Banning Critical Race Theory – the Shaming of American White Youth


June 23, 2021 | 2:45 PM

Banning Critical Race Theory – the Shaming of American White Youth

America is a nation that has set the standard for freedom around the globe. After all, the nation was founded by those seeking to avoid religious persecution. Now, has there been some serious ugly along the way – absolutely.  What was done to the Native Americans is a black eye on the nation, but nations were built by such fashion during those times. We would not be having this discussion had those atrocities not occurred. Slavery, both in the US and abroad is another one of those black eyes. While slave owning was awful, so was the treatment of Chinese and Irish immigrants during the 1800’s as well as the slavery of child labor in this nation during periods of the Industrial Revolution.

As the nation grew in conscience, practices changed. Some willingly and others through violence, such as the origins of unions in the nation.

Slavery took a Civil War, over 600000 American souls, the destruction of white families that fought and killed one another, and the burning of the South. The price of this sin was paid in blood.

So, when I hear of all this talk of Critical Race Theory and how white children are inherently racist and should be ashamed of their skin color, I get a little irritated. Ignorant theories like this, along with the thoughts of claiming America is inherently racist with systemic racism against blacks or others, reflects an absolute stupidity of the history of the nation. Yes, we have had our issues and yes there are small pockets that remain today here and there of racist goobers (of all colors and political spectrum’s incidentally), but to paint this nation today, the white race, or anything that disagrees with this inherently racist crap is proof that the lobotomized can still communicate.

The thought that this nation exists from beginning through right now to oppress any race other than the white race is pure BS. If you think all white people are racist by the color of their skin – you’re a moron and part of the problem because you are the racist.

White people do not wake up and think “Oooooh, what can we do today to oppress blacks, Hispanics, Asians, pink & purple hippos, or anything else that ain’t white?” (Cracker southern drawl added for stereotying).

 It does NOT happen. Period. WE DON’T CARE WHAT COLOR YOU ARE!

Let me tell you what we think if you move into the neighborhood – do they have a riding mower and is it better than mine?

My black friends despise CRT as it effectively tells them that never had a chance nor will have a chance to succeed at anything in life because of white people. IF you want some real hot sports opinions on this topic, I’ll fix you up with a few in conversation.

Teaching white youth to despise themselves and create a false guilt because of what happened 150 plus years ago is akin to having Japanese babies be taught to hate themselves because their for-bearers bombed Pearl Harbor.

Every parent of any skin color needs to go before their State School Boards and Governors and have CRT banned from being taught in schools. All that is being done with CRT is planting the seeds for another Civil War.

Legal Improvement for the Black Community

Since there seems to be a memory lapse from certain circles on what the federal government and states have been doing for several decades to improve life and opportunity for the black (and other minorities) community, let’s list a few key items:

  • Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka – one of the cornerstones of the civil rights movement
  • President John F. Kennedy’s Executive Order (E.O.) 10925 used affirmative action for the first time by instructing federal contractors to take “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.
  • Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law. This was landmark legislation prohibiting employment discrimination by large employers (over 15 employees), whether or not they have government contracts. Established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
  • President Lyndon B. Johnson issued E.O. 11246, requiring all government contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to expand job opportunities for minorities. Established Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC) in the Department of Labor to administer the order.
  • The Labor Department, under President Richard M. Nixon, issued Order No.4, authorizing flexible goals and timetables to correct “underutilization” of minorities by federal contractors.
  • President Nixon issued E.O. 11625, directing federal agencies to develop comprehensive plans and specific program goals for a national Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) contracting program.
  • The Nixon administration issued “Memorandum-Permissible Goals and Timetables in State and Local Government Employment Practices,” distinguishing between proper goals and timetables and impermissible quotas.
  • The Supreme Court ruled in United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. Weber, 444 U.S. 889 (1979) that race-conscious affirmative action efforts designed to eliminate a conspicuous racial imbalance in an employer’s workforce resulting from past discrimination are permissible if they are temporary and do not violate the rights of white employees.
  • President Ronald Reagan issued E.O. 12432, which directed each federal agency with substantial procurement or grant making authority to develop a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) development plan.
  • The Supreme Court in Local 128 of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421 (1986) upheld a judicially-ordered 29% minority “membership admission goal” for a union that had intentionally discriminated against minorities, confirming that courts may order race- conscious relief to correct and prevent future discrimination.
  • The Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California, 480 U.S. 616 (1987) that a severe under representation of women and minorities justified the use of race or sex as “one factor” in choosing among qualified candidates.
  • In Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 513 U.S. 1012 (1994) the Supreme Court held that a federal affirmative action program remains constitutional when narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling government interest such as remedying discrimination.
  • President Bill Clinton reviewed all affirmative action guidelines by federal agencies and declared his support for affirmative action programs by announcing the Administration’s policy of “Mend it, don’t end it.”
  • The Regents of the University of California voted to end affirmative action programs at all University of California campuses. Beginning in 1997 for graduate schools and 1998 for undergraduate admissions, officials at the University were no longer allowed to use race, gender, ethnicity or national origin as a factor in admissions decisions.
  • The bipartisan Glass Ceiling Commission released a report on the endurance of barriers that deny women and minorities access to decision-making positions and issued a recommendation “that corporate America use affirmative action as a tool ensuring that all qualified individuals have equal access and opportunity to compete based on ability and merit.”
  • In Texas v. Hopwood, 518 U.S. 1033 (1996) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against the University of Texas, deciding that its law school’s policy of considering race in the admissions process was a violation of the Constitution’s equal-protection guarantee. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the ruling because the program at issue was no longer in use.
  • Voters in Houston supported affirmative action programs in city contracting and hiring by rejecting an initiative that would banish such efforts. Houston proved that the wording on an initiative is a critical factor in influencing the voters’ response. Instead of deceptively focusing attention on “preferential treatment,” voters were asked directly if they wanted to “end affirmative action programs.” They said no.
  • The U.S. House Judiciary Committee voted 17-9, on a bipartisan basis, to defeat legislation aimed at dismantling federal affirmative action programs for women and minorities. Representative George Gekas (R-Pa.), who moved to table the bill, said that the bill was “useless and counterproductive. I fear that forcing the issue at this time could jeopardize the daily progress being made in ensuring equality.”
  • Both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate thwarted attempts to eliminate specific affirmative action programs. Both houses rejected amendments to abolish the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program funded through the Transportation Bill, and the House rejected an attempt to eliminate use of affirmative action in admissions in higher education programs funded through the Higher Education Act.
  • In an effort to promote equal pay, the US Department of Labor promulgated new affirmative action regulations including an Equal Opportunity Survey, which requires federal contractors to report hiring, termination, promotions and compensation data by minority status and gender. This is the first time in history that employers have been required to report information regarding compensation by gender and minority status to the federal equal employment agencies.
  • The 10th Circuit issued an opinion in Adarand Constructors v. Mineta, 228 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2000) and ruled that the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise as administered by the Department of Transportation was constitutional because it served a compelling government interest and was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The court also analyzed the constitutionality of the program in use when Adarand first filed suit in 1989 and determined that the previous program was unconstitutional. Adarand then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
  • The Sixth Circuit handed down its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, 288 F.3d 732 (6th Cir. 2002) on May 14, 2002, and upheld as constitutional the use of race as one of many factors in making admissions decisions at the University of Michigan’s Law School.
  • The Supreme Court handed down its decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. (2003). In Grutter, the Court held that the University of Michigan’s use of race among other factors in its law school admissions program was constitutional because the program furthered a compelling interest in obtaining “an educational benefit that flows from student body diversity”. The Court also found that the law school’s program was narrowly tailored; it was flexible, and provided for a “holistic” review of each applicant. In Gratz, the Court rejected the undergraduate admissions program at the College of Literature, Science and the Arts, which granted points based on race and ethnicity and did not provide for a review of each applicant’s entire file.

Also know that the Small Business Administration 8A Program is targeted for the benefit of blacks and other minorities in getting their own businesses off the ground AND loads of guides on how to use this for federal contracting on set aside contracts.

President Trump Opportunity Zones was one of the best programs ever to roll out to aid the black community.

So, it would appear where there have been holes in equal opportunities for blacks and other minorities, every effort is there to fill that hole.

So stop with this systemic racism crap.

The Topic of Reparations and the Rise of Racism & Segregation against White America
There probably is no more toxic topic than this one. Race pimps and liberals use this to try to guilt white America to throw untold amounts of money at the black community to make up for their ancestral slave heritage or if somehow they remain disadvantaged due to the white man. This one gets my black friends blood boiling as well….

New York has come out with a new Cannibas Law that could very well be a blueprint for federalization of cannabis and an expungement for the criminalization that it has had over the year. It’s actually a very good bill –

Here is my one issue with the bill – use of funds. Per the article:

“Besides legalizing adult personal use of cannabis and drastically downgrading penalties for illegal use, the MRTA aims to create and regulate a new cannabis market on principles of social justice. Its goal is to channel tax revenue into communities of color, which were most affected by decades of marijuana enforcement, and give them opportunities to create thriving businesses. Some people have actually called it a reparations bill,…In some ways, it is.”

So, if you were white and would fall under this program otherwise you get left out due to skin color?

Recently, federal funds were being directed to “farmers of color” for loan forgiveness but not white farmers, with the forgiveness being exclusively on race. This past week, a federal judge in Wisconsin halted the process. The Biden Administration claims this program was intended for decades of prior discrimination accessing programs at the USDA against socially disadvantaged or “farmers of color.” If this was indeed true, people need to go to jail, not give away money.

There are multiple issues with the topic of reparations –

  • They make assumptions of no admission of the issue;
  • It assumes no efforts have been made to improve the issue (see my prior section);
  • It opens the door for new “reverse racism” policies to be established. I just gave you 2 examples and there are loads more.
  • It opens the door for “well if they get money, what about our issues?” and you can go back to Chinese and Irish immigrants of the 1800’s, child labor of the prior century, etc, etc, etc. Where does it end?
  • Current Americans have no legal or moral responsibility to correct the black eyes in our nation’s past.

Part of being a Nation that sees and corrects its actions is to be able to move forward and not re-live the past. That does not mean erase the past. You learn from it.

Segregation is rising again and not from the white community, but from liberals influencing people of color. Jobs where being white will exclude you from the application process, politicians refusing to grant interviews to the “white press”, and off color jokes about white people open on social media that would be banned if about a “person of color”.

Wonder how they’ll deal with the discrimination lawsuits that are certain to follow…..

Making Juneteenth a Federal Holiday
Not really sure what the ballyhoo here is. For most of my youth and as a young adult, I thought it was a holiday. I knew it was the day of the Emancipation Proclamation and every black friend I had took off on that day. It was common knowledge and practice, so codifying it was not an issue on my part and should have occurred a long time ago.

Time to stop playing the Race Card and create solutions
While penning this blog, I see a social media post of a white liberal woman who teaches music talking about how classical music is racist. Classical music…. OK Karen, if that’s how you justify your existence by running everything back to racism then you are part of the problem and not the solution. Have we reached a point need to label all art with the preferred offence of the moment?

Where does it stop?

After another Civil War?

My generation worked pretty hard to eliminate discrimination and racism in the 70’ and 80’s. We had things like “We are the World”, Farm Aid, Live Aid, and we even able to make movies about race and laugh together about it with our “friends of color”. Sense of humor and the ability to forgive and love made all the difference in the world. We have to get back to that.

Somehow, we forgot we are all “Americans” regardless of “color”.

That means put the past in the past.

Learn, love, and forgive from it, but leave it in the past.

Don’t be part of the problem, be the solution.