free speech ultimately cannot exist in a society that routinely assassinates the outspoken satirist. In a less dramatic sense, the entire open-border, La Raza movement is based on the anomaly that the United States is such an inhospitable and racist place, while Mexico is such a benevolent homeland, that 11 million risk their lives to reach the former and abandon the latter.

In the end what is multiculturalism? A global neurosis. For its elite architects, it is a psychological tic, whose loud professions square the circle of enjoying guilt-free the material comfort that only the West can provide. For the rest, multiculturalism is a sort of fraud, a mechanism to blame something that one secretly desires in lieu of addressing the causes of personal or collective self-induced misery.

For Muslims of the Middle East, there is a clear pathway to economic prosperity and a secure lifestyle; countries as diverse as South Korea, Japan, and Chile are proof of it. Within wide parameters, success only asks adherence to a mostly free market, some sort of freedom of expression, religious tolerance, a separation of science from orthodoxy, the rule of law, and consensual constitutional government -- along with a cultural ethos of rough parity between the sexes, merit-based evaluation instead of tribal favors, and tolerance for ethnic and religious minorities.

Fail that, and human misery follows of the now familiar Middle East sort, in turn followed by the tired blame that the Jews, the Americans, the Europeans, or the West caused these self-generated pathologies.

If the Western establishment were truly moral, it would reject multiculturalism as a deductive, anti-empirical, and illiberal creed. It would demand that critics abroad first put their own house in order before blaming others for their own failures, and remind Western elites that their multicultural fantasies are cheap nostrums designed to deal with their own neuroses.

Finally, it would also not welcome in newcomers who seek to destroy the very institutions that make the West so unlike the homelands they have voted with their feet to utterly abandon.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #40 

Multiculturalism -- good or bad for America?

To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys.  In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom, and approximate the miseries of complete despotism…

Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings that flow from them, must fall with them.

-- Jedidiah Morse


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #41 

Downside of diversity -- multiculturalism will become America's fatal flaw

John R. Smith says everything has a downside. A job comes with obligations. Marriage means commitment. Hard partying causes hangovers. Medical insurance requires you to pay premiums and deductibles.

The same is true with ethnic, racial and cultural diversity. "Our differences make us stronger," goes the popular mantra. We should "celebrate" our differences, political correctness dictates. It sounds great in theory, at least to liberals. But speaking up about the harm that can be caused by multiculturalism and the diversity movement is a quick way to draw fire and implacable hatred from diversity-peddlers.

However, there are real dangers when diversity is over-emphasized. The truth is that problems abound, because diversity exacts a price. In some cases, the downside expands into a dark side. Many organizations that require diversity have lost their ability to focus on achieving results or reaching workable answers. A highly diverse group often produces points of view that don't engender respect or that don't fit with reality. Too many opinions and attitudes prowl about. Standards and principles are jettisoned along the way to reaching "common ground." Diversity in some groups has bred such squabbling, mistrust and diluted decisions that they cannot reach meaningful solutions. Too many bakers spoil the pie.

Over the years, in an effort to respect all cultures, Western nations have opened their doors and allowed foreigners to immigrate. Only recently have they begun to see the dangers of welcoming people who do not respect the rights and cultures of the community in which they have settled. Many immigrants, especially Muslims, have no intention of assimilating. Their intention is to create their own culture and law in their new country. Even the so-called "moderate" Muslim groups in America encourage their flocks to remain foreigners and reject American culture.

It wasn't too many years ago that Muslim riots raged across France, where thousands of cars were set on fire and police and paramedics became shooting targets. Bombings and coordinated suicide attacks by British Islamists hit London, killing or injuring more than 800 civilians. America's liberal cultural and political elites have glorified Balkanization and cultural mingling. They refuse to apply hard facts, retreat from real-world decisions and ignore the social degeneration and violence that grows from within. The Obama administration refuses to acknowledge that the phrase, "Diversity is our strength," is a blatant attack on American culture and Western civilization.

Multiculturalism is deeply flawed and has failed America too many times. None of the Muslim jihadists -- like Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan or the Boston Marathon bombers -- were impressed by America's multiculturalism. Muslim radicals don't practice diversity. They live in a closed-off world, where they typically follow Sharia law and do not tolerate religious or cultural diversity. These are people who won't stop until they get stopped.

No, multiculturalism does not always increase community harmony, and it is not harmless to America's national ethos and way of life. It has introduced too many violent foreigners and gangs and too many negative consequences for our nation's values and culture.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #42 

Diversity -- the idol of academia

Jack Kerwick says "diversity" is not just a good in the academic world. It is the supreme good, the one good before which all other considerations must yield.

Recently, a colleague expressed a preference for a certain Northeastern city university over a certain Midwestern Christian college because, he said, the former has more "diversity" than the latter.

All that this means, though, is that because this big city university in the Northeast is a racial, ethnic, and socio-economic polyglot and its Midwestern Christian counterpart is just too white, the former is preferable as an educational institution to the latter.

That this god of "diversity" is as educationally invidious as it is false can be seen easily enough.

First, the only diversity that should be of any concern at an institution of higher learning is intellectual diversity.   "Diversity" of the sort -- what we may call "cultural diversity" -- that is all too typical at places like that big city university for which my colleague pines, need not and, in fact, does not give rise to any more intellectual diversity than can be found at less culturally heterogeneous institutions.

This brings us to the next point: "cultural diversity" not only doesn't correspond to a rise in intellectual diversity; it invariably corresponds to a rise in political uniformity. This is crucial, for the promotion of "cultural diversity" is nothing more or less than the promotion of a left-wing ideological agenda.

While academics, like my colleague, look upon predominantly white colleges as insufficiently "diverse," they wouldn't even think to level this same criticism against "historically black colleges." They cannot, however, have it both ways: if a predominantly white Christian school is educationally inferior because of its mono-racial character, then, mutatis mutandis, black schools must also be educationally inferior because of their racially homogenous character.

Moreover, for all of their clamoring over the need for greater "diversity," academics don't want things so diverse that politically incorrect perspectives are permitted a hearing on campus. Representation of fundamentalist Christians, moral traditionalists, conservatives, libertarians, anarchists, is not only never in demand; its anathema.

Thirdly, the idea that a predominantly, or even exclusively, white student body somehow militates against a quality education is offensive. But it's offensive only because the history of Western civilization exposes just how patently absurd is the idea that racial homogeneity precludes intellectual richness.

The ideas that have composed the West's consciousness from at least the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans over 2500 years ago through to the present day have derived, overwhelmingly, from white men. It isn't that others haven't made lasting contributions, of course. But even and especially in the eyes of its staunchest critics, Western civilization has always been identified with the civilization of European -- i.e. Caucasian -- peoples.

This is fact. It is equally a fact that it is only either a paralyzing ignorance of reality or incorrigible dishonesty that could prompt anyone to deny with a straight face that the Western tradition is the most intellectually heterogeneous -- the most philosophically and theologically diverse -- tradition in all of human history. The contemporary academic fiction that Western civilization, by virtue of the "dead white males" that historically shaped it, is somehow an intellectually stagnant monolith is worse than nonsense; to borrow a line from one of those dead white males, the 18th century English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, it is "nonsense on stilts."

A profound sense of individuality spawned both the passion and daring of those legions of dead white males from throughout the last nearly three millennia to whom we owe our civilization. That "diversity" -- or, more accurately, "Diversity" -- has become the new deity of, of all places, academia, is among the most sobering, most tragic, of commentaries on our age, for it proves that if the spirit of the Western mind hasn't evaporated, it is beyond the academic world that it is to be found.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #43 

Diversity and political correctness are a threat to public safety

[img152]

Michelle Malkin says forget about gun control. America needs government control. Have you noticed the common thread among several mass killings and homeland security incidents lately?

Time and again, it’s the control freaks in Washington who have fallen down on their jobs, allowing crazies, creeps and criminals to roam free and wreak havoc while ignoring rampant red flags. Let’s review:

Washington Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis: Despite gun-grabbing Democrats’ best efforts to blame a nonexistent "AR-15" for this week’s horrific Navy Yard massacre, the truth is seeping out about shooter Aaron Alexis. The 34-year-old Navy veteran had been treated since August by the Veterans Administration for a host of mental problems that plagued him for up to a decade.

Officials say Alexis was paranoid, had a sleep disorder, suffered from schizophrenia and was "hearing voices." He told Newport, R.I., police after an altercation just last month that he believed a "microwave machine" was sending vibrations through a wall into his body. Friends say he was a heavy drinker and violent video game addict. A ticking time bomb, he had racked up a string of misconduct incidents during his military stint ranging from absenteeism to insubordination to disorderly conduct. He was arrested in Seattle in 2004 and in Fort Worth, Texas, in 2010 for separate anger-fueled shootings that terrorized neighbors and innocent bystanders.

Yet somehow Alexis passed several military background checks, gained high-level security clearance and had access to multiple military installations. The civilian contractor who employed Alexis blasted the feds on Tuesday for failing to fully disclose his history. "Anything that suggests criminal problems or mental health issues, that would be a flag," Thomas Hoshko of The Experts told The Washington Post. "We would not have hired him." And 12 innocent people might still be alive today.

Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hasan: The red flag-ignoring government seems to have become an affirmative action employer for rage-filled madmen. Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hasan, sentenced to death last month, had warned his military superiors well in advance of the massacre that he was prone to violence. Citing convicted Army fragger Hasan Akbar and others, Hasan emphasized that he was not alone among Muslim soldiers who believed they "should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly."

The feds buried concerns about Hasan and instead kept him employed to prevent accusations of discrimination.

They did not want to be "crucified," according to one Army investigator. Twelve innocent men and women, plus one unborn baby, died as a consequence of the government’s malign neglect and feckless indulgence of political correctness.

TSA nutball Nna Alpha Onuoha: Then there’s the TSA. Last week, a former TSA agent was arrested on the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks for calling in threats to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and warning that there would be a "baptism of fire" on 9/11/13. Investigators found a raft of handwritten nutball notes by disgruntled TSA screener 29-year-old Nna Alpha Onuoha tacked up in his closet. Onuoha also operated a bizarro website titled Satanhasfallen.org, which featured "end of the world" essays. He was the same TSA agent who made headlines earlier this summer after harassing a 15-year-old girl at LAX over her modest apparel.

How did this young, single male from Nigeria of limited means get into the country in the first place, let alone end up at the TSA? I’ve heard from countless veterans and former police officers over the years who were rejected from TSA positions for being "overqualified." Yet somehow Onuoha moved to the front of the TSA employment line.

How many more? The agency’s lax background checks and politically correct hiring practices are notorious. In July, the Government Accountability Office reported a 26-percent rise in employee misconduct violations over the past three years, ranging from theft to chronic sleeping on the job to ignoring basic screening protocols. Discipline is inconsistent to nonexistent. Last year, GOP Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee documented 50 galling examples of TSA employees arrested for crimes ranging from child pornography, drugs, rape and prostitution to bribery, conspiracy, assault and murder.

Two years ago, another GAO report revealed that TSA’s counterterrorism specialists had failed to detect 16 separate jihad operatives who moved through target airports "on at least 23 different occasions." Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security has released nearly 3,000 illegal alien sex offenders from detention. And rank-and-file ICE agents blew the whistle this summer on the Obama administration’s release of untold numbers of violent criminals who were designated as amnesty-eligible "DREAMers."

The motto of our homeland security overlords is "not on our watch." But like so much else attached to our post-9/11 national security bureaucracy, that motto has become a punchline. With the feds and military leaders looking the other way or closing their eyes altogether to menaces within their ranks, there is no watch. It’s a Code Red alert for government incompetence.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #44 

Requiem for diversity of thought

Patrick O'Hannigan says the past four years have proven that Barack Obama does not understand what "diversity" means, and while that might be an occupational hazard for anyone as emotionally invested in community organizing as this guy continues to be, it's also the kind of willful ignorance that explains why no course correction can be expected from his operatives, either.

Can you remember the last time you read about "green energy" creating jobs without an embarrassing undercurrent of federal subsidies to sustain them? When the Institute for Energy Research did the math, dividing federal expenditures in this area since 2009 by the number of permanent jobs created, it came up with the  shocking cost of $11.45 million per green job. Any president willing to embrace prudent diversity in energy policy might wonder about that number, or look favorably on the Keystone XL Pipeline and the shale boom, but Barack Obama has done none of those things.

In fact, Obama's reflexive disdain for thinking that runs counter to his own is well-documented, and the flip side of his oft-exercised scorn is his conviction that decent people ought to feel the way he does about any given policy. Ironically, the chief executive who has pledged more grandstanding allegiance to "diversity" than any other in U.S. history is also the man who has done the most to drain that noun of any cachet it once had.

Genuine regard for diversity would not dismiss legitimate criticism by lumping it with allegedly "phony" scandals. It would not  chastise Catholic school administrators in Ireland (!) for being "divisive," or invoke divine blessing on abortion-promoting organizations like Planned Parenthood. Is it any wonder why half-baked lectures on the U.S. Constitution delivered to indifferent students a lifetime ago are not enough to quell the suspicion that Barack Obama is more familiar with Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals than with James Madison's Federalist Papers?

Because it leaves no room for realism, this administration's approach to all things Islamic is another example of diversity denied.

Victor Davis Hanson has written that for Obama, "The past is a vague mess with shifting narratives that can serve noble contemporary causes." Hanson's assertion is vindicated by repeated  nonsense from Obama in annual Ramadan-themed remarks about Thomas Jefferson hosting the first Iftar dinner at the White House, and reading the Koran as though for edification rather than education.

The problem with Obama's soft-focus drivel is that while Thomas Jefferson will never be confused with a brawler like Andy Jackson, alleged appreciation for Islamic culture did not keep our third president from authorizing military action against Muslim pirates significant enough to be memorialized in the Marines' Hymn. It was Jefferson who sent a few good men to the shores of Tripoli when ongoing extortion from the 17th century ruler of that Muslim capital had become intolerable. Jefferson was no crusader, but he had fewer illusions about Islamic influence than Obama does (headline from the Australian: "White House backed. release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi"). Poor Jefferson can't catch a break from his successor, who recently  claimed that the principal author of the Declaration of Independence inspired even Vietnamese dictator Ho Chi Minh.

Meanwhile, toadies for this administration blame sequester-driven budget cuts for limiting things like daycare at preschools on military bases and the number of public performances by the Blue Angels, while simultaneously hoping that no one fusses about Secretary of State John Kerry  delivering $500 million to the Palestinian Authority. That cash might be cynically but appropriately viewed as bribe money for new talks with Israel, if the State Department were diverse enough to welcome the opinions of conservatives like former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton -- which it isn't.

Diversity in the Obama administration has gone the way of security for American diplomats in Libya. Inigo Montoya ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means") saw this development coming. And what difference, at this point, does it make?

What difference indeed? Apart from an occasional presence in Tea Party gatherings and a lasting contribution to the wondrous variety of vacation spots that have welcomed Air Force One since 2009, diversity is dead because Obama deliberately flattened it with a progressive ideology more featureless and imposing than the extraterrestrial monolith in Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey.  "Conformity" is the new hotness. You can either welcome it, or suffer the tender mercies and "nudge policies" of the federal government's young but enthusiastic "Behavioral Insights Team."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #45 
Obama's multicultural lesson

Scott Johnson says Barack Obama’s statement on events in Boston yesterday (with postscript on the Texas catastrophe) conveys the obligatory multicultural teaching:

Obviously, tonight there are still many unanswered questions. Among them, why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence? How did they plan and carry out these attacks, and did they receive any help? The families of those killed so senselessly deserve answers. The wounded, some of whom now have to learn how to stand and walk and live again, deserve answers.

And so I’ve instructed the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and our intelligence community to continue to deploy all the necessary resources to support the investigation, to collect intelligence, and to protect our citizens. We will determine what happened. We will investigate any associations that these terrorists may have had. And we’ll continue to do whatever we have to do to keep our people safe.

One thing we do know is that whatever hateful agenda drove these men to such heinous acts will not -- cannot -- prevail. Whatever they thought they could ultimately achieve, they’ve already failed. They failed because the people of Boston refused to be intimidated. They failed because, as Americans, we refused to be terrorized. They failed because we will not waver from the character and the compassion and the values that define us as a country. Nor will we break the bonds that hold us together as Americans.

That American spirit includes staying true to the unity and diversity that makes us strong -- like no other nation in the world. In this age of instant reporting and tweets and blogs, there’s a temptation to latch on to any bit of information, sometimes to jump to conclusions. But when a tragedy like this happens, with public safety at risk and the stakes so high, it’s important that we do this right. That’s why we have investigations. That’s why we relentlessly gather the facts. That’s why we have courts. And that’s why we take care not to rush to judgment -- not about the motivations of these individuals; certainly not about entire groups of people.

Given that it is the high-ranking officers of his administration who have determined that victims of the Soldier of Allah responsible for the Fort Hood shootings were casualties of “workplace violence,” I doubt that anyone who wants to understand wherefore and why will be looking for the answers from Obama and his crew. Howie Carr’s righteous indignation cuts through the blather:

I know you’re not supposed to paint with a broad brush, unless you’re a liberal, in which case you are not only permitted, but expected to make Adam Lanza the poster boy for 100 million law-abiding legal gun owners.

But please, before the Kool-Aid drinkers in the Senate try to get amnesty for at least 12 million un­documented Democrats, can somebody please consider how many more of these Dzhokhar Tsarnaevs we really need?

A better question: How many of these jihadist “refugees” can we as a society survive?

Victor Davis Hanson offers more understated reflections that nevertheless also belie the blather.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #46 

More taxpayer-funded anti-Americanism at the USDA

Caroline May has a report with additional clips of a United States Department of Agriculture sensitivity training class feature USDA employees being told to recite, "If we work for a federal agency, we've discriminated in the past."

The clips, released by the conservative government accountability group Judicial Watch Thursday evening, are the second installation of revealing footage obtained by a Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) request the organization made last May.

According to Judicial Watch, the documents reveal the sensitivity training was delivered to USDA employees at least 16 times last year in an attempt to boost employees' "emotional intelligence."

Samuel Betances, paid out of the USDA budget, is teaching federal employees that Texas, California, and Arizona are still part of Mexico -- and in a federal building!

Talk about revisionist history!  This jerk believes the American form of government came from the Iriquois Indians, rather than Vatelle's "Law of Nations."

In the additional clips, excerpted from the more than 3.5-hour "Cultural Sensitivity Training" session that was never intended to be publicized, diversity awareness trainer Samuel Betances of Souder, Betances and Associates advises further on the cultural sensitivity sins of America.
 
"I want you to say: 'If we work for a federal agency.' Say that. [Audience repeats] 'We have discriminated in the past.' [Audience repeats] Say: 'Every federal agency,' [Audience repeats] 'has discriminated against African Americans,' [Audience repeats] 'Hispanics,' [Audience repeats] 'Native American Indians,' [Audience repeats] 'and other groups' [Audience repeats]," Betances coaches.
 
"See, if you work for a federal agency, it doesn't matter if it's DOD, Commerce, Labor, Education, Housing, every agency has discriminated, because every agency reflects the values of the generation in charge," he adds.

Basically, this guy is directing the people in his workshop to say, "I'm a bad person" -- "America is an evil country."

More of this crap here . . .

And you're paying for this stuff!


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Deathdealer

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 120
Reply with quote  #47 
(Sorry, late to this thread and catching up on this fantastic website!)

"...The idea is to create a workforce that truly reflects America’s diversity, according to the Obama Administration..."

If the Emperor truly wanted a workforce that reflected America's diversity, then blacks would number the same percentage--12%--in the workforce as they do in the US population. That would mean a LOT more jobs going to whites than currently do, I will bet.

I wonder what the true percentage of gays in the US totals? Lesbians? If they went by US population percentages, a LOT of them would be losing rather than gaining government jobs, I will bet.

Personally I think this would be the fairest way to fill jobs, including in sports and entertainment....  
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #48 

Wisconsin University stands by campaign to teach students diversity by writing "Unfair" on white students' faces

Noah Rothman is reporting that the University of Wisconsin Duluth-Superior is standing by a controversial campaign launched in 2012 to increase public awareness about racial favoritism by writing “unfair” on students’ faces along with a variety of grievances supposedly shared by minorities against Caucasians. The university released a statement last week defending the project and saying that the campaign is prepare to enter its second phase.

“The creative materials for the campaign’s initial phase, launched in January 2012, were designed to be very provocative,” reads a statement released by the University. “UW-Superior understood and expressed serious concern about the nature of these materials. However, rather than abandon a well-intentioned effort, UW-Superior chose to continue working with the other community partners to help refocus the campaign’s future direction.”

The statement makes it clear that this initiative was not concocted by the University alone. It was launched as part of a coalition effort conceived by a group of community sponsors.

Finally, the University announced that “unfair” is entering a second phase. “Racism: Ignore It And It Won’t Go Away,” was launched summer of 2012,” the statement reads. “At a recent series of community meetings, residents of the community have already begun to chart its future course.”

Not all the original partners are standing by the “unfair campaign.” Last year, the University of Minnesota ceased their support for the awareness effort calling it “divisive” and “alienating.”

Only the twisted mind of the progressive can justify the formal teaching of bigotry and hate as a means to establish "fairness."

And remember, Obama justifies much of what he is doing to the country in the name of "fairness."

There is nothing fair about condemning me for the way God made me.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #49 

USDA "Cultural Sensitivity" training program redefines "minorities" as "emerging majorities"

Daniel Greenfield says no 1984 to see here. This is the “new era of civil rights”. It’s a wonderful phenomenon best illustrated by this new cultural sensitivity training program at the USDA which has become a huge wealth redistribution operation.

Judicial Watch today released previously unseen USDA videos revealing a compulsory “Cultural Sensitivity Training” program requiring USDA employees to bang on tables, chanting in unison “The pilgrims were illegal aliens” while being instructed to no longer use the word “minorities,” but to replace it with “emerging majorities.

The sensitivity training sessions, described as “a huge expense” by diversity awareness trainer and self-described “citizen of the world” Samuel Betances, were held on USDA premises. The diversity event is apparently part of what USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack described in a memo sent to all agency employees as a “new era of Civil Rights” and “a broader effort towards cultural transformation at USDA.” In 2011 and 2012, the USDA paid Betances and his firm nearly $200,000 for their part in the “cultural transformation” program.

Who exactly is Samuel Betances?

His bio mentions that he’s been everywhere and done everything, but fails to give specifics as to his background. He operates out of Chicago, which probably tells us all we need to know.

Betances is apparently a Puerto Rican from Harlem and who was a Sociology professor at Northeastern Illinois University. He’s backing away from those specific credentials to describe himself as a multiracial citizen of the world. Because you can never be too diverse.

Betances has no problem with steroeotypes -- as long as they are directed at white Americans.

And the anti-American Betances is no student of history.

The United States never "took Mexico."

By the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Feb. 2, 1848), Mexico -- after it invaded the United States and had its ass kicked -- ceded to the United States two fifths of its territory and received an indemnity of $15 million and the assumption of American claims against Mexico by the U.S. government.

Update:  USDA Whistleblower speaks out about controversial "cultural sensitivity training" seminar


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #50 

You call this "diversity training?"

Michael Carl says a U.S. Department of Agriculture official has confirmed some of the government’s “diversity training” -- including participants banging on tables and chanting, “Our forefathers were illegal immigrants!” -- was “not in line” with USDA guidelines.

Breitbart reported last year the USDA paid a Chicago-based diversity training and consulting firm $200,000 to hold a series of “Diversity Training Workshops” around the country.

According to a press statement issued by the Department of Agriculture, the workshops were designed to “foster overall diversity awareness.”

Documents obtained by the watchdog group Judicial Watch, however, revealed the seminars required participants to chant, “Our forefathers were illegal immigrants!” and encouraged the attendees to bang on the tables while chanting the phrase.

Souder, Betances and Associates was given the USDA contract to conduct the training seminars.

USDA Diversity Director Monshi Ramdass, however, told WND in an interview that he is unable to verify the consulting firm’s seminar curriculum. He adds that the program is outside USDA diversity training criteria.

“If they’re doing that in the seminars, I can say that’s (referring to the chant) not in line with the guidance our department established,” Ramdass said.

WND attempted to contact Souder, Betances and Associates, but no one at the firm was available for comment on this story. The firm has also not returned phone message requests for an interview.

Ramdass also says he can’t explain the reason for that particular feature of the training.

“I don’t see what the purpose of that would be,” Ramdass said. “We train people of all backgrounds. Our secretary, Tom Vilsack wants us to work in a culture of transforming diversity.

“He says he wants each person in the department to appreciate the value of each other and to improve our work climate so we can provide the best service for our customers,” Ramdass said.

Ramdass was the fourth person with whom WND spoke at the USDA. After the initial contact, WND was referred to the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture’s diversity office. That office declined to comment on the issue, but referred WND to Diversity and Inclusion Program Manager Muhammad Ali, who also declined to comment on the program. Ali referred WND to Ramdass.

Judicial Watch reports that it sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Agriculture, asking for records on the diversity program.

The documents and other reports verify that participants did in fact bang on tables and chant that their “forefathers were illegal immigrants,” and that the USDA has actually paid Souder, Betances and Associates over $200,000 for the training seminars.

Would you look at who's running Obama's "Diversity and Inclusion Program" -- Muhammad Ali!

Obama's jihad is active inside the U. S. government.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved