Freedom and Equality You Say?!
Minorities have always had to fight or assert for their still meager share of this concept agaisnt a precondition of disparate impact
While they would like to believe (that we also believe) that they invented the concept of freedom for all, we know that it was all a ruse to ensure their own freedom and exact their will on others just as their kings or queens had done to them and worst.
When this notion of freedom and equality for all, being advertised as a democratic government for them, by them, and only run by them, backfired and continues to backfire it presents a raft of problems resulting from their own delusion, deception, and stupidity.
It might have been a revolution in their twisted minds but it was grand larceny in reality for every other person on this planet. For it to be a true revolution it would have had to happen in Europe not on the land already inhabited by native peoples with their own governance and way of life.
And it it were an intellectual revolution then the maiming and killing of innocent humans accompanied by the raping, kidnapping, and bartering of human bondage could only have been enlightening as a devolution into barbarism under the cloak and dagger of capitalism.
These founding fathers were not what they have been described to be in textbooks for us to believe. The constitution is merely written as a scam document that has had to be amended over and over (and still warrants amending) because it continues to contradict and debase the concept of freedom and equality for all.
It is in fact based on white supremacy which is at odds with gender, sexual orientation, and racial equality — concepts that imbue actual equality. It has been negotiated — as if negotiable — in bad faith, only up until recently (Civil rights act of 1964) among themselves.
Here is an example of how badly they negotiate freedom and equality for all amongst themselves, when it infringed upon the fallacious identitarian intentions guiding white supremacy.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 which were established to really remind people of what citizenship is and means was vetoed twice by then President of the United States, Andrew Johnson the one President Trump actually emulates, because it specifically protected the civil rights of persons of African American descents either born or brought to the U.S. This is not what they intended and subsequently could reconcile in their evil hearts and deceptive minds that equality should be extended outside of their fictional race.
Here was the issue they had with it and brought into question by Congressman James F. Wilson.
It provides for the equality of citizens of the United States in the enjoyment of “civil rights and immunities.” What do these terms mean? Do they mean that in all things civil, social, political, all citizens, without distinction of race or color, shall be equal? By no means can they be so construed. Do they mean that all citizens shall vote in the several States? No; for suffrage is a political right which has been left under the control of the several States, subject to the action of Congress only when it becomes necessary to enforce the guarantee of a republican form of government (protection against a monarchy). Nor do they mean that all citizens shall sit on the juries, or that their children shall attend the same schools. The definition given to the term “civil rights” in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary is very concise, and is supported by the best authority. It is this: “Civil rights are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of government.”
Actually that is precisely what that means and it was reiterated again in the Civil Rights Act of 1875, a reconstruction of statutes is what they called it this time that “guaranteed African Americans equal treatment in public transportation and public accommodations and service on juries”. This seldom enforced and basic concept was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court this time. When they nullified this law it undid the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Almost a 100 years later (after the Civil War) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 disavowed it, which means denial of any responsibility or support for something as heinous and as inhumanly uncivil as this despicable perversion of law in depriving African Americans in particular their freedom and equality.
Now this administration would like you to be think that there is no such thing as implicit discrimination, or bigotry because that is a right reserved for stupidity, and every American has a right to be stupid. My use of the term stupid is not disparaging, offense in name calling, or verbal assualt in rudimentary discourse, although it does overlap with underlying ignorance and incompetence that follows silly attitudes and behavior. This is simply a psychologically observant analysis in its philosophy of stubbornness.
Consider this notion with considerable deliberation and thought because although there is nothing of moral value in it, it does serves as some absurd figment of freedom and equality for some — namely white identitarians whose vanity and insanity is in marked fear of the entitlement and privilege they scandalously unearned and fallaciously deserve will be stripped from them in the pursuit of social equality.
“Trump’s goal is to perpetuate a system that is already stacked agaisnt people of color and he achieves that goal by emboldening his white racist base.” — Benjamin L. Crump, Contributor to the Huffington Post
After Charlottesville, Trump Surpasses Andrew Johnson As The Most Racist President In U.S. History
Racism has been an inherent part of America since before our founding as a nation fueled by slave labor. It is baked…
What the slickster-in-chief and his administration of flunkies are up to behind the scenes with all this power is to invalidate and eliminate the legal concept of disparate impact. Disparate impact is not unintentional discrimination it is merely implicit discrimination and by design, often stealthy and nuanced or neutral in its detection, don’t let them fool you. In housing for example it may be profitable to rent or sell property at a premium but knowing that those who could afford that premium is tilted in favor of those who have benefited from generations upon generations of inequality in pay, injustice from laws — otherwise known as disparate treatment then this absolutely results in disparate impacts of discrimination.
People like Trump find this to be an annoyance and there is a memo going around that seeks to roll back the consequences by diluting civil rights law. The Vox has reported that
On January 3, the Post reported that the administration was considering “a far-reaching rollback of civil rights law that would dilute federal rules.” The report noted that a recent internal memo from the Justice Department encouraged civil rights officials to look at how anti-discrimination guidance, some of which is decades old, could be removed or changed and what the effects would be.
This memo is reportedly the first step in a larger review that could see some of these guidance completely rescinded in the coming months. The Post notes that the Education Department and Department of Housing and Urban Development are also looking at similar guidance in their respective agencies.
The Justice Department memo explicitly targets federal civil rights guidance that focus on mitigating “disparate impact” — the concept that a practice or system can be discriminatory if it is found to disproportionately affect minorities, even if the policy itself is not rooted in intentional discrimination.
“Disparate-impact discrimination is not a simple question of discrete outcomes; on their own, divergent results do not prove discrimination,” the Atlantic’s Adam Serwer explains. “Rather, the regulations prohibit behavior that would discriminate if there are other ways to achieve the desired objective, or if there’s no valid interest being pursued.”
Conservative media outlets like National Review and organizations like the Heritage Foundation have long criticized disparate impact, arguing that the concept causes federal officials to be overly focused on race. They counter that the government should only focus on addressing explicit discrimination.
Riiiight, riiiight, riiight, and so here we go again with another step backward to addressing what is inevitably right to prolonging what is presently wrong with our country, our leadership, and our society. This zero sum game of freedom and inequality always begins with the socioeconomic chips in their hands when in fact it belongs in the hands of every citizen.