CIVIL RIGHTS, IT SEEMS, ARE ONLY FOR THE BLACKS…

Posted on September 5, 2009. Filed under: News And Politics... |

 
Here we go again with the Obama administration shifting and pushing civil rights issues.  They’re stirring the pot, and not in a good way either.  The only reason we have racial discord in this country is because the left is forever igniting the flames, then putting a fan to it.  I’m so sick of hearing about the poor minorities when there are so many white people who don’t get a fair shake many times because of affirmative action. 
 
I have never seen so much black rights crap surface as I have since Obama ran for president.  I knew it was going to happen because to me, most blacks are the most racist of all races.  I’m really happy that this country saw beyond Obama’s color and voted for him because they really thought he would bring about positive change, and it also showed that Americans are not racists, as Democrats called those of us who didn’t vote for him.  I wish they were right, but boy, were they wrong!  He’s bringing change, alright, but instead of working for constituents’ interests, he’s working for his own personal interests.  I don’t care if he’s yellow, green, white, black or purple, I wouldn’t have voted for him based on his agendas alone, and I can’t stand where he’s leading this country.  I’m not a racist, but these Democrats and Obama supporters will cry out that if you don’t like the black guy, you’re a racist.  You know, all this racist slander is making white people really mad, and it’s not because we’re racists.  It’s because we’re fed up with all the crap that goes with the black guy in the White House and how he’s saying that "blacks have it harder"?  That may have been the case 50 or 60 years ago, but that is certainly not the case today.  Blacks now have more rights than white people, and are they faring any better?  The government has been helping blacks for those 50 or 60 years, and look at them.  Are they any better now than they were then?  Some of them still have this huge chip on their shoulder that the world still owes them something and until they scrape it off, they will forever live in the past.  Some blacks don’t want to better themselves even though the red carpet is laid out for them.  Now our government is helping them walk down that red carpet because they just don’t feel they can walk it themselves!  They don’t have to perform as well as white people have to.  That’s what has most white people upset.  Let them work hard for what they get like the rest of us have to.  I would not be saying all this if the Democrats and black hate mongers like Al Crapton and Jesse Jackass didn’t rear their ugly heads every time some black was arrested or if something bad happened to them.  When bad things happen to white people, who is there to help them?  Nobody!  We all have to "soldier on".  If blacks really wanted equality, they’d be living like the rest of us do, with nothing, unless they work hard.  Some blacks don’t want equality, they want superiority.  Just listen to one of Obama’s racist thugs, Van Jones, his Green Jobs Communist Czar.  He spews hatred for white people, but nothing is ever done about it.  He spoke of "whites deliberately poisoning blacks in the fields", among other false statements.  If a white person said as much, he’d be called on the carpet, but black people are given a free pass, just as always, while white people are called every name in the book, including racist.  Look what the black community did to Imus.  That word works both ways, and blacks are far more racist than whites.  These black racists are the primary reason why racism is so rampant today.  It’s not because of white people.  We are more than tolerant of blacks, even when they have their own TV stations, radio stations, magazines, organizations.  They have so much, yet they want it all.  That’s what is so infuriating!
 
I used to work in a company that had an extremely diversified group of people…Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and they were all so great and hardworking.  They were the best bunch of people I ever had the pleasure of meeting or working with.  We were all on the same level playing field.  All the bosses weren’t White either, as many blacks seem to spew on their blogs about it being a "whitey culture".  I would still be working there if I wasn’t laid off.  There was never any discord against any races at all…never!  It’s the government and the media that’s pitting blacks against whites and whites against blacks.  I worked at that job for many years and then one day it was, "OK, here’s your pink slip….out you go right now".  I didn’t have the race card up my sleeve to play.  I left and even though it took me a long time to get another job, I didn’t have the luxury of saying that I was laid off because I was black and having the option to sue.  I’m a White woman, and I didn’t use the "gender" card either.  I thought I would be a better person if I just worked with what I had and moved on, and that’s exactly what I did.  It makes one grow a strong backbone when you have to depend on yourself.  Did I mention that at the time of my layoff, my husband (my boyfriend at the time) was just laid off as well, and we had just bought a house together two months before?  We had a new mortgage and it was tough for awhile.  Money was tight, but we did what we had to do.  We ate pasta, peanut butter and jelly, never went out, no vacations, took on small jobs here and there, we did without everything!  It would have been easy to look at rich people and hate them for what they had, but that wouldn’t be me.  I’m the type of person who focuses on my own strengths.  Yes, I see people who are better off than me, but there are lots of people who are worse off as well.  I don’t have the mindset that I must have what rich people have.  The way I see it, they have as many headaches and money troubles as I have, only multiplied by 1,000 or so. 
 
If I want something, I work for it.  I don’t expect someone to give it to me, and I don’t steal it from someone else either to obtain it.  I can sleep with a clear conscience every night because what little I do have, I obtained it honestly and through hard work.  I don’t even own any expensive jewelry, yet I see many black people with multiple gold chains hanging from their necks, big gold rings and huge diamond stud earrings, and they claim they don’t have any money!  I don’t hate them because of it.  When I see that, I figure that’s where they chose to spend their money, while I choose to spend mine paying the mortgage, paying bills and putting food on the table.  It’s called prioritizing.  People have different priorities, and because I chose my priorities carefully, I don’t like to pay for people who choose their priorities unresponsibly.  Why should I give someone a hand when they spend their money foolishly?  That’s what gets me mad, and I’m sure I’m not alone.  I don’t want my tax dollars going to someone’s foreclosed home because they bought more house than they could possible afford.  My husband and I bought a very modest home because it was something that we knew we could afford.  We knew we’d be on our own if we couldn’t keep up with the mortgage payments so we were careful in what we chose.  If people know the government will always help them out, they will never take responsibility for their own actions.  They will never live within their means.  Why should they?  Look at what these large corporations did after the billions in handouts they got from the government?  They flaunted their wealth and laughed in our faces, all the way to the bank.  Nobody is held accountable for their actions anymore, and people wonder why our country is going to hell.  Look around you.  Do you see people working hard to get what they want?  I have no respect for people who always want something for nothing.  They are Zeros, plain and simple. 
 
Never have I seen such discord in this country as I see now.  People crying RACIST at every turn.  I now can’t stand this word!  Excuse me if I don’t feel sorry for all the illegal aliens and poor minorities.  I’ve been on that side of the fence many times, and I fared well without government intervention.  Sometimes you need to stand on your own two feet and depend on yourself.  This way, you won’t be at anyone’s mercy and you won’t have to answer to anyone.  That’s freedom!  Just ask Ford who refused the government’s bailout.  They’re faring better than the government-owned auto companies now, aren’t they?  See the pattern here?  I feel like our government and the media is deliberately playing whites against blacks so they can sit back and watch us fight it out.  Through the months, it was getting worse and worse, and as it surfaced, I blogged about this very issue in several posts…
 
 
QueenBee
 
 
NYT: White House to shift civil rights efforts

Justice Department plans to revive focus on policies that impact minorities
By Charlie Savage
The New York Times
updated 2:37 a.m. ET, Tues., Sept . 1, 2009
 

WASHINGTON – Seven months after taking office, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is reshaping the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division by pushing it back into some of the most important areas of American political life, including voting rights, housing, employment, bank lending practices and redistricting after the 2010 census.

As part of this shift, the Obama administration is planning a major revival of high-impact civil rights enforcement against policies, in areas ranging from housing to hiring, where statistics show that minorities fare disproportionately poorly. President George W. Bush’s appointees had discouraged such tactics, preferring to focus on individual cases in which there is evidence of intentional discrimination.

To bolster a unit that has been battered by heavy turnover and a scandal over politically tinged hiring under the Bush administration, the Obama White House has also proposed a hiring spree that would swell the ranks of several hundred civil rights lawyers with more than 50 additional lawyers, a significant increase for a relatively small but powerful division of the government.

The division is “getting back to doing what it has traditionally done,” Mr. Holder said in an interview. “But it’s really only a start. I think the wounds that were inflicted on this division were deep, and it will take some time for them to fully heal.”

At the center of key debates
Few agencies are more engaged in the nation’s social and cultural debates than the Civil Rights Division, which was founded in 1957 to enforce anti-discrimination laws.

The division has been at the center of a number of controversies over the decades, serving as a proxy for disputes between liberals and conservatives in matters like school busing and affirmative action. When the Nixon administration took office, it sought to delay school desegregation plans reached under former President Lyndon B. Johnson. The Reagan administration dropped the division’s policy of opposing tax-exempt status for racially discriminatory private schools. And former President Bill Clinton withdrew his first nominee to lead the division, Lani Guinier, after her writings about racial quotas were criticized.

But such dust-ups were minor when compared with sweeping changes at the division under the Bush administration, longtime career civil rights lawyers say.

Now the changes that Mr. Holder is pushing through have led some conservatives, still stinging from accusations that the Bush appointees “politicized” the unit, to start throwing the same charge back at President Obama’s team.

The agency’s critics cite the downsizing of a voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party, an investigation into whether an Arizona sheriff’s enforcement of immigration laws has discriminated against Hispanics, and the recent blocking of a new rule requiring Georgia voters to prove their citizenship. (Under the Bush administration, the division had signed off on a similar law requiring Georgia voters to furnish photographic identification, rejecting criticism that legitimate minority voters are disproportionately more likely not to have driver’s licenses or passports.)

Among the critics, Hans von Spakovsky, a former key Bush-era official at the division, has accused the Obama team of “nakedly political” maneuvers.

Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, rejected such criticism, saying those cases were decided “based on the facts and the law.”

Under the Bush administration, the agency shifted away from its traditional core focus on accusations of racial discrimination, channeling resources into areas like religious discrimination and human trafficking.

Trying to avoid controversies
Department officials are working to avoid unleashing potential controversies as they rebuild the division’s more traditional efforts on behalf of minorities.

They are not planning to dismantle the new initiatives, rather to hire enough additional lawyers to do everything. The administration’s fiscal year 2010 budget request includes an increase of about $22 million for the division, an 18 percent increase from the 2009 budget. Other changes are already apparent.

The division has filed about 10 “friend of the court” briefs in private discrimination-related lawsuits since Mr. Obama’s inauguration, a practice that had dwindled in the previous administration.

In July, moreover, the division’s acting head, Loretta King, sent a memorandum to every federal agency urging more aggressive enforcement of regulations that forbid recipients of taxpayer money from policies that have a disparate impact on minorities.

The division has also lifted Bush-era rules that some career staff members saw as micromanagement or impediments, like restrictions on internal communications and a ban on front-line career lawyers’ making recommendations on whether to approve proposed changes to election laws.

Other changes from the Bush years may be harder to roll back. The division’s downgrading of the New Black Panther Party charges, which were filed in the final days of the Bush administration, has had rippling consequences. It apparently prompted Senate Republicans to put a hold on President Obama’s nominee to lead the division as assistant attorney general for civil rights, Thomas Perez.

The delay in Mr. Perez’s arrival, in turn, is stalling plans to review section managers installed by the Bush team, including several regarded with suspicion by civil rights advocacy groups. Under federal law, top-level career officials may not be transferred to other positions for the first 120 days after a new agency head is confirmed.

Bush-era changes to the division’s permanent rank may also have lingering effects. From 2003 to 2007, Bush political appointees blocked liberals from career jobs and promotions, which they steered to fellow conservatives, whom one such official privately described as “real Americans,” a department inspector general report found. The practice, which no previous administration had done, violated civil service laws, it said.

‘Ill-equipped’ for workload
As morale plunged among veterans, turnover accelerated. The Obama transition team’s confidential report on the division, obtained by The New York Times, says 236 civil rights lawyers left from 2003 to 2007. (The division has about 350 lawyers.)

Many of their replacements had scant civil rights experience and were graduates of lower-ranked law schools. The transition report says the era of hiring such “inexperienced or poorly qualified” lawyers — who are now themselves protected by civil service laws — has left lasting damage.

“While some of the political hires have performed competently and a number of others have left, the net effect of the politicized hiring process and the brain drain is an attorney work force largely ill-equipped to handle the complex, big-impact litigation that should comprise a significant part” of the division’s docket, the transition report said.

At the end of the Bush administration, the attorney general at the time, Michael B. Mukasey, began to make changes intended to reduce political influence over entry-level career lawyer hiring. The Civil Rights Division is now seeking to expand those changes.

It is developing a new hiring policy under which panels of career employees — not political appointees — would decide both whom to hire and to promote for positions from interns to veteran lawyers. The policy could be completed as early as this month.

“We wanted to create a very transparent policy that will stand the test of time and ensure that we hire the best and brightest,” said Mark Kappelhoff, a longtime civil rights lawyer who is the division’s acting principal deputy assistant attorney general.

Some conservatives are skeptical that such a policy will keep politics out of hiring, however. Robert Driscoll, a division political appointee from 2001 to 2003, said career civil rights lawyers are “overwhelmingly left-leaning” and will favor liberals.

“If you are the Obama administration and you allow the career staff to do all the hiring, you will get the same people you would probably get if you did it yourself,” he said. “In some ways, it’s a masterstroke by them.”

‘Enforcing the statutes’
Mr. Holder has elsewhere called for social changes with civil rights overtones, like the passage of a federal hate-crimes law, the elimination of the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine and greater financing for indigent defense.

By contrast, he described his Civil Rights Division efforts as more restoration than change. The recent moves, he argued, are a return to its basic approach under presidents of both parties — despite some policy shifts between Republican and Democratic administrations — before the “sea change” and “aberration” of the Bush years.

“Of course there are going to be critics,” Mr. Holder said. But, he argued, “any objective observer” would see the recent approach as consistent with “the historical mission of the division, not straying into some kind of liberal orthodoxy. It really is just a function of enforcing the statutes.”

 

 

Advertisements

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

2 Responses to “CIVIL RIGHTS, IT SEEMS, ARE ONLY FOR THE BLACKS…”

RSS Feed for QueenBeeWorld… Comments RSS Feed

I agree 100% that slavery should not be forgotten, like all you have mentioned here and also what happened on September 11, 2001. Democrats are calling everyone who dares to disagree with Obama "racists" when they are the biggest racists of all. It was the Democrats who wanted slavery, and it was the Republicans who wanted it abolished, and it took a white American Republican president to put a stop to it, and gave his life in the process, President Abraham Lincoln. How\’s that for irony?What I have a problem with is that many people confuse racism with simple disagreement–pure and simple. Take the Rep. Joe Wilson "Liar" controversy. Do you know that the media and some Dems are now calling him a racist just because he called Obama a liar? Actually, Obama was not telling the truth about many issues, but you are immediately labeled a racist if you disagree with him, that is, if you\’re white. What would these people and the media call all those black people who called Bush more derogatory names? The term racism is used too much today, and because of that, it has lost its significance. Yes, it was atrocious the way blacks were treated back then. I find it equally appalling the way blacks call other blacks the "N" word that they can say, but nobody else can. Look on YouTube and you see it all over the place, and they call white people hateful names as well, but it\’s overlooked. Do you see the double-standard here, Khrys? Black-on-black crime does not outrage the black community, but you have some white person just yell at a black, and they\’re called a racist. What would you call Kayne West for saying Bush "hates black people"? Well, you can\’t call him a racist because he\’s black–that label is reserved for white people. That\’s what I have a problem with. People are ticked off that some people are comparing Obama to Hitler, calling them racists. Where were these people when Bush was compared to Hitler? Look on the Internet and you will see hundreds of pictures of Bush as Hitler and many stories of Bush being compared to and called Hitler. Where was the outrage then? I see the Democrats and the mainstream media using the race card because it works time and time again. Hey, it helped Obama buy the White House. People will tire of being called racists when that is not the case. Bush was slandered the whole time he was in office, but that was OK. People are ticked off with the way Obama is running this country into the ground with all his spending, not because he\’s some black guy, but because his policies are way too much to the left. I\’m sure there would be just as much outrage if he were white, maybe even more so because people would not be fearful of being called racists. Anyway, Obama is just as white as he is black…QB

Like

Racism should be acronymed because its brought about a retaliation upon past Whites pure abuse towards Blacks. The Nazis were atrocious to Jews but is that ever to be forgotten? No and same applies to days when White Ku Klux Klan attacked, burnt and kept down Blacks. Here\’s your acronym : Really Acting Childish Its Skin Man (RACISM)

Like


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: