Receipts

Case File #1: Race-based admissions

I’ve decided to start a new series, “Receipts”. I have an insane bank of imagery and documents from the past four years. There are several different projects I have in mind with it all, such as one for the wild-ride of pictures and downloads and memes I saved on the phone I carried from 2020 through a few months ago. I’ve saved it all. My primary source of receipt grabbing is via X searches; however, I planned years ago for the eventuality of being cut off there. If that were to happen, it will just make my work more challenging and not end it. What I intend to do with this series is take one receipt out of the treasure chest at a time, set it on the table all alone, and really drill down on what story it tells. The amount of stories in this collection are mind-blowing! The need for these discussions to take place and do so with intellectual honesty is dire.

Case File #1: Race-Based Admissions

The title itself screams of an Equal Protection violation. For those new to the Constitutional party, the 14th Amendment mandates that:

“No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Simple enough, right? Not so fast! This clause has been used and abused and litigated and re-written. In a sign that Constitutional nature is healing, however, the legal tide now seems to be heading back towards its true purpose. The Equal Protection clause should be easy to understand. The government cannot create law that favors based on a protected-class. Of course, who and what qualifies as a “protected class” has become quite the postmodern witches’ brew. Within this Harry Potteresque world came “gender” as a legally protected category separate from biological sex, which (un)naturally spawned transactivism and a man dressed as a woman running the Department of Health and Human Services while saying drugs need to be given to children to prevent them from going through “the wrong puberty”. Horrifying! And yet all too real. It all comes from the same pot.

Our colleges have been using race-based metrics for admissions in violation of the Equal Protection clause for decades. We just call it “Affirmative Action” and apparently grass becomes blue. In this piece, I want to expand on how this ruling was handled by the DNC and its Truman Show media rather than drill further into the ruling itself. The nuts and bolts of how we ever got to this wicked place legally are important to understand, however. It is the dogmatic pursuit of Equity replacing the principle of equality under the law (Equal Protection). Sure is circular, isn’t? You bet it is! It all built off the legal principle of “disparate impact”. Critical cogs to grasp, but not for here.

Last June, SCOTUS issued its ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (and University of North Carolina) deeming it unconstitutional to determine college admissions based on skin-color. What’s fascinating about this ruling is the Equal Protection clause would have been used historically to ensure colleges were not excluding minorities. The scope of this SCOTUS review, however, was that of university administrators feverish with “Equity” implementing admissions policies that were overtly biasing against candidates based on their skin-color in order to increase the amount of other skin-color demographics within the student-body. This is quintessential Equity; textbook social-engineering for manufactured outcomes. Was this only against white students? No; in fact, the numbers showed that the students being discriminated against the hardest under these “Equity” admissions programs were Asians. That’s because Asians work their ass off culturally, with a particular emphasis on academic studies driven at the family-level. In a world of meritocracy, Asians are going to soar! These ideologues were engineering against this to ensure the manufactured outcome which placates their zealotry. The entire pot is ideological and dogmatic as hell! You won’t ever find the Kendi camp applying this same analysis to the NBA.

The initial thrust of these initiatives was of course around skin-color/race. The justification or public-policy being “moral discrimination” was needed to “correct for historic injustice”. This is the cocktail for all Equity pleas. Because of our nation’s history of slavery (which will later morph into the ambiguous and undefeatable “oppression” to apply to categories that were never enslaved) and later Jim Crow-like systemic laws, black Americans were held back from building the same personal castles (“generational wealth”) as white Americans. Ergo, we must now have the government force “moral discrimination” the other way (Equity) to equalize for this previous injustice. I utter the mantras well, don’t I? I’ve studied these books much more than I desired to. This argument can hold some water logically… in a lecture hall or a campus bong-hit session. It can be applied to black Americans… until you realize a person’s skin-color doesn’t designate the path they’ve walked in life. Do you think Barack Obama or Claudine Gay walked a path of oppression because they had darker skin than a white person? LMAO those two have walked a silver-spoon path that 99.9% of this world would trade for in a heartbeat. The vast majority of this planet’s inhabitants of all colors could never dream of enjoying the life of academic spoiledness and personal luxury bestowed upon those two by birth. Oppression? The notion would be comical if it wasn’t so demented, sick, and poisonous to us all. And then of course it expanded to whatever the Equity radicals wanted; inevitably becoming Queer+ phantasma across campuses nationwide. Somehow now all you have to do is declare yourself weird and non-traditional (and a passionate DNC voter) and all forms of government benefits should be waiting for you. White, male, straight, Christian? You deserve everything coming your way, privileged bigot!

Before I turn back to that SCOTUS ruling and what happened after it was issued, if you want to dive into my thoughts on the “Equity” pursuit more, this is a good starting point:

The point in laying that all out in detail is it’s shocking these policies ever took root in the first place. “We are going to discriminate against white students in our admissions process to ensure we bring in more non-white students” is one hell of a selling point! But that was how successfully this radical pursuit was able to Long March over our Constitution and its principles of equality under the law. Last June, this came to an end for any and all colleges that are considered state actors. This is the vast majority of colleges due to funding channels and the Commerce Clause. It’s a ruling that comports with the very heart of American justice. But that sentence only reads the right way when “justice” remains lowercase. Once it becomes “Justice” and the fist comes out, we’re talking about something very different; something diametrically opposed. It’s downright unnerving that we would have ever been brainwashed and social-engineered and herded to the place as American people where we were tolerating overt discrimination against the Equal Protection clause in order to placate siloed academics and dogmatic commands. The big story here should have been that our colleges had become so corrupted. How could they be pushing programs that run so counter to who we are as a nation? THIS should have been the coverage across our news networks as our nation celebrated a righteous corrective ruling. But that’s not how it played out at all. Cue Orwell…

Look at this headline from CNN. Did this ruling reveal an “underbelly of rage”?

Read this language from Justice Jackson in her dissent. “Lived experience” inside a SCOTUS opinion. Staggering.

As you can see from how I constructed this, where this ultimately landed (and where it was always designed to land) is a framework built by academics for the benefit of academics whereby they can declare any demographic of their choosing as “privileged” and any other one as “oppressed”, and then under this undefinable spellbook of “Equity” the government is allowed to discriminate against the privileged on behalf of the oppressed without it being considered discrimination at all. “Racism requires institutional power”, amirite? Truly insane shit. What it truly is, is a new form of scripture. You’ll note that these ranks are stacked almost entirely with atheists. Well, they profess to be anyhow. If you dare, many more thoughts on what this ackshully is can be found —> here and here:

And this dogmatic framework is not supported or subscribed to at a majority anywhere in our 50 states. In most places, not even close. That isn’t my theory, it is an objective fact proven time and again. I could find you endless examples evidencing this. You can’t find me one showing the opposite which isn’t some FrankenFemme rumination about “multi-racial whiteness”.

So when our President says “This is not a normal court” and Biden’s appointee says the ruling shows “an underbelly of rage” on SCOTUS because “lived experiences and muh racism” and Truman Show elite across our most vital institutions and markets say it’s an “unfortunate outcome” that can “harm” America and they’ll do everything in their power to “avert this outcome”, who exactly are they speaking on behalf of? Who was Joe Biden representing there if his own base doesn’t support skin-color discrimination at our colleges? Can anyone answer that question? Will anyone who matters on all of Team Everything Good even be asked to try? Read the President’s words at the time. Who are these directed to/whose voice do they carry behind them? What exactly does the DNC stand for/what is it that they are working to empower?

Q President Biden, the Congressional Black Caucus said the Supreme Court has “thrown into question its own legitimacy.” Is this a rogue Court?

THE PRESIDENT: This is not a normal Court.

It’s a shocking line, and no one seemed to care. Trump and his right-wing authoritarian fascists are too big a threat to discuss these kind of issues until The Orange Man is removed. And by The Orange Man, they meant DeSantis as soon as he passed Donald in the polls. If you don’t believe me that even the DNC base rejects race-based admissions, then let me prove it to you beyond just my words or theory or conspiracy theory. Heh.

What is the bluest state in the nation? In terms of laws and more radical pursuits ideologically? You can make a good case for Washington and even Oregon, maybe New York and Illinois. But I think Newsomville is a fantastic answer myself. When we were in law school, there was a running joke that anytime you read a batshit crazy legal opinion, you knew it was from California. This joke batted at 1.000 throughout my three years. Professors would premise opinions by them being from Cali. We all knew what that meant. It’s as if California is an incubator for dogmatic Progress(ive) pursuits which will later be ramrodded down the throats of us all if they can find a way to 2+2=5 it through at the state level. California is a strong banner-carrier here. Did you know that California was the first state in the nation to pass a Constitutional amendment prohibiting skin-color discrimination in college admissions? That’s right! California was the flag-bearer for outlawing this shit.

Proposition 209: Prohibition Against Discrimination or Preferential Treatment by State and Other Public Entities

This measure would eliminate state and local government affirmative action programs in the areas of public employment, public education, and public contracting to the extent these programs involve "preferential treatment" based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. The specific programs affected by the measure, however, would depend on such factors as (1) court rulings on what types of activities are considered "preferential treatment" and (2) whether federal law requires the continuation of certain programs.

The measure provides exceptions to the ban on preferential treatment when necessary for any of the following reasons:

To keep the state or local governments eligible to receive money from the federal government.

To comply with a court order in force as of the effective date of this measure (the day after the election).

To comply with federal law or the United States Constitution.

To meet privacy and other considerations based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

It passed in 1996 and won by 9pts. It remains on the books today. Yes, California has its own state law that says its colleges (which receive state funding) cannot use skin-color to discriminate on admissions. The very practices being challenged at Harvard and UNC would be unlawful under the California state constitution. Of course, we all know they were taking place at campuses like Stanford and UCLA. I would be surprised to find campuses who were not discriminating in violation of their own 1996 law. So this SCOTUS ruling last year was in line with the will of the Californian people. In line with the majority will of one of the bluest states in America. I ask again, who was Team Biden (Team Equity) representing when they attacked this ruling as wrong and abhorrent? They surely weren’t speaking on behalf of conservatives. And they weren’t speaking on behalf of most Californians either. Think I’m wrong there? Why, because 1996 was a long time ago? I’ve got that covered too…

Mr. Equity himself out west, Gavin Newsom, identified this legal issue during the orchestrated mass-mania of 2020. In a move that reminds me a lot of what Gavin’s doppelganger up in Canada did when he amended law prohibiting “conversion therapy” to apply specifically to programs converting to heterosexuality (so his beloved LGBTQIA2S+ conversion programs could continue running in their schools without him being charged), Newsom and his “ant-racist”/Queer+ cronies moved to amend the state constitution back. Yes, Gavin Newsom spearheaded an effort to amend their constitution to allow for skin-color discrimination in colleges so that they could… “End Racism”. Real-life. Barely made a blip on the radar of the Morality Guard because they too were consumed “Ending Racism”.

Proposition 16

ALLOWS DIVERSITY AS A FACTOR IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, AND CONTRACTING DECISIONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Eliminates Ban on the Consideration of Certain Characteristics in Public Education, Public Employment, and Public Contracting.

If approved, the measure would repeal Proposition 209—Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution. This would eliminate the ban on the consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting. As a result, state and local entities could establish a wider range of policies and programs so long as they are consistent with federal and state law related to equal protection.

Did you hear that, guys? It will allow you to discriminate based on skin-color as long as it’s “consistent with equal protection”. Ho-ly shit! It would make Orwell blush. Even during the height of 2020’s BLM hysteria, even with the full media capture taking place at the time and driving blinding madness coast to coast, even with all of the Soros and “anti-racist”-backed resources behind the initiative, the citizens of California voted down Proposition 16 in dramatic style. It lost by 14pts; damn near doubling the margin of support from 1996. The dogmatic pursuit of “moral discrimination” in the name of “Equity” is not supported anywhere in the United States. Fact. It is contrary to our most basic fundamentals and, as such, properly and passionately rejected. This remains true over and over again, even in heavily blue areas with decades of supporting Democratic policy.

So, to what agenda are our institutions throwing their weight here? And I mean every single one of our institutions including all of the DNC. This is the conversation we just don’t seem ready for yet as a greater people. I think the fog of war needs to settle more. Because see, I can ask this same question and do this same analysis down so many channels that have nothing to do with admissions or even race. Because they are serving the same agenda over and over down all of them. One at a time, we’re going to take a look at these Receipts. And slowly but surely, we’re going to put this puzzle together.

. . .