Now a legal fight has opened in a new front against the Biden administration’s advocacy for that very discrimination.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty says it has filed a federal lawsuit against Biden’s “disadvantaged business enterprise” scheme. The case charges that allows illegal discrimination against two clients – Mid-America Milling Company LLC and Bagshaw Trucking Inc.

The legal team said the federal program is “the largest, and perhaps oldest, affirmative action program in U.S. history,” and it’s run by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Dan Lennington, WILL deputy counsel, said, “It’s time for discrimination to end. Our clients are hardworking small business owners who just want to build roads and make America a great place for everyone. But time and time again, they lose out on business because of their race and gender. This is un-American, and we’re putting a stop to it.”:

It was just last summer that the United States Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action is almost always illegal. Through its Equality Under the Law Project, WILL seeks to extend the foundational right of equality to all corners of civil society.

James Hughes, board chairman for MAMCO, said, “All we are asking for is equal treatment under the law. The government treats our company differently because of race and gender. We’re asking the Biden administration to dismantle this discriminatory program and embrace the right of equality for all.”

The legal team explained the federal program is “an affirmative action program that gives preference to certain companies based on race and gender. Through this program, the federal government finances the American transportation system, including highway construction, with a series of race and gender quotas they call ‘goals.’”

Practically those “goals” are “discriminatory barriers,” preventing many construction companies, like WILL’s plaintiffs, from competing for contracts on an equal footing with firms owned by women and certain racial minorities.

That, the case charges, violates the Constitution’s promise of equal treatment.

The program was continued just months ago when Joe Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which demands that more than $37 billion in work be given to “small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.”

MAMCO is a milling company headquartered in Jeffersonville, Indiana, and part of Hughes Group, Inc., which is a premier heavy highway and bridge preservation company. Founded over 80 years ago, four generations of the Hughes family have guided and expanded the company into a market that stretches over 30 states in any given year, WILL reported.

Bagshaw Trucking Inc. is a hauling company headquartered in Memphis, Indiana. Founded in 1982 with two dump trucks and two employees, Bagshaw now boasts one of the largest truck fleets in northern Kentucky and southern Indiana. Bagshaw works on all types of projects, including major interstate construction and restoration, airport projects, bridge repairs, industrial parks, and subdivision developments, it said.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.

Jonsson is among the more than 300 military officers awaiting Senate approval for a promotion. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., has blocked Democrats—and now some Republicans—from rubber-stamping these promotions in a dispute over the Pentagon’s taxpayer-funded abortion policy..

This week, Democrats introduced a resolution that would change Senate rules for military promotions, bypassing Tuberville’s blockade. If successful, military officers such as Jonsson, whom Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin recommended for a promotion to brigadier general in January, would advance without further delay.

The Daily Signal’s previous reporting on Jonsson’s views on diversity, equity, and inclusion—and his endorsement of a book on critical race theory—sparked concerns among conservatives.

The reporting also prompted The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project to request a Defense Department climate assessment that was completed during Jonsson’s leadership of MacDill Air Force Base. As a result of a request under the Freedom of Information Act, the Oversight Project obtained the so-called Defense Organizational Climate Survey and shared it with The Daily Signal.

The responses to the climate survey, included below, paint a picture of Jonsson’s tenure and concerns about his views on DEI and CRT. The survey was conducted anonymously and completed in January 2022.

“I trust [squadron and group] commanders, but not Col. Jonsson. He has bias in [equal opportunity] and [judge advocate] matters especially if someone is white,” one respondent stated. “He wants anyone white to feel ashamed.”

Survey respondents also said that skin color was a factor in opportunities for promotion.

“Wing hiring practices are not based on [the] most qualified person, but focus solely on [the] perception of diversity,” one comment stated.

Another added: “The core of promotion, advancement and opportunities must be performance based … period [but] that is not what we do at MacDill.”

The climate assessment concluded with a recommendation addressing those concerns: “Review the Recognition program/promotions for fairness and equity to ensure it is rooted in merit and achievement (and not other factors like race/gender or personal favorites).”

Army veteran William Thibeau, director of the Claremont Institute’s American Military Project and a critic of “woke” military officers, says he was alarmed by the comments included in the climate survey. The Daily Signal provided a sampling for Thibeau to review prior to publication.

“If Col. Jonsson’s previous public advocacy of bizarre and toxic political ideology was not already disqualifying, revelations about his on-the-ground leadership make his unsuitability for promotion undeniable,” said Thibeau, a graduate of Army Ranger School.

‘Dear White Colonel’

Shortly before becoming commander of the 6th Air Refueling Wing at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, Jonsson wrote an 825-word commentary published in the Air Force Times on July 1, 2020. In it, he recounted several examples of what he described as “white defensiveness” in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death the previous May 25 while in the custody of Minneapolis police.

“Dear white colonel, it is time to give a damn. Aim High,” Jonsson wrote, adding:

As white colonels, you and I are the biggest barriers to change if we do not personally address racial injustice in our Air Force. Defensiveness is a predictable response by white people to any discussion of racial injustice. White colonels are no exception. We are largely blind to institutional racism, and we take offense to any suggestion that our system advantaged us at the expense of others.

Jonsson included an endorsement of critical race theory promoter Robin DiAngelo’s controversial book “White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism.”

One survey respondent wrote: “If you are white and read this book, you cannot walk away without the interpretation [that] Col. Jonsson wants you to know he sees all white people as racist.”

Thibeau said the survey responses reveal that DEI was a defining aspect of Jonsson’s leadership and a bigger problem with a politicized military.

“Col. Jonsson’s embrace of liberal political ideologies is a microcosm of the Pentagon’s institutional embrace of this merit-destroying decision framework,” Thibeau said. “To Jonsson, DEI is about more than eliminating discrimination, but is instead about actively discriminating against certain demographics while preferencing others at the expense of standards. If a commander gives the perception of bias, then he has failed in his duty to be a neutral arbiter of talent, programs, and missions.”

Following his stint at MacDill Air Force Base, Jonsson became vice superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, which faced criticism for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and critical race theory. He currently is stationed at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois.

The Daily Signal contacted the public affairs office at Scott Air Force Base, which declined to comment on the climate assessment.

Climate Survey Results

The Defense Department survey “provides valuable information about members’ perceptions of the organization’s climate,” according to the 139 pages of documents obtained by Heritage’s Oversight Project.

The climate assessment includes both a quantitative survey and substantive written comments.

An email from Jan. 10, 2022, included in the FOIA response, says the purpose of the survey was to “get meaningful comments and share them up & down the chain of command.” It adds:

This survey will help all of us understand the issues facing our team, protect the successes we hold in high regard, and formulate plans to ensure we are moving in the right direction. We will outbrief [sic] the results once complete and develop action plans where necessary.

At the conclusion of the survey, Jonsson received an email dated Feb. 3, 2022, that said: “Participants provided a lot of valuable feedback in the comments.”

Those comments include critical responses to Jonsson’s embrace of both the DEI agenda and DiAngelo’s book on critical race theory. They represent just a fraction of the 249 total comments submitted but reveal strong concerns within the ranks.

And although not all the comments were critical of Jonsson’s leadership, several subordinates cited his Air Force Times commentary as problematic or referenced DEI practices at MacDill. Their unedited responses, printed below, were submitted anonymously on the survey.

I feel everything in this wing has a political bend to it. Sorry to say, but you can’t author an article ‘Dear White Colonels’ and then operate in the way in which we do and not lose people because they do not support your politics, which you are openly embracing. It’s highly disheartening.

It was suggested by Col. Jonsson all commanders read ‘White Fragility.’ If you are white and read this book, you cannot walk away without the interpretation Col. Jonsson wants you to know he sees all white people as racist. Who wouldn’t feel negatively impacted by this book and the fact he asked his commanders to read it. Can you not find a cause to unite us (our flag or our shared warfighter ethos) instead of your personal social justice war to divide us? The belittling experience as a commander of “line by line” COVID alibis to Col. Jonsson was not only antagonistic, it was probably what convinced me I never want to work for/near/around him when I leave MacDill.

Overall, I believe we operate within an imperfect organization doing its best to stay on a path of constant improvement and focus relative to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

We need to value all Airmen the same. Giving extra opportunities based off color or gender, even for what may be thought of as noble reasons, is still inherently flawed logic/racism.

Wing hiring practices are not based on [the] most qualified person, but focus solely on [the] perception of diversity.

D&I. Our base has a real blind spot in this area and command should be concerned. The Wg/CC [wing commander] pushes diversity at all cost to the level that performance and merit are not the primary markers for advancement or selection for opportunities. He has encouraged the reading of ‘White Fragility’ and his front office and many of his Gp CC’s [group captains/commanders] got more diverse front offices in short order. The core of promotion, advancement and opportunities must be performance based … period … that is not what we do at MacDill. Pushing repeatedly to give certain populations of people ‘second or extra looks’ to include Gp [group] manning diversity panels and extra pause in UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice] matters that doesn’t include all personnel is coercion to [a] desired outcome. I can tell you I don’t feel included on this team because my skin color is not what this wing values.

I trust Sq/Gp [squadron/group] commanders, but not Col. Jonsson. He has bias in EO and JA matters especially if someone is white. He seeks to provide justice to anyone black, and works to create bias to support. The color of someone’s skin is more important than the qualifications/diversity of thought of the individual. He wants anyone white to feel ashamed, and he makes the SOD very uncomfortable with an accusatory tone to commanders having never identified what exactly it is that commanders at MacDill have done wrong.

Concern exists with new D&I [diversity and inclusion] policy at group level. Airmen perceive the policy intends to encourage the use of demographic information in selection processes for developmental opportunities, ratings and recognition.

I have mixed feelings with Col. Jonsson; on the one hand I see that he’s a genuinely good person, and does deeply care about his people, but on the other I’ve seen what appears to be a tendency to stick with a pre-conceived idea even in the face of his subordinate CC’s [commanders] repeated advice to the contrary: e.g. unrealistic/seemingly arbitrary sortie count/”readiness factor” metrics and excessive exercises, that come at the expense of the Airmen. The common perception from the rank-and-file is that he’s disconnected from the reality of what his decisions cause, which undermines his message of readiness and resiliency. Readiness, absolutely, but resiliency? No, any resiliency is despite Wing priorities, not because of them.

We are just trying really hard in the 6th ARW [Air Refueling Wing] to build a racial divide, especially when led by someone who wrote an article titled ‘Dear White Colonels’ … If he really thinks Diversity and Inclusion are as bed-rock as he says they are, he should have handed the wing over to the previous OG [general officer], we would have all been better off for it, and our wing leadership would have looked more diverse.

We need to be speaking up more about how to build inclusion, understand differences and improve our systems. Spend less time speaking on the political charged topics in the news that are created to divide, create a narrative of hate/victimhood and oppression. I am not saying we have to shut those heated touchpoints down or me dismissive. We need facilitators that can acknowledge the importance of the topic and evolve it into a positive action.

People are afraid of the wing’s intentions when it comes to fairness/justice for all airmen. It is abundantly clear Col. Jonsson wants to help primarily black airmen, whether its the 7 criteria, or EO/JA issues—and he will micromanage every detail with the commander, JA, and EO to help a black airman. Do you know how the other ethnic or white airmen percieve this? How your commanders perceive this? Do you persue white offenders more critically than others whether it ‘s EO or JA? Do you give black airmen more opportunites for positions, interviews, JA recovery, EO top cover, jobs? Is that discrimination? Is it racism? It’s definitely bias.

Under previous wing and group leadership, transparent communication, constructive criticism, diversity of thought, and shared ownership flourished. In the current environment, fear precludes expression of opposing ideas or alternative courses of action at the wing commander level. Decisions and policy are not respectfully challenged when warranted or a lack of clear understanding exists.

Group and Wing leadership jump to conclusions without gathering all the relevant facts. They need to trust their squadrons and seek understanding before assessing situations.

Squadron commanders are undercut by group commanders due to fear of optics when Airmen need reprimanded/punished. Unnecessary, redundant diversity/equity/inclusiveness initiatives are implemented by group command although they are already codified in Air Force doctrine and Core Values. I am not trusted to train, develop, and promote my Airmen on my terms without group leadership’s approval.

In response to an email from Jonsson on Feb. 3, 2022, another individual (whose name was redacted) wrote: “Finally, you along with your team will need to decide how to address the comments aimed at you, some couched in [diversity and inclusion], communication, trust/empowerment and a few aimed directly at you. It will be very important to acknowledge this feedback in order to build trust so leaders will continue to provide feedback in the future.”

In addition to the written comments, the climate survey also included a quantitative portion asking questions that ranged from whether someone is “proud of my work” to whether “discipline and criticism are administered fairly.” It was distributed to 112 individuals, 51 of whom responded.

Asked to rate the “current level of morale in your unit or organization,” 83% of respondents considered it low or moderate.

A whole section is devoted to “racially harassing behaviors.” The survey data suggests such concerns weren’t a problem at MacDill, despite Jonsson’s focus on DEI.

Stalled in the Senate

As noted above, Jonsson is one of more than 300 military officers awaiting Senate approval. Senate Democrats—and now a few Republicans—would like to rubber-stamp the promotions using an expedited Senate procedure known as unanimous consent, which bypasses consideration of each nominee individually.

Since March, however, Tuberville has objected to numerous unanimous content requests from his colleagues, preferring the Senate instead consider the promotions individually until the?Defense Department?rescinds its divisive taxpayer-funded abortion policy.

An estimate from?Rand Corp.?predicts that, under the disputed policy, the number of abortions in the military eligible for taxpayer-covered expenses would skyrocket from 20 to more than 4,000 each year.

Thibeau, the Army veteran now at the Claremont Institute, said the new information on Jonsson obtained by Heritage’s Oversight Project provides a fresh example of why Tuberville’s effort is so important.

“For too long, conservatives have not exercised the just and legal means of scrutinizing military leaders,” Thibeau said. “To do so [for leaders] like Sen. Tuberville is the highest form of respect for our military, servicemembers in uniform, and our national security. Col. Jonsson and others should not receive their promotion because of their toxic embrace of political ideology at the expense of the military profession.”

Tuberville so far has withstood attacks from the Left and even members of his own party, including an attempt Wednesday evening by a few Senate Republicans to end his blockade on military promotions.

Sens. Joni Ernst of Iowa, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mitt Romney of Utah, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, and Todd Young of Indiana made their opposition to Tuberville public when they attempted to approve promotions by unanimous consent.

With the standoff now reaching its eighth month and more concerns emerging about the “woke” beliefs of military officers, the issue is moving beyond Tuberville’s initial objection to the Defense Department’s policy of providing three weeks of paid leave and reimbursement of travel expenses for military personnel and dependents seeking abortions.

Thomas Sowell tells us why it isn’t. “The human tragedy, amid all the legal evasions and frauds, is that, while many laws and policies sacrifice some people for the sake of other people, affirmative action manages to harm blacks, whites, Asians and others, even if in different ways.

Students who are kept out of a college because other students are admitted instead, under racial quotas, obviously lose opportunities they would otherwise have had.

But minority students admitted to institutions whose academic standards they do not meet are all too often needlessly turned into failures, even when they have the prerequisites for success in some other institution whose normal standards they do meet.

When black students who scored at the 90th percentile in math were admitted to M.I.T., where the other students scored at the 99th percentile, a significant number of black students failed to graduate there, even though they could have graduated with honors from most other academic institutions.

We do not have so many students with that kind of ability that we can afford to sacrifice them on the altar of political correctness.

Such negative consequences of mismatching minority students with institutions, for the sake of racial body count, have been documented in a number of studies, most notably ‘Mismatch,’ a book by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., whose sub-title is: ‘How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It.’

When racial preferences in student admissions in the University of California system were banned, the number of black and Hispanic students in the system declined slightly, but the number actually graduating rose substantially. So did the number graduating with degrees in tough subjects like math, science and engineering.

But hard facts carry no such weight among politicians as magic words like ‘diversity’ — a word repeated endlessly, without one speck of evidence to back up its sweeping claims of benefits. It too is part of the Supreme Court fraud, going back to a 1978 decision that seemingly banned racial quotas — unless the word ‘diversity’ was used instead of ‘quotas.’

Seeming to ban racial preferences, while letting them continue under another name, was clever politically. But the last thing we need in Washington are nine more politicians, wearing judicial robes. See this.

Michelle Obama illustrates Sowell’s point that affirmative action leads to the admission of unqualified students. “In 1985, Michelle Obama presented her senior thesis in the sociology department of Princeton University.  Although Michelle drew no such conclusion, the thesis is a stunning indictment of affirmative action.  Those who benefited from it, Michelle most notably, may never recover from its sting.

Her thesis reads like a cry for help.  ‘I have found that at Princeton no matter how matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me,’ she writes, ‘I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as I really don’t belong.’

She didn’t.  Michelle should never have been admitted to Princeton.  Thanks to the ‘numerous opportunities’ presented by affirmative action, however, Princeton is where she found herself.  ‘Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good enough for an Ivy League school,’ writes biographer Christopher Andersen, ‘Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.’  Sympathetic biographer Liza Mundy writes, ‘Michelle frequently deplores the modern reliance on test scores, describing herself as a person who did not test well.’

She did not write well, either.  She even typed badly.  Mundy charitably describes the thesis as ‘dense and turgid.’  The less charitable Christopher Hitchens observed, ‘To describe [the thesis] as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be “read” at all, in the strict sense of the verb.  This is because it wasn’t written in any known language.’

Hitchens exaggerates only a little.  The following summary statement by Michelle captures her unfamiliarity with many of the rules of grammar and most of logic:

The study inquires about the respondents’ motivations to benefit him/herself, and the following social groups: the family, the Black community, the White community, God and church, The U.S. society, the non-White races of the world, and the human species as a whole.”

Defenders of affirmative action say that we need it because America is a “racist” nation. Vasko Kohlmayer shows that we aren’t: “‘Racism in America is not the exception – it’s the norm,’ read a headline from the British Guardian the other day.

‘2 viruses — COVID and racism — devastate the black community and threaten America’s stability,’ declares an ABC News piece.

‘Not just George Floyd: Police departments have 400-year history of racism,’ headlines an USA Today article.

‘We need to tackle racism, and we’ve never really dealt with it,’ asserted a protester at one of the many rallies that have taken place in recent weeks.

A great deal, indeed, has been recently said from many quarters about the alleged oppressiveness and racism of American society. Even though these denunciations have been delivered in impassioned voices and accompanied by much violence, there is one problem with such claims: They are not true. The opposite is actually the case.

The fact is that there is no institutional or systemic discrimination against black people in American society. Contrary to the assertions we hear today, in the last half a century America has gone into untold lengths to support and assist its black community. During this time, American society has launched countless programs and initiatives and spent hundreds of billions of dollars aimed specifically at uplifting the African American demographic. The support that the black community receives from American society comes in every form conceivable: legislative, financial, educational, commercial, human, material.

To ensure that there is no systemic or institutional discrimination, America went so far as to implement affirmative action and racial quotas in education, employment, government contracts, housing and other areas of life. This means that our laws and codes of conduct grant more protection, privileges and guarantees to colored people than they do to their white counterparts. So eager and willing has America been to elevate its black minority that it actually subjected the majority to reverse discrimination. To redeem itself and correct a legacy of past discrimination, the United Sates has bent backwards to advance its black population. The amount of resources, protection and goodwill that America’s black minority receives from our society is completely unprecedented in the annals of world history.

Nowhere in the world do black people enjoy more freedom and greater financial, employment and educational opportunities than they do in the United States. This is the reason why so many black people from all over the globe seek to come and live in this country. Such great are their numbers that we can only accept a tiny fraction of those who wish to live here. If America was such a racist and oppressive nation, why would they want to come so badly?

The reason they want to come is because they know that America treats black people well and that nowhere else in the world black people have it as good as they have it here. When black people whose vision has not been distorted by the demagoguery of the so-called civil rights leaders look at America they see freedom and opportunity. They look at America and they see a society that displays immense generosity and good will toward its black population. They look at America and see a country that has recently awarded the most coveted, powerful and prestigious job in the world – the presidency of the United States – to a black man. And this not once, but two times. Would a racist nation ever do something like that?

Conversely, we do not hear stories of African Americans leaving this ‘racist’ ‘oppressive’ country and then returning with tales of lands where black people lead better lives of more freedom, affluence and dignity. Have you ever heard such a testimony? Let us see one country in the world that is more generous and caring towards black people than this one. Let us find one nation where black people receive more freedom and protection than in the United States of America. Tellingly, we cannot find a single predominantly black country where its citizens enjoy more rights and affluence than the black people in the United States. Isn’t it paradoxical that the United States treats its black people better than black nations treat their own? The immense lengths – involving both effort and treasure – into which this society has gone to help and accommodate black Americans are surely worth pondering. In a healthy society, this would draw at least sporadic expressions of gratitude and appreciation.

If truth be told, African Americans are the most favored and legally privileged demographic in American society. Enjoying the benefits of a host of protective measures and mechanisms incorporated into the fabric of our societal existence, African Americans are neither systemically oppressed nor are they institutionally discriminated against. An eye-opening expression of this took place last week during the ‘anti-racism’ protests in Washington, DC. There a local black woman by the named Nestride Yumga confronted a group of protesters promulgating their stock racist slogans against this country (watch here). In the course of the exchange, the woman chastizes a white protestor:

‘You say blacks are oppressed. I am black and I am not oppressed. I am free!… Stop forcing on people to accept that they are oppressed… You are forcing a rhetoric into their minds which is not true… Shame on you, I am free!’

Standing in front of them with outstretched arms, Nestride’s words have a stunning effect that leaves the startled demonstrators groping for a reply. The impact of her utterance is so powerful, because what she says is so obviously and undeniably true. Unlike rioters and protestors we see shouting untruths from our screens, this young black woman truly speaks truth to power. And what a power hers is. Turning toward the black members of the crowd, she excoriates them, ‘You guys are not oppressed. You are lazy, that’s all it is. Go get jobs, work!’

Blindsided by this unexpected petard of stark truth, the dazed demonstrators weakly attempt a couple of hollow clichés and some heckling by way of response. Hit with such a healthy dose of reality, they are unable to mount any kind of coherent answer. The black woman’s reproof rips off the cloak of righteous falsehood from their faux cause and they stand there exposed, clutching pitiably to the shreds of their specious lies. Befuddled and confused, they pack up their protest paraphernalia and decamp. As they retreat, the intrepid lady sends them on their way with her last salvo ‘you guys have been cowards.’

But what about the issue of the systemic police brutality against black Americans, the latest example of which we just witnessed in the lamentable death of George Floyd? It has been repeatedly demonstrated, however, that such incidents are actually very rare and not a manifestation of pervasive racism in our law enforcement. As Tucker Carlson notes, in 2019 ten unarmed African Americans were shot dead by police officers in the United States. Nine of them had serious criminal records. On the other hand, less than two weeks ago on May 31, 18 black people were murdered in the city of Chicago by mostly black criminals. More black people are thus shot and killed by black people in one day in one city than they are killed by the police across the United States in one whole year. The talk that we sometimes hear of the police committing ‘black genocide’ is absurd beyond belief. As Theodore Dalrymple points out a ‘policeman is about fifteen times more likely to be killed by a black man than to kill a black man.’ And most of the small number of black men killed annually by the police are dangerous felons who are killed in the process of committing a crime.

Moreover, more white people are shot by the police than black people, and likewise more white people die in arrest-related incidents than black people. The narrative that the police routinely rounds up innocent peaceful black men in the streets is a complete myth that no one in their right mind can believe, not least black people themselves. According to Pew research, more than half of black Americans have ‘a lot’ or at least ‘some’ confidence in the police. As a point of comparison, less than one third of the American population approve of the way Congress is handling its job. In other words, far more black people have confidence in their local cops that we have in our elected representatives in Washington, DC. Most upright black Americans want our law enforcement and government officials take a strong stance against lawlessness no matter by whom it is perpetrated. The latest evidence of this is Donald Trump’s record approval rating among likely black voters in the wake of the riots. Tellingly, Donald Trump has been one of the few government figures who has not pandered to the looting mobs.” See this.

The extent to which affirmative action has taken over, especially at so-called “elite” institutions, is amazing. As the great Ron Unz notes, “Less visible shifts had even greater potential future impact. For decades our elite universities have served as a direct funnel to the commanding heights of American business, finance, law, and media, and in 2020 black enrollment at Harvard College jumped by more than a quarter from the preceding year, representing an astonishing rise of nearly 75% since 2015, by far the fastest such increase in Harvard history. This growth was driven by extremely high acceptance rates, with blacks being 14.8% of the students admitted in 2020 and a whopping 18% of the 2021 admissions.

As a consequence, the per capita enrollment of blacks at our most elite college is probably now several times greater than that of the white Gentiles who had founded that school and still constitute America’s majority population, although the latter have far higher test scores and grades. The increasing numbers of blacks at many of our other most elite colleges such as Yale, Princeton, and Stanford had followed similar trajectories, though generally less extreme.”

Let’s do everything we can to combat the “affirmative action” hoax.

About the Author

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Against the State and . Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Article cross-posted from Lew’s blog.

The comments came in a statement Justice Samuel Alito filed when the court denied a request to review the plan of New York City and New York State to deprioritize the treatment of white COVID-19 patients during the recent pandemic.

Justice Clarence Thomas joined the statement.

Both justices concurred with the denial only because the “circumstances underlying the dispute below have long since come and gone,” meaning because the COVID-19 emergency has ended.

Without providing an explanation, the Supreme Court turned down the petition for certiorari, or review, in Roberts v. McDonald (court file 22-757) in an unsigned order on June 30. At least four of the nine justices have to vote to grant a petition in order for it to move forward to the oral argument stage.

The denial of the petition came a day after the court issued a landmark ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, in which the court found that racial discrimination in the college admissions process was unconstitutional.

Petitioners Jonathan Roberts and Charles Vavruska, both New York residents, filed a lawsuit (pdf) on Feb. 8, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against the New York State Department of Health and the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene of the City of New York.

As a surge in the Omicron variant of COVID-19 took place in December 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted emergency approval for Paxlovid, a drug that was hailed as an “antiviral superstar,” that “reduces the rate of hospitalizations by around 90 percent” with “no safety issue beyond placebo.”

Despite plans to boost production, supplies of the drug were limited when the petition was filed.

Mr. Roberts and Mr. Vavruska objected to the policy of the state and city to instruct health care providers to adhere to the state’s directive for distributing scarce COVID-19 treatments—oral antivirals Paxlovid and Molnupiravir, along with monoclonal antibodies.

“The directives require providers to prioritize treatment to individuals based on age, vaccination status, and a number of risk factors. Risk factors include medical conditions such as cancer, chronic disease, diabetes, and obesity.

“The directives also state that, apart from any medical condition, non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity must be considered as an independent risk factor,” according to the petition.

For example, “an unvaccinated 64-year-old African-American with diabetes receives priority over an unvaccinated white 64-year-old with diabetes. A vaccinated 66-year-old who is Hispanic receives priority over a vaccinated 66-year-old who is not.”

“New York’s designation of race as an independent risk factor has no basis in science. Although race may be associated with different risk factors, New York has cited no evidence that race—on its own—makes an individual more susceptible to suffering adverse effects from COVID-19.”

Such evidence “does not exist, because race does not connote any attribute inherent to any individual. It is instead an arbitrary classification that lumps in many different individuals with different attributes and different needs.

“New York’s designation of race as an independent risk factor deprives deserving individuals of much-needed medical treatments solely due to their race.”

Mr. Roberts was white and not Hispanic, vaccinated against COVID-19, and had no known risk factors for severe illness that could result from the disease. This meant Roberts did not “qualify for inclusion in any tier of the ‘risk groups’ established” by the state or city health departments.

“If he were any race but white, he would qualify for the last tier [1E] of the risk groups,” the legal complaint stated.

Mr. Vavruska was also white and not Hispanic, and vaccinated against COVID-19. He contracted the disease in March 2020 and was hospitalized for 10 days. He had at least one risk factor for severe illness that could result from the disease and therefore “qualifies for inclusion in the last tier [1E] of the risk groups for prioritization of certain COVID-19 treatments.”

The petitioners sued to gain “the ability to access oral antiviral or monoclonal antibody treatments on an equal basis, without regard to their race, if they contract COVID-19.”

The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing, and that ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Mr. Alito said in his statement that the case: “Involves an issue of ongoing importance: whether the Equal Protection Clause permits governments to use race or ethnicity as a proxy for health risk and therefore ‘prioritize the treatment of patients’ on that basis.”

He said if “any government again resorts to racial or ethnic classifications to ration medical treatment, there would be a very strong case for prompt review by this Court.”

The state’s policy “justified the use of race and ethnicity as proxies for health risk by appealing to ‘longstanding systemic health and social inequities.’”

But the Equal Protection Clause “places a ‘daunting’ obstacle in the way of any government seeking to allocate benefits or burdens based on race or ethnicity, typically giving way only when the measure in question is ‘narrowly tailored’—that is, ‘necessary’—to ‘remediate specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute,’” Mr. Alito wrote, quoting the Harvard decision last month.

New York’s reference to “longstanding systemic health and social inequities” does not justify the state denying a person medical treatment “simply because that person is viewed by the State as being a member of the wrong racial or ethnic group.”

“The shortage at issue in this case appears, thankfully, to have concluded. But in the event that any government again resorts to racial or ethnic classifications to ration medical treatment, there would be a very strong case for prompt review by this Court,” the justice wrote.

Jim Burling, vice president of legal affairs for the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), which represented Mr. Roberts and Mr. Vavruska, told The Epoch Times he agreed with Mr. Alito.

PLF is a national non-profit public interest law firm that challenges government abuses.

The idea of giving preference to a racial or ethnic group because of “‘longstanding systemic health and social inequities,’ makes no sense because all the data showed that there were no significant differences in morbidity between various ethnic groups,” Mr. Burling said in an interview.

“The court in this term, came out in no uncertain terms against racial gerrymandering for college admissions, and it shouldn’t be any different for health care,” he said.

“If there is a live case, and it gets up to the Court soon enough, they certainly could win.”

Usually, when the Supreme Court turns down a petition, it simply says “denied” and puts it on the list of denied cases, he said.

“But on those occasions where the Court comes out with a statement, or sometimes they dissent from the denial, that really gives a lot of people a roadmap to the future to try to get another similar case before the Supreme Court.”

So this Roberts v. McDonald case “is just another one of these cases where some members of the Court are saying, ‘hey, don’t give up on this. We’re interested and bring us another case and we might take it,’” Mr. Burling said.

Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson, who brought a similar case against New York for its discriminatory medical policy but did not appeal its dismissal for lack of standing to the Supreme Court, said the 2nd Circuit’s standing standard was impossible to meet.

The standard “required a plaintiff to contract Covid, be medically eligible, and be in a position to seek the medicine, before a suit.

“Legally and substantively it’s an idiotic standard because the medication was only effective if taken within five days of symptoms. So the courts set up a standing requirement that almost no one could meet as a practical matter because of the tight time frame to seek judicial relief.

“The courts gave health officials almost unbridled authority to engage in racist conduct as to emergency medical treatments,” Mr. Jacobson wrote at Legal Insurrection.

Because of Mr. Alito’s statement, “We know that at least two of the Justices are interested in hearing a case of medical racism in the right procedural posture,” he added.

The Epoch Times also asked New York State’s solicitor general, Barbara Underwood, for comment but had not received a response at the time of publication.

New York City Law Department spokesman Nick Paolucci said by email that the department “is not commenting.”

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.

Her latest round of “saying the quiet part out loud” following the Supreme Court ruling against systemic racism in college admissions is a doozy:

Today’s Supreme Court decision is a direct attack on Black people. No Black person will be able to succeed in a merit-based system which is exactly why affirmative-action based programs were needed. Today’s decision is a TRAVESTY!!!

She later tried to “clarify” (aka “backtrack”) with a feeble attempt at justifying racism, Tweeting:

Allow me to clarify this tweet, which is being manipulated for propaganda and misinformation by ULTRA MAGA.

The intention of my tweet is to highlight that prior to affirmative action, there existed a supposedly merit-based system for Black individuals to gain admission to colleges. However, these institutions employed racial profiling to prevent Black individuals from attending under the guise of this “merit” system.

I want to emphasize that my statement in no way suggests that Black individuals are less intelligent than people of other races.

To be clear, I’m very skeptical. My limited research couldn’t find an “Erica Marsh” attached to the Biden-Harris regime or the campaign. I couldn’t find much on her at all outside of Twitter, which is always a red flag. Considering she’s made minor news in the past for inflammatory Tweets, I’d give it a 30% chance that “she” is actually a troll account from someone who either wants to paint Democrats poorly or who just wants to rant about Republicans without fear of repercussions.

But here’s the thing. Whoever “Erica Marsh” is, “she” really is expressing what Democrats actually think. Anyone who believes that affirmative action, particularly in education, is necessary in modern America MUST believe that persons of color are mentally inferior. There’s no way around that. The NY Times posted as much in an article and on a Twitter post [emphasis added]:

The Supreme Court rejected affirmative action at Harvard and UNC. The major ruling curtails race-conscious college admissions in the U.S., all but ensuring that elite institutions become whiter and more Asian and less Black and Latino.

In other words, the NY Times and the vast majority of Democrats believe Black and Latino students are intellectually below White and Asian students. There’s absolutely no other way to reconcile the attacks on the SCOTUS ruling.

Erica Marsh may or may not have ever worked for Joe Biden, but her words echo the feelings from the shadows of most radical leftists in America today.

What do you think? Bot or real? Sound off on my Substack.

In the video, he discusses the blatant racism being proudly directed toward white people, a topic I recently addressed myself in this article. I received some comments telling me that I was racist just for suggesting that racism was being directed toward white people and that such a thing wasn’t possible. I was attacked for “whining” and for “being a Karen.” For the record, calling someone a “Karen” is a racial and sexist slur. It just means if you are white and a woman, you should sit down, shut up, and take it, no matter what.

But I digress.

You can watch the video right here. It’s only 16 minutes and it’s very worthwhile.

We’ve all seen this.

Over the past years, it’s become more and more acceptable to denigrate people for the color of their skin, at least if that color is white. It’s become okay to write them off, to wish violence on them, to shame them, and to call them slurs like “Q-tip” or “mayo monsters.” Imagine if this was done to any other race. I’m going to be denounced again for defending white people and I guess, do what you’ve got to do to justify your behavior to yourself.

But what’s worse is that this attitude is infecting the way our children are treated. It’s affecting their education and their opportunities. We’re watching segregation in action just 69 years after Brown vs. the Board of Education ended that horrible practice. There are many spaces in educational institutions where white students are not allowed to be. There are events that white students are not allowed to attend. A black student at UVA unleashed her fury on the fact that there were “too many” white students in the multi-cultural center. Cornell University has a rock-climbing class that is only open to minority students. An elementary school in Washington banned white students from a mentor program and a “safe space” club. Berkeley banned white students from using common areas in off-campus housing.

Why are we replaying some of the worst parts of America’s recent history and just targeting another group?

It’s not okay, not by any stretch of the imagination.

But outlets like TikTok and Buzzfeed seem to be obsessed with promoting the theory that you “can’t oppress the oppressor” and that there’s no such thing as racism against white people. They make it seem like every person of the younger generation feels this way. They make it seem like every person of color feels this way.

But it’s simply not true.

Responses to “What Are We Doing to White People?”

I’ve selected some responses to Cheon’s original video.

Jamel AKA Jamal has a channel that is usually dedicated to fun reaction videos, but he took a serious turn with this one. He seems like a stand-up guy.

The gentleman at DependTV (sorry, I’m not sure of his name, but I love his motto of “facts over feelings”) was likewise appalled by what has been acceptable and calls it out for the bullying behavior that it is.

Lou Valentino, who describes himself as “a mixed-race man who grew up in the hood,” says that “Hatred toward anyone or any race is not ok” in this video.

The Cartier Brothers watched the video together and were visibly uncomfortable with the clips of folks denigrating white people.

I think the video that I got the most interesting information and response from was Amala Ekpunobi’s take below. If you aren’t subscribed to her channel, I really recommend it.

In summary, basically everyone thinks it’s wrong to do this.

The majority aren’t hateful.

In my opinion, these people are the ones who represent how most of us are feeling. Most people, regardless of skin color, don’t like to see others discriminated against or put down merely because of race. Most of us are not on board with racism, period. I have friends from many different backgrounds, one of the awesome perks of my job, and none of them, from any race, find this acceptable.

Remember this the next time you see one of those outrageous videos espousing hatred for white people. Show these videos above to the young folks in your life. Just because the media is trying to stir up animosity and make us hate each other, it doesn’t mean that we need to take the bait.

The answer to racism is not more racism. The answer is kindness, acceptance, and respect. Treat people like fellow humans. Not like black humans, or brown humans, or white humans.

At the end of the day, we are defined by our actions and, to quote Dr. Martin Luther King, “the content of our character.” Terrible things have happened in American history, just like the history of every other country in the world. Don’t go back to darker times to get misplaced revenge on people who had nothing to do with what occurred before.

“How do you like it?” isn’t the answer.

We can’t move forward by looking back. Racism now doesn’t erase racism that took place previously. And yes, discriminating against people based on race, including white people, is racism.

What are your thoughts?

What do you think about these videos and reactions? Have you seen examples of this modern racism in your community? How do you think we can move past the anger and have some unity?

Let’s discuss it

About Daisy

Daisy Luther is a coffee-swigging, adventure-seeking, globe-trotting blogger. She is the founder and publisher of three websites.  1) The Organic Prepper, which is about current events, preparedness, self-reliance, and the pursuit of liberty; 2)  The Frugalite, a website with thrifty tips and solutions to help people get a handle on their personal finances without feeling deprived; and 3) PreppersDailyNews.com, an aggregate site where you can find links to all the most important news for those who wish to be prepared. Her work is widely republished across alternative media and she has appeared in many interviews.

Daisy is the best-selling author of 5 traditionally published books, 12 self-published books, and runs a small digital publishing company with PDF guides, printables, and courses at SelfRelianceand Survival.com You can find her on Facebook, Pinterest, Gab, MeWe, Parler, Instagram, and Twitter.

It, therefore, brings me no joy to say this once venerable, storied, and courageous group today debases itself as a Democrat advocacy organization. Its unserious activities nowadays are good mainly to advance the already high social and economic status of upper crust virtue signalers of every race and color. Its generous funders should, and can, find a better place to direct their resources.

Recent evidence of the NAACP’s sullying of its good name is a May 20 “travel advisory” its Board of Directors issued against the state of Florida. A Board, mind you, chaired by a longtime Florida resident.

In its warning, the organization claims black Americans need to “understand that the state of Florida devalues and marginalizes the contributions of, and the challenges faced by African Americans.” It goes on to state that because of the restrictions Governor Ron DeSantis has placed on teaching children controversial subjects such as queer theory as black history—a required grade school subject—and limiting state funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in colleges, Florida is “openly hostile toward African Americans.”

As a black Florida Man and civil rights lawyer, I can attest that this could not be further from the truth. But don’t take my word for it.

Recently, the Brookings Institution issued a report on what it called “A ‘New Great Migration.’” The report showed that between the years 2015 and 2020, black people were reversing the “Black Migration” of the early to mid-20^th Century by moving back to the South in droves from urban areas mostly in the Northeast and Midwest. In that period, tens of thousands of black people moved to Florida making it among the top 3 most popular relocation destinations in the country.

Moreover, in 2019, PEW Research found that Florida had the second-largest black immigrant population in the country. The growth in that demographic since 2000 is larger than the entire 2019 black immigrant populations of Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Nevada, and Washington combined.

Florida is also home to the 0% income tax, one of the lowest black unemployment rates in the country, has a crime rate that has trended downward for half a century, and is a leading state for school choice. Don’t get me started on the weather and natural beauty.

It seems, then, black people are perfectly happy moving to, living in, and enjoying prosperity in Florida. In fact, some black business owners in Florida are more concerned about the loss of commerce the NAACP travel advisory might cause than the state’s alleged dangers.

So, why would an organization created to advance the lot of black Americans peddle in such harmful disinformation? One word: politics.

The NAACP has turned into an elite progressive arm of the Democrat political apparatus that chafes at a state functioning very well under exceedingly popular Republican leadership. And with the recent DeSantis presidential announcement, it seems eager to tarnish that reputation lest it be elevated to the national consciousness.

One could forgive the rank partisanship of the NAACP if only it also issued advisories for truly bad places for black people to visit or live. Places like, say, Chicago where blacks are more likely to be shot and killed than almost anywhere else in the country. Or Baltimore—where the NAACP has maintained its headquarters all of my life—where overwhelming numbers of black kids can’t read or do simple math. But no, that would irritate its Democrat friends who have run those places into the ground.

Or one might turn a blind eye to clear partisanship if the NAACP actually focused on “the challenges faced by African Americans” that it slanders Florida of devaluing. Challenges that we know disproportionately include poverty, maintaining the nuclear family, and educational opportunities for children. Instead, its focus is on radically ideological matters such as climate change and skin-deep diversity and other identity politics measures that mostly benefit the wealthy and well-off.

Above all, its mainstay is to preserve racial grievance, guilt, and division such that a U.S. president might make such a silly and ingratiating claim as white supremacy being the greatest terrorism threat to the country. It’s no wonder the working class has all but abandoned the Democrat party.

Good meaning people joined the NAACP, funded its activities, and continue to do so. I say stop. The group has failed to live up to the proverb that to whom much is given, much will be required.

Support is badly needed, instead, for organizations serious about ensuring progress for poor and disadvantaged Americans, many of whom happen to be black, by offering alternative methods and approaches for closing achievement disparities and promoting equality for all.

Devon Westhill is the president and general counsel for the Center for Equal Opportunity.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

A black woman worked for the gym Equinox. The company fires her, says she was late 47 times in 10 months. She says she was fired for being black. A jury just awarded her $11.25 million.

A black woman worked for the gym Equinox.

The company fires her, says she was late 47 times in 10 months. She says she was fired for being black.

A jury just awarded her $11.25 million. https://t.co/uN6iCIcilo pic.twitter.com/XcGWh39PyD

— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) May 26, 2023

According to the NY Times:

Ms. Europe’s tenure at the club was short-lived; Equinox terminated her employment in less than a year because, the company said, she was late 47 times in the course of 10 months. Ms. Europe held a different view of her firing, believing that her lateness was merely a pretext for discrimination, and soon after she filed a lawsuit in Manhattan federal court, arguing that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment and eventually let go because of her race and gender. Last week, a predominantly white jury of five women and three men agreed, delivering a verdict in little over an hour. The next day they awarded her $11.25 million in damages.

The swiftness of the jury’s decision and the size of the payout — $10 million in punitive damages and $1.25 million for the distress she suffered — follow a pattern similar to the verdict reached in the same courthouse just a few weeks before, in E. Jean Carroll’s defamation suit against Donald J. Trump. In both instances, the process and outcome suggest the ways in which recent transformative social movements around race and gender might reframe the way that juries think about the long shadow of emotional disruption that bigotry or sexual violence can produce.

If you own a business in New York City, sell it immediately. If you live there and you value common sense, leave there as quickly as possible. The city is lost.

Civil rights attorney Ben Crump is one of them. He tried to delete a Tweet defaming the innocent woman, but thankfully there are screenshots before his attempt to hide the evidence.

It’s unknown whether Crump will be among the people Sarah Comrie is planning to sue for defamation.

“She’s been called a racist,” her attorney, Justin Marino, told Fox News on Friday. “She’s been called a thief. There are reasons defamation laws exist, and we plan to pursue that.”

Crump deleted his tweet hours after the Fox News segment. Marino said Comrie had to go “in hiding” after the video went viral. The men in the video with Comrie said they had paid to use the bike, despite her lawyer saying that receipts show she purchased it.

Former Republican congressional candidate Robby Starbuck pointed out how this is the case on Twitter and asked Elon Musk to address it, highlighting Tweets by “Bishop” Talbert Swan that are so unambiguously racist, it’s unfathomable that anyone can delude themselves into thinking otherwise.

Hey @elonmusk, Longtime Twitter issue has been different rules for different racism where racist tweets like these can refer to white people in all kinds of bigoted ways but never face consequences like they would if they used slurs against other races. Will this change?

If you replaced the word white with any other race and tweeted these things, you’d be banned online, you’d lose your job and your life would be ruined. For some reason it’s acceptable to say about white people though. That’s not okay and must change. Slurs are slurs. @elonmusk

If you replaced the word white with any other race and tweeted these things, you’d be banned online, you’d lose your job and your life would be ruined. For some reason it’s acceptable to say about white people though. That’s not okay and must change. Slurs are slurs. @elonmusk pic.twitter.com/A0yjo4GShh

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) May 20, 2023

I’ll never forget the moment during the Democrat presidential debate in 2016 when the candidates were asked, “Black Lives Matter or All Lives Matter?” It was a no-brainer to me that some if not all the candidates would be lucid enough to realize that of course all lives matter. Call me a moron, but I was shocked when all of the candidates declared that Black Lives Matter.

That was the moment when I realized the left was no longer interested in equality. It’s also around the time period when I understood their push for equity over equality was a purely political move designed to play to the base emotions of superiority with some misguided sense of retribution to drive minority voters to embrace them.

What Twitter and other social networks have experienced in recent years is a cognitive dissonance at its purest. To them, condemning racist statements against Caucasians is racist itself. That must change. Will Elon Musk have the guts to stand for what’s right?