Time to end government-sponsored discrimination and just be Americans

source: Linda Bentley – September 5, 2017

Ward Connerly
Ward Connerly

CAVE CREEK – It’s been 10 years since we met with Ward Connerly, who founded the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) with Dusty Rhodes (president of National Review) in 1996, when he announced plans to have the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (AzCRI) placed on the 2008 ballot.

It was modeled after the California Civil Rights Initiative, which passed with 54 percent of the vote, to end the practice of government-sponsored race and gender preferences in public employment, public education and public contracting.

Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, who, at the time, was director of the Goldwater Institute for Constitutional Litigation and the initiative’s legal advisor, stated, “It’s time for Arizona to stop increasing the number of people who are given preferences because of race.”

Bolick said, “Racial preferences don’t work and harm the very people claimed to benefit from them.”

However, in September 2008, the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office (SOS) issued its official determination that the AzCRI did not qualify for the ballot and sent the ballots and publicity pamphlets off to be printed without Proposition 104, as the initiative was officially known, which AzCRI Executive Director Max McPhail claimed violated state statute.

State statute allows all petition filers 10 days to challenge the SOS’s signature count.

Although Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Edward O. Burke granted a temporary restraining order to halt the printing of ballots and publicity pamphlets, he found himself in a quandary of having to infringe the rights of those submitting petitions or hold up the printing of ballots and pamphlets, which, according to Maricopa County Elections Director Karen Osborne’s testimony, would delay voting by an equal number of days printing were to be delayed.

Burke was left to only question how the legislature managed to create such a situation.

Because the time allotted to verify over 330,000 signatures was deemed inadequate, Connerly withdrew the challenge and Proposition 104 was never placed on the ballot in Arizona.

A disappointed McPhail said the AzCRI would have made Arizona a place of equal opportunity for all instead of one that uses discrimination as a tool to create “diversity.”

He said, “Achieving diversity should never be an excuse to discriminate.”

Back in 2007, Connerly, as a dedicated champion for a colorblind America, stated, “Getting our nation to a point of applying a single standard to all Americans is one of the most crucial issues of our time … we must start by getting our government out of the business of privileging some citizens over others. Real lives are radically affected, and great social and economic injustice is done when decisions are made about individuals based on the color of their skin or the origin of their ancestors.”

The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated government can never have a “compelling interest in discriminating on the basis of race to ‘make up’ for past racial discrimination in the opposite direction. Under the Constitution there can be no such thing as either a creditor or debtor race. We are just one race in the eyes of government – the American race.”

Connerly continues to press on with his fight and issued a statement last month in which he points out, “As a nation, our flight to a better society has entered a patch of very severe turbulence; and, as is all-too-often the case, the matter of race is a major factor. Most significantly, it appears that hysteria has overwhelmed reason, a fact that is enabling a form of mob rule, with historical monuments being destroyed, and political demagogues exploiting our circumstances for their own benefit.”

Connerly goes on to note while our nation is most in need of bold and decisive leadership, “the man we have elected to lead us has been politically gelded by those who reject his presidency and who are determined to defeat him.”

Connerly pondered what must happen in our beloved country before we realize that “subdividing Americans into numerous tribes and then distributing benefits on the basis of tribal affiliation is a recipe for social and civic disaster.”

He concluded, “The evidence is compelling that for the sake of our national sanity, we need to alter course and squeeze race from American life. It is truly poisonous to the body politic!”

Believing all affirmative action programs should be ended and all government forms soliciting information about race should be shredded, Connerly stated, “If President Trump wants to make America ‘great again,’ that mission won’t be fulfilled until all that matters about a citizen’s identity is that he or she is American.”

Mychal Massie, an ordained minister and chairman of the Racial Policy Center, a think tank he founded in September 2015, is also an advocate for a colorblind society.

Last week Massie penned an article, “Black is a color: Not a race” in which he states, “Being black is not a human condition, albeit that is what many today treat it as … being recognized as a skin color is the antithesis of unifying the fabric of the United States.”

Massie goes on to say, “The overwhelming majority of those who possess large amounts of melanin, i.e., blacks, do not live in America as Americans; they live in America as a color. They demand to be identified by their melanin content and yet they are offended for being recognized by same.”

Believing it is the “hyper-fixation upon melanin content” that divides us as a nation, not some “orchestrated evil perpetrated by malevolent white men,” Massie states, “The word minority is insulting and stigmatizing. I am an American. There are 330 plus million Americans, how can I be a minority if I am an American? Why would I want to be portrayed as something less than the whole of America?”

Massie finds the African-American title ludicrous as it is perpetrated upon children because an ancestor came over on a boat 400 years ago and says it forces them to be what they are not.

He said, “They are Americans, not Africans.”

Massie concludes, “To that end the idea of ‘hyphenated Americanism’ is a trick of the cultural Marxists intended to divide America against itself for the purposes of weakening our autonomy and anesthetizing us to globalism.”

As far as the census goes, Massie believes it should only ask “American: yes or no; and male or female.”

ACRI is a national civil rights nonprofit organization created to educate the public on the harms of racial and gender preferences.

The organization’s website states “ACRI also seeks to affect a cultural change by challenging the ‘race matters’ mentality embraced by many of today’s so-called ‘civil rights leaders.’ ACRI’s leaders and supporters believe that civil rights are individual rights and that government policies should not advocate group rights over individual rights.”


来源: 2017-08-08 麻省义工 北美华人之声


It’s becoming more and more clear to me it’s the Taiwanese forces pushing xifen all over U.S. I didn’t believe this for a long long time, but the pattern is just becoming more and more clear.


“It’s for medical research, it’s to study your diet, it’s to give you language help, it’s to help the southeast Asians…” They jump around giving you all kinds of excuses , saying anything they need to say to get xifen passed all over u.s.


Guys, don’t be deceived. Politicians are not angels risking their careers for the southeast Asians. I get a good sense it’s Taiwanese money pushing xifen, carried out by lobbyists they bought.

We just focus on our fight. Ignore the noises.



Taidu is the enemy of the American Constitution. To achieve the purpose of separating Taiwanese from Chinese, and gaining support from American politicians in the future for taidu, they don’t hesitate to buy government officials, and go through the whole song and dance of pushing Asian-xifen all over America under all kinds of pretenses: studying the relationship between rice-eating and getting diabetes, giving language help, helping people get Chinese food from Meals on Wheels, etc., etc., spewing all kinds of lying garbage, saying anything they need to say to get xifen to pass. They don’t hesitate to ruin the American Constitution, invading citizens’ privacy, trashing human rights, wasting American taxpayers’ money, lying and morally coercing American politicians to achieve their ulterior purposes.


Source: http://taiwaneseamericanhistory.org/blog/12-taiwanese-american-citizens-league-tacl-census-2010/

三年前,我问 Tackey Chan(在麻省推行亚裔细分的华人政客)就基于种族的强制优待做点事情。他说他不代表亚裔美国人,他代表全体美国人。现在,我要问他为什么只为亚裔推出细分法案(细分法案),而不是为所有的麻省居民。他告诉我,以他所有的撒谎专长,他只代表亚裔和在意我们。但当我们第一次就该法案致电他的时候,他最大的担心是:你们怎么发现的?他甚至都不想让我们知道这个法案,只是想让它类似于罗德岛那样悄然通过。他欺骗了麻省的政客们,告诉他们他提出这个议案时因为他想帮助柬埔寨人。可是,我们从未见到有任何一位柬埔寨人集会和要求被细分。当我们联系推动细分的组织时,我们只是不断地发现台湾人、台湾人、台湾人。这提醒了我们在加州发生的事情,在那里,细分由台湾政客提出,为台独铺路。

Three years ago, I asked Tackey Chan to do something about the race-based AA. He said he doesn’t represent Asian Americans; he represents all Americans. Now I asked him why he proposed this bill only for AsiAms, not for all MA residents. He told me, with all his lying proficiency, that he only represents the Asians and cares about us. But when we first called him about the bill, his biggest concern is: how did you find out? He didn’t even want us to know about this bill and wanted to pass it silently like in Rhode Island. He cheated MA politicians, telling them he proposed this bill because he wants to help Cambodians. But we never saw any Cambodians rallying and asking for xifen. When contacting the organizations pushing for xifen, we kept finding Taiwanese, Taiwanese, Taiwanese. It reminds us how in CA, xifen was proposed by Taiwanese politicians, laying the ground for taidu.


We must stop taidu from ruining the American Constitution and endangering all Americans’ equal protection and Constitutional rights.”



来源: 2017-09-04 加州义工 美国华人之声

麻州《侨报》以及“Boston Herald”关于亚裔细分法的专题报道中支持麻州亚裔细分法H.3361的政客、学界智库及出卖亚裔华裔权益和利益的某些华人组织一方的自相矛盾的谎言了无新意,与加州搞亚裔细分法的民主党的政客们的欺骗之词无异是一个模子里出来的。







【谎言4】平等并不等于公平(Equality doesn’t mean justice)。

【驳斥】麻州的民主党众议员陈德基(Tackey Chan)特意指出关于亚裔细分法,平等并不等于公平。那么,我们要正告他,亚裔华裔既要平等也要公平,决不允许他损害和出卖亚裔华裔的权益和利益!





【谎言7】Data disaggregation is not discrimination.(数据细分不是歧视。)


【谎言8】Data disaggregation is civil rights issue.(数据细分属于民权的范畴)


【谎言9】Asian American data disaggregation is essential to equitable allocation of funding.(亚裔数据细分对于公平的分配资金至关重要。)


Time to Drop Colleges’ Racial Quotas and Preferences

Source:  Townhall.com ^ | Septemeber 1, 2017 | Michael Barone

When a policy has been vigorously followed by venerable institutions for more than a generation without getting any closer to producing the desired results, perhaps there is some problem with the goal.

That thought was prompted by a New York Times story headlined “Even With Affirmative Action, Blacks and Hispanics Are More Underrepresented at Top Colleges Than 35 Years Ago.” It presented enrollment data from 100 selective colleges and universities — the eight Ivy League schools, nine University of California campuses, 20 “top” liberal arts colleges, 14 “other top universities” and 50 “flagship” state universities. (They total 100 because UC Berkeley appears in two categories.)

The numbers showed some variation — as one might expect, given states’ different ethnic compositions — but the bottom line was similar. In 2015 — as in 1980, when these statistics were first gathered — blacks and Hispanics were, in the words of the Times headline, “underrepresented.”

In that single awkward word is embedded an important assumption: that in a fair society, the ethnic balance in every institution should resemble that of the larger society. This assumption is behind the “affirmative action” policies that college and university admissions offices have been following with something resembling religious devotion since well before 1980.

That inevitably means violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s ban on racial discrimination. Unchallengeable data make clear that schools regularly admit blacks and Hispanics with much lower test scores than those classified as whites and, particularly, Asians.

The Supreme Court left an opening for such discrimination in its 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decisions, supposedly to encourage “diversity.” But Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in the Grutter decision, “25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.” That’s 11 years from today.

This discrimination is harmful — not least to university administrators, many of whom feel obliged to lie systematically about what they are doing. Its harm to those who are discriminated against is real but not overwhelming; most will find places in other selective schools.

The greatest harm — as Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor’s 2012 book, “Mismatch,” makes clear — is to the intended beneficiaries. It casts a pall of illegitimacy over their legitimate achievements. They are dismissed, as liberals have dismissed Justice Clarence Thomas, as affirmative action hires.

As Sander and Taylor point out, instruction tends to be aimed at the median student. Students who arrive less prepared — and test scores are a good measure of this — will often fall behind. Blacks and Hispanics graduate and pass professional exams at lower rates than their better-prepared schoolmates.

Another result: These students tend to cordon themselves off into separate enclaves, an understandable defensive response — and one encouraged by administrators who create separate orientations, dormitories and graduation ceremonies for “underrepresented” students. Universities’ shameful speech codes and ridiculous “safe spaces” are justified as needed to protect their feelings.

My impression is that there is less personal interaction between black and white students on today’s “diverse” campuses than there was when I was in college a half-century ago. The supposed benefits of diversity, which O’Connor identified in Grutter as excusing racial discrimination, appear to be dismally small.

None of the 100 colleges and universities cited in the Times article has a black student percentage at or above that of the college-age population. Only 11 (nine in California, one each in Arizona and Texas) have Hispanic percentages above the national percentage; only UC Merced tops its state’s Hispanic percentage.

Why does “underrepresentation” persist despite administrators’ earnest efforts? The reason is that selective schools, by definition, seek students who are at the right tail of bell curve distributions of test scores and, as Brookings Institution scholars Richard Reeves and Dimitrios Halikias report, “race gaps on the SATs are especially pronounced at the tails.”

No one decries the “underrepresentation” of most groups on National Basketball Association teams or the list of Nobel Prize recipients, both drawn from the right tails of particular skills. Selective institutions such as the U.S. Army and the New York Police Department have “overrepresentation” of blacks and Hispanics.

Excellence should be celebrated wherever it is found (and looked for in unlikely places). And attention and respect should be paid to those without right-tail skills who work and contribute conscientiously to society — for example, lots of the people who have been rescuing so many in Houston. You don’t have to be elite to earn success.

In the meantime, let’s admit that talents and interests aren’t proportionately distributed in a fair society and that it’s time to drop colleges’ racial quotas and preferences.