The 18 white firefighters in the Ricci v. DeStefano/New Haven case are just of minute fraction of the total number of whites who have and will continue to suffer “reverse” discrimination in employment (being discriminated against in hiring, promotion, job retention, or firing because one is white). The Ricci plaintiffs certainly are not the only whites who have seen their day in court dismissed with scant consideration by the federal courts. Federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s first pick for a seat on the US Supreme Court, was one of three appeals judges who determined the white plaintiffs in the Ricci case were so unimportant and unworthy of consideration in their equal protection of law claim, that the judges didn’t bother writing one word to address the issues. To these judges, and the majority of Federal Judges in different Federal Circuits, it undisputable that Constitution, as now read, does not apply to whites in America.

In New York City, and across the USA, while countless lawyers scramble to take each and every case brought by every and all black or Hispanic potential discrimination plaintiffs on a contingency basis (no upfront fee), any white “reverse” discrimination victim cannot get an attorney to touch their case “with a ten foot pole”. The attorneys refusal to take such contingency cases is not because the attorneys are racist, instead it is either because the judges themselves are racist or because the judges conform to the Federal Judiciary’s widespread institutional bias against whites and actively ensure whites will not obtain equal opportunity and equal protection under the law. When an attorney represents a white victim of employment discrimination, in addition to facing the opponent defendant (often a State or Municipal government) at the adjacent table, he also combats an active opponent on the bench. Not only will the attorney encounter most certain defeat, the attorney, as any attorney of a government disfavored case, also risks suspension or disbarment if he litigates the “reverse discrimination” case to the fullest extent since the Judiciary he practices before holds absolute unfettered power over an attorney’s livelihood. In the inconceivable event the US Supreme Court would actually intervene on behalf of a suspended or disbarred attorney, the Judiciary is absolutely immune from any monetary damage claim.

Self-described and self-proclaimed Latina Sotomayor’s asserted she and her 2 federal appellate judge cohorts, in failing to write any opinion to address the claim’s of the Ricci plaintiffs, were justified in their actions, and were “bound” to act such manner by precedent (the prior court rulings) of the appellate federal circuit on which she was employed on behalf of the all the people, not just the Hispanic people, of the United States. Sotomayor’s explanation was more than disingenuous; it was an outright lie.

The US Supreme Court dockets filed over the years have contained petitions (appeals) to resolve contrary and conflicting decisions within individual Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal. Sotomayor and her fellow anti-equality-for-all conspirators acted to silence the claims of the subjugated whites as expeditiously and surreptitiously as feasible because Sotomayor and her compadres believe the plaintiffs, being white, deserved no equal protection of the law. Despite Sotomayor’s best efforts to conceal her racist bias during the confirmation hearings, her true nature is betrayed by her judicial conduct. When a fellow Circuit Judge, Jose Cabranes learned of the furtive course of action of the Sotomayor Three, he immediately sought the entire Second Circuit panel of Judges to hear the issues in the case. When such an En Banc panel is gathered to review a case, it offers all the judges an opportunity to review and change the settled (or unsettled) law in the Circuit. The vote was 7 to 6 against hearing the white plaintiffs’ case. Sotomayor cast her vote against reviewing Ricci not because she was “bound” by precedent. Sotomayor, and the majority of Second Circuit judges voted against hearing Ricci because she and they believe whites are sub-humans not entitled protection of the law. Orwell’s Animal Farm amply applies. When equal protection under the law is the issue, to Sotomayor and the majority sitting in federal district and appellate courts, some people are more equal than others.

Sotomayor, like Hitler, is a racist. Sotomayor has already proclaimed on numerous occasions in 1994, 1999, 2001, 2002 and 2004, that she, by virtue of being a Latina female, with her Latina heart and Latina soul, will make better decisions than any white male. Feelings of racial and ethnic superiority are the least dangerous of the traits Sotomayor has in common with the founder of the Nazi party or any other ethno-genocidal zealot . The most dangerous aspect of Sotomayor’s nature is that like Hitler, Hirohito, or any participant in ethno-genocide, Sotoymayor believes in racial entitlement. Feelings of racial and ethnic superiority alone can be attributed to mere pride. Feelings of racial entitlement, that a race, ethnic group, or type of people deserve to dominate all others, however, is an entirely separate and contemptible manifestation.

To Sotomayor, it is not enough that she feels misplaced pride in the history, inventions and culture of her race. While a Princeton college student, to boost the self-esteem of her kind, living in a world completely shaped and advanced from humankind’s subsistence farming and tribal barbaric days by white culture and white achievement, she sought introduction of courses that grossly exaggerated the “accomplishments” and “contributions” of the peoples of Latin America while hiding such abominations as, infanticide, cannibalism, and human sacrifice by the hundreds of thousands. Such willingness to replace fact with fantasy demonstrates on the surface only a deep personal character fault. As a Judge in the Ricci case, however, Sotomayor demonstrated given the opportunity, and the power, she judges and governs different races of people unequally and will hurt and harm other races to satisfy her lust for racial entitlement. Sotomayor does not consider people based on the content of their character, but instead, views them as the color of their skin. As she has displayed, she will do anything within her power to advance her race and ethnic group while trampling over her perceived oppressors; white people. The only difference between Sotomayor and Hitler is that of degree; a variance easily attributed to the difference in power and ability. Unchecked and rewarded with power, no amount of dead bodies will deter people with racial superiority and racial entitlement convictions. Offering Sotomayor even a one-ninth share of Supreme Court’s present day unchallenged power guarantees clear race based tyranny well beyond the warnings of her vocal Senate opponents.

Government condoned and directed discrimination against whites and white Christians is rampant across the USA and especially in New York City. By far, the most blatant and largest culprit of this practice was, and probably still is, the New York City Board of Education (NYCBOE), now the NYC Department of Education.

For decades, the NYC Board of Education’s system wide anti-white actions starting in the 1980’s with Chancellor Fernandez, went far beyond merely reaching out to obtain more qualified candidates of a darker complexion; although such preposterous efforts by themselves leave no doubt as to the ultimate goal sought by our Federal and State Governments. In 2002, President G. W. Bush’s US Department of Labor issued a $2,963,402 (almost 3 million dollar) grant to the New York City Board of Education, to recruit 250 Puerto Ricans “from colleges in and around the City of New York”, so the New York City public schools could “improve its diversification” of the teaching force. While unemployed white certified teachers were scouring the NYCBOE website for teaching positions, the Federal Government was giving the NYCBOE an over $11,000 bonus of federal tax payer dollars for each Puerto Rican teacher recruited.

In the 1990’s, the NYC Board of Education engaged in a campaign to hide teaching position openings from white candidates who were New York State teacher certified, in order to fill the high paying teaching slots with blacks and Hispanics who were not certified to teach. Although State law required the NYC public schools to hire certified teachers before hiring uncertified teachers, despite having access to an extensive computerized data base of certified teachers in the State, the NYC public school districts and NYCBOE Office of Personnel made no attempts to seek out and recruit certified English and Social Studies teachers from the list. Nor did the NYCBOE Office of Personnel or individual school districts, despite having thousands of NYCBOE employment applications on file and entered into a NYCBOE computer database, make any effort to contact those white certified English and Social Studies teachers on record. In fact, the NYCBOE actively hid the English and Social Studies teachers positions from public, and required white certified teachers to reveal themselves at the Personnel Office in downtown Brooklyn for face to face scrutiny, prior to divulging which school districts, not which schools, had openings. That the certified teacher was on file and in the computer or had appeared the day before did not change the policy: if a white certified teacher wanted to find teaching positions, the teacher had to repeatedly present themselves to the Brooklyn office daily for recent position updates.

The validity and veracity of the Office of Personnel disclosure of teaching openings became an issue when on numerous occasions white applicants would be advised there was no opening on Monday, was then told on Wednesday of a school district opening, and later that same day told by the school district the position had been filled. Any inquiry as to the location of the position and whether the position was filled by a certified teacher invariably drew a response that such information was “confidential”. After years of litigation, in the case of Blasi v. the New York City Board of Education, 2000 CV 5320 Eastern District of NY, NYC public school documents reveal many of these positions were filled by black and Hispanics who were uncertified to teach. The obvious conclusion a jury would draw, were a jury permitted by the federal court to view the evidence, is that the NYC public schools were actively hiding teaching positions from white certified teachers in an effort to darken the teaching force with unqualified teachers.

The Eastern District of New York federal US District Court as gone through great efforts to ensure the rampant discrimination against whites will never be divulged to a jury. For those interested, and to those hundreds of fellow white certified teachers who sought positions and were rejected by the New York City Public schools, provided is the following breakdown of the demographics of the uncertified social studies teachers hired in a very few NYCBOE districts where discovery was allowed:

In District 32, from 1997 to Aug. 2002: 9 blacks and Hispanics, or 90%, and 1 white, or 10% of the total.

In District 85, from 1997 to Aug. 2002: 6 black or 75%, and 2 white or 25% of the total.

In District 73, the Brooklyn High Schools District from September 1999 to December 2001, 18 whites or 50%, and 18 blacks and Hispanics, or 50%. In District 76, the Staten Island and Brooklyn Schools District, from 1997 to prior to Dec. 2000: 28 white (17 were male) or 57%, and 21 black and Hispanic, or 42%.

In District 5, from 1997 to Aug. 2002: 17 blacks and 2 Hispanics, or 86%, and 3 whites or 13%.

In District 13, from 1997 to Aug. 2002: 37 blacks and 4 Hispanics, or 93%, and 3 whites, 7% of the total.

In District 15, from 1997 to Aug. 2002: 26 whites, 70%, and 11 blacks and Hispanics, or 30% of the total.

In District 16, from 1997 to Aug. 2002: 14 blacks, or 100% of the total

In District 17, from 1997 to Aug. 2002, ; 10 blacks, 91% of the total, and 1 white.

In District 18, from 1997 to Aug. 2002; 25 black and Hispanic, or 61%, and 17 white, or 39% of the total.

In District 29, from 1997 to Aug. 2002: 34 black and Hispanic, or 80% and 6 white, or 20% of the total.

Since the Blasi v NYCBOE lawsuit only concerned the positions for social studies teacher, documents regarding the demographics of uncertified English teachers was protected from examination and revelation by the Magistrate. At various NYCBOE hiring halls, white certified English teachers rejected for employment have conveyed the same type of complaints with the same frequency as white certified social studies teachers, so in all likelihood, the demographic percentages of the uncertified English teachers hired is likely similar to the demographic percentages of uncertified social studies teachers.

The information above alone, might be insufficient itself for some to conclude a racist agenda. Without knowing more, a media outsider might presume that most whites are racists and few whites were willing to work in the New York City Public School system where most students are nonwhite and in poverty. The reality, however, if far different. Interestingly, from 1997 to Dec. 2000, of the certified social studies teachers hired in the hard-to-staff NYC public school Chancellors District 85, which contained failing schools on the NY State schools under review list, including schools in the Bronx and Brooklyn, 39 teacher hires were white, or 72% of the total, and 15 were black or Hispanic. During the same time period, in District 29 a basically all black populated district, of certified social studies teachers, 32 whites were hired, 81%, as compared to the 5 blacks. In District 32, a basically all black and Hispanic populated district, for the same time period, of certified social studies teachers, 9 whites were hired, 81%, as compared to the 2 blacks. In District 73, the Brooklyn high schools district, from 1997 to Dec. 2000, of certified social studies teachers hired, 54 were white, or 75% of the total, compared with 11 blacks and 10 Hispanics.

Considering teachers white and certified obtained employment in overwhelmingly nonwhite school districts in a proportion much greater than the proportion of white teacher hires who were uncertified (and thus more desperate than their certified counterparts for employment), it cannot be seriously stated that blacks and Hispanics were hired as uncertified teachers because no whites wanted the job.

What makes the discriminatory agenda all the more undeniable is that white certified teachers actually applied for positions and were actively seeking positions while the NYC public schools engaged in a campaign to fill the teaching workforce with unqualified darker employees. During NYC public schools mass hiring halls, individual school district hiring halls, and while waiting for job interviews at the various schools, like those who recount war stories, white NY State certified social studies teachers would trade personal accounts with each other of how they and other white certified teachers had interviewed at this school and that school only to be turned down; and later from a friend or relative in that school found out an uncertified black or Hispanic was hired for the teaching position. White certified teachers who were NYC residents would watch in hiring halls as blacks and Hispanics, living as far away as exit 64 on the Long Island Expressway, over 2 hours away by car or express train, would take their hiring-hall application for approval after one interview while whites stood on line at various tables and interviewed for hours, only to leave without employment again.

Despite being mandated by the NYCBOE affirmative action plan to keep detailed and copious employment application records and a database as to the race and certification status for each and every candidate by type of teaching or employment position sought, and despite having an office and staff to carry out this mandate, when ordered to turn such information by the Court, the NYCBOE stated no such records existed. Likewise, despite keeping yearly records as the race of new teaching hires and as to the yearly change in demographics of the NYC public schools teaching workforce, the NYCBOE refused to turnover the records to me and the Magistrate did nothing to enforce the discovery order. To obtain the racial statistics of the new hires, I resorted to scouring the discarded court exhibits in a New York State court case (Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. New York) brought to seek more funding for NYC public schools. To find the change in the total workforce I quoted from past New York Times articles who the NYCBOE had no problem disclosing such information to.

Evidence that the NYCBOE passed specific white certified teachers in favor of blacks and Hispanics who were unqualified is impossible to prove because pursuant to NYCBOE policy, records of all applications and resumes of those interviewed are routinely discarded within 6 months and no record, such as appointment calendars of the employment interviewers is available to litigants. That this policy doesn’t violate some EEOC regulation would be surprising. That the EEOC would do absolutely nothing to the NYCBOE for violating such a record keeping regulation is unsurprising and completely expected.

Evidence that qualified whites were seeking positions for teaching while the unqualified blacks and Hispanics were being socially promoted teachers was made all the more difficult by the Magistrate (not surprisingly) refusing to require the NYCBOE to turn over such information even though the data of hundreds of such white discrimination victims who were passed over is on file. The Magistrate ruled that such evidence would be far too “speculative”. According to the Magistrate the fact that a white certified teacher who did not get a teaching position had submitted an application to teach in the NYC public schools did not mean the white certified teacher actually wanted a position. (Yes, this was actually the Magistrate’s reason for denying the information.) Despite the efforts of Magistrate Go to foil my efforts, I was able, from documents provided concerning teachers hired during a 4 year period in some 10 school districts, to ascertain the names of 20 while certified teachers who had applications on file and were delayed hiring, some for a full semester and others for years, while the NYCBOE was busy darkening the taxpayer paid professional workforce with the unqualified. It is certain there are hundreds of other white certified teachers never hired or hired in the remaining more than 20 districts who were passed over for semesters or years so the NYCBOE could continue in its racist hiring agenda.

The intelligence, ability, and the desire of those unqualified blacks and Hispanic is certainly at issue. In the Gulinio v New York State Department of Education Federal suit, one uncertified black plaintiff had failed a general intelligence teaching test 17 times before passing. When asked at deposition, what made the 18th time the charm and enabled the chronic flunker to pass the test, the black teacher responded they took a preparation course the final time. The uncertified dark recruits lack so much intelligence, ability or desire, or some combination of the three, that in February 2000, the NYCBOE spent over $450,000 on a teaching test preparation course for 441 teachers who had failed the teaching tests (and were therefore uncertified) over 4 times and were in danger of losing their jobs. Over 410 of those teachers were black or Hispanic. A prime example of the competency of these unqualified black hired is evidenced by the hiring of 5 black uncertified social studies teachers who were hired by District 29 in a two month span between September and November 1999. Of the 5, two were fired uncertified four years later, and one was fired uncertified two and a half years later.

With respect to the need to spend over $1,000 for each of the 441 chronic failures, the NYCBOE stated the expenditure was justified because the majority of the 441 teachers were bi-lingual or English as a Second Language teachers. The problem with the official explanation (that the vast majority of these teachers primary language was not English) was not that the teachers were linguistically challenged, the real problem was they were not even necessary. As part of the campaign to boost the self esteem of the majority non-white students by having a non-white face teach the classes, in yet another effort to darken the workforce, the NYCBOE engaged in unnecessary hiring of Bilingual and ESL teachers to keep whites from being hired. As per NYCBOE practice at any given school, one semester, one or more ESL or Bilingual non-whites who were uncertified would be hired to teach 3 or more ESL or Bilingual classes their first semester teaching. After the first semester, the Principal would assign the same ESL or Bilingual teacher to teach all regular non-ESL or Non-Bilingual classes so the Principal could hire even more non-whites. The only time these unqualified nonwhite teachers would have to teach another ESL or Bilingual class again was if a white certified teacher with a greater longevity was assigned to the school to replace the black or Hispanic uncertified teacher. In that case, the Principal would quickly rearrange teaching assignments so that each uncertified ESL or Bilingual teacher would teach one ESL or Bilingual class (out of a five class load) so the Principal could send the transferred white certified teacher back out of the school. This kind of manipulation personally happened to me when I was transferred to the Bushwick High School.

The musical chair ESL and Bilingual teacher scam was not just used to increase the black and Hispanic teaching percentage. It was also used to increase the number of Jewish teachers. In the mid 1990’s at Sheepshead Bay High in Brooklyn, the Principal Susan Friedman used this method to ensure a Jewish male obtained and kept a social studies position. The first semester, the Russian speaking young male taught 5 ESL and Bilingual classes. Until he went to teach at a higher paying Long Island school district four years later, he did not teach one more ESL or Bilingual class.

It is incontrovertible anyone who dares suggest that a Jewish person favors another Jewish person in employment will have allegations of anti-Semitism hurled at them. Notwithstanding the anticipated hail of personal attacks, in certain situations preferential treatment for Jews is the undeniable truth. At Sheepshead Bay High School, in the social studies department during a three year period in the 1990’s, the Jewish Assistant Principal Goren/McCarthy/Faran recommended, the 2 Principals (one of who was Jewish Susan Friedman) agreed, and the NYCBOE hired the following people: Eisner-Shapiro, Gofman, Rosenthal, Kovat, Goldring, Cohen, Dawes, and Smith. Two were black, 5 were ethnic Jews and one’s husband was a Jew. One black was uncertified and two of the Jews were uncertified, as was the female who married into the Jewish last name (therefore indistinguishable from any other Jewish applicant at the interviewing stage). All the other 3 white social studies teachers newly assigned (Winn, Allia, and Blasi) at the school at the time were placed by the NYCBOE office of personnel due to State regulation and Union contract; two immediately sought refuge and gained transfer out of the school and the other, me, was fired.

During that time, in order to keep a Jewish female uncertified teacher who I had replaced in the Social Studies Department at Sheepshead Bay High School, the Principal immediately assigned the already unqualified teacher to teach 5 high school level math courses. That the Jewish female had no math degree was immaterial to the Principal. In the litigation the Principal could not recall nor the NYCBOE produce any evidence that any effort was made to find a anybody with a math degree to teach the students.

Anyone, not a politician or judge or civil servant (and therefore at risk for losing their job), and not Jewish, looking at the three years hiring and retention would find the employment practice at Sheepshead Bay obviously discriminatory. When the Assistant Principal obtained an new position at a Long Island school district, within one year, two social studies teachers from Sheepshead Bay were hired there; not coincidentally both were Jewish.

The Principal herself was no stranger to prior allegations of employment discrimination. A few years before Principal Friedman was named in a reported case where a black woman alleged she was passed over for an assistant principal position by Friedman. The Federal District Judge found the NYCBOE not liable for discrimination. Only a claim of race discrimination was raised by the losing plaintiff’s attorney, not doubt for fear of reprisals were the obvious claim of Jewish preferential treatment alleged.

It is anathema in the US to discuss the Jewish ethnic group in New York is greatly overrepresented in government employment in proportion to their abilities or population percentage, but in the teaching force this is undoubtedly true and has been so for years.

The undeniable favoritism in hiring Jewish people in federal and State (especially NY State) government positions began full swing at the time displaced persons of Jewish heritage arrived at the shores of the US just prior to, during, and after WWII. The US was faced with a huge immigrant population, many who were educated, who had no employment. Rather than place these people on public assistance and face the wrath of citizens, the US and State Governments began creating civil service positions for these immigrants. It was apparent to many in government at the time that having people, with even half the brain power of an Albert Einstein, employed and productive was good public policy. For many non-Jews today, when looking at the percentage Jews in civil service, the judicial branches and in political office, especially in New York, its clear the practice never stopped.

Outright discrimination in teacher hiring is not a new occurrence at the NYC public schools. As partly documented in The Great School Wars by Diane Ravitch, circa 1968, a large group of black community militants forcefully took over District 16 and its schools in the Ocean Hill-Brownsville district and then illegally occupied the school district headquarters and locked out a group of white teachers, illegally “firing” them and reporting the white males to the US Draft Board as eligible for military service during the Vietnam War. The self appointed new militant community board then sought to replace those deposed white and white Jewish teachers with black teachers. There was a teachers strike when the NYCBOE did nothing to stop the black militant board and there were numerous riots in the streets where police and teachers were hurt by community supporters until District 16 was taken back from racist control. During the black community militants’ riot and takeover and uprising at District 16, the Rev. William Jones permitted the ATA (Afro-American Teachers Association), a militant organization of black teachers in District 16, to use his Bethany Baptist Church as a meeting place to harangue Jews and spew hatred against whites. (see The Struggle of New York City’s Black Civil Society” by William Stafford). Local NYC evening news coverage broadcast self-appointed black community leaders yelling equal amounts anti-Semitic and anti-white epithets.

At that time the majority of blacks, mostly in poverty and without the financial resources, could not obtain the college and teaching draft deferments obtained by whites. Blacks from the ghetto were coming back in body bags from Vietnam in disproportionate numbers while young white teachers were avoiding the draft and teaching local black kids. To the outraged black leaders, the preferential treatment in hiring teachers was one and the same. White Jews made the largest proportion of the teachers and therefore blacks sought to counter white Jewish discrimination with a discrimination that favored the people in the ghetto.

Though outwardly the NYC Board of Education rejected the black militant racial agenda, from that point forward plans were made to placate the black community leaders. Joyce Coppin, who later became the head of all hiring and firing of NYC public school teachers, was intimately connected with the Ocean-Hill Brownsville movement. Incidentally in 2003, Coppin was praised at the White House by President George W. Bush for her efforts that attracted 42% nonwhites in the Teach NYC project fast track teaching program. After being a teacher, around 1965, Coppin became Community Coordinator for District 16 and “was responsible for programs that involved parent engagement, community affairs, human relations, programs to enable the schools and the staff to understand the community and the community to understand the public school system, curriculum.” Coppin held the position for around 3 years, though things for Coppin were “a little fuzzy there.” Then Coppin became Executive Assistant to the Superintendent of the District 16 for two years and then deputy superintendent and later superintendent.

On October 15, 1974, despite the fact that Coppin was intimately aware, or having ample reason to know of the ATA’s anti-Semitic statements and vile pronouncements against whites from nightly broadcasts on local television, and despite being intimately aware of or having reason to know the Rev. William Jones permitted his church to be used as a forum for anti-Jewish and anti-white hatred, Coppin, as a member of the “Black Solidarity Day Committee”, sent letters to District 16 Alumni to hold “Black Solidarity Day” celebration at the Bethany Baptist Church on Nov. 1, 1974.

Coppin, incidentally has the distinction of firing me not once, but twice. Once as Superintendent of Brooklyn High Schools, and years later after having my termination overturned through the collective bargaining process, once as Executive of teacher staffing. Coppin, like Sotomayor, is an entitlement racist who has a history of refusing to publicly acknowledge facts about her race. During a deposition (which is on DVD and barred from public disclosure by Magistrate Go for fear of “embarrassment” to public officials ), Coppin repeatedly refused to admit that blacks and Hispanics, in general and compared with whites and Orientals, do not major in and have degrees in math and science. (This point is crucial to the NYCBOE’s policy of ethnic cleansing the teaching ranks of white certified English and Social Studies teachers because despite the NYCBOE’s best efforts to darken the work force, the lack of darker people with math and science degrees makes it impossible to achieve a balanced nonwhite workforce. Left with no real percentage of blacks or Hispanics intellectually qualified in math or science, to achieve racial diversity, the NYCBOE engaged in a campaign to darken the ranks of social studies and English teachers by denying certified new white teachers employment, and firing or forcing the resignation of certified whites.

The only response Coppin would give on the lack of blacks and Hispanics with math and science was, “I do not recall a specific study written by a responsible researcher that would say that blacks and Hispanics do not go into the math and sciences as a rule” Despite Coppin’s refusal to accept and acknowledge reality, Principal Friedman had no hesitation acknowledging black, Hispanics and females did not obtain science and math degrees to the extent of the white male. Numerous studies available online at the National Science Foundation validate this fact as do studies on file at the Gates Foundation. Even if these studies somehow failed to come to Coppin’s attention, there are volumes of studies, which Coppin should have seen as an “educator” of over 4 decades and as a Superintendent for 19 years, on the gap between whites and blacks and between whites and Hispanics in state standardized and SAT math scores. Oddly, even the Task Force on the City University of New York, Black Male Initiative, Final Report of the Pre-Kindergarten-Grade 12, (of which the Director was Coppin) executive summary, on page 2-3 indicates “Black males are often not enrolled in higher level mathematics and science courses- the “so-called gatekeeper subjects” -which prevent them from doing more challenging course work. These subjects are considered also as predictors of educational and career aspirations.”

As a white and white Christian “reverse” discrimination victim, the Federal District Court in the Eastern District of NY did everything in its power to obstruct me from obtaining evidence in the case. It took me countless motions to obtain discovery that is routinely turned over in “typical” (blacks and Hispanics and women as victim) discrimination cases. In one order, Nov. 3, 2003, in barring my request for discovery Magistrate Go characterized my efforts to prove NYCBOE discrimination against whites as an intent to “malign the Board of Education and its employees.” In April 2003 and August 2003, I was prohibited by the Magistrate from obtaining discovery on claims related to my second firing, yet on November 20, 2003, the Magistrate permitted the NYC attorneys to obtain discovery on all claims, including the second firing. On April 4, 2004, black Federal District Court Judge Sterling Johnson stayed my federal case, in effect placing the case in limbo, because I had a separate and distinct subsequent State Court proceeding. The exact same issued had been decided in 1987 in the Second Circuit case of Zemsky v. City of New York Board of Education, 821 F2d 148, and prohibited such a stay. The fact that the law was clear was of no interest to the black Federal Judge who only saw justice in terms of skin color.

While the Magistrate was busy making me jump through hoops to justify every piece of information I needed, and denying others (like refusing to compel the NYCBOE to turnover the data as to the number of teachers fired or acquitted in the rubber stamp Circular 31 proceedings which the BOE uses to fire teachers to subvert the collective bargaining process, which NYCBOE attorney Dennisa Torres, on audio tape, laughingly stated only one teacher in 5 years had won), Magistrate Go was requiring me to turnover the same discovery multiple times because the NYCBOE supposedly “never received” my discovery responses. One item I turnover at least 4 times and even had date stamps to prove I turned over the material, and the NYCBOE attorneys continued to say they never saw the material. And though the Law Department of City of New York data entries each document received into a data base, the NYCBOE was never asked by the Magistrate for a record of such entries. Instead the Magistrate became focused on requiring the production of income tax records of a three apartment multiple dwelling my wife owned where we lived. That rental property income is not earned income (and therefore completely irrelevant to my loss of income claims) by NY or Federal Law, was immaterial to the Magistrate. That the NYCBOE wanted the material was the primary concern of the Magistrate.

That Magistrate Go’s view of equal protection of law does not include whites is of no surprise. One only need look at her background. For an outsider, admirably, she stated, she was one of the people who during the civil rights movement went down south to help blacks in their struggle for equality. When one engages in such a struggle, however, a distinction has to be made. Was the primary motivation for involvement because they were standing up for someone, or was the primary motivation because they were fighting against someone.

Magistrate Go, like Sotomayor, shows a predilection to view whites as the oppressor. Marilyn Dolan Go is vice chair of the American Bar Association standing committee for Minorities in the Judiciary. She was on the governors task force on Minority Representation on the bench from 1991 to 1992. Gov Mario Cuomo created the Task Force on Minority Representation on the Bench (aka the “Task Force on Judicial Diversity) which found that there was clear evidence of an extreme lack of diversity in the states judiciary, and further found there was no shortage of well-qualified minority and women candidates to explain the lack of diversity. Marilyn Go was appointed to Magistrate in the Eastern District of NY , US Dist. Court in 1993.

She has repeatedly called for more Pacific Asians to occupy positions in the Judiciary at meetings before Pacific Asian legal interest groups. She has appeared at fund raisers for the Asian American Legal Defense Fund whose sole purpose is to gain political and economic power at the expense of an ordered democracy. The group has sued ensure ethnic Asians are provided voting ballots in their own language, and the group has also sued to prevent property owners in Chinatown NYC from raising rents. Magistrate Go is a long time participant in the Thomas Tang International Moot Court Competition which was instituted specifically to create awards and opportunities for Pacific Asians who are incapable of winning legal competitions designed for participants without regard to race.

It is obvious judicial appointment of nonwhites, whose is main focus is to sermonize about white “unfairness” and who can only equate “justice” and “fairness” based on skin color, results in a Judiciary whose overriding goal is not to ensure justice, but instead racial entitlement.

I was a very good teacher, objectively. In my first semester teaching at a 99 percent nonwhite (mostly black) high school Clara Barton, I coached, without any help (which was the only reason I was hired), our school students to win the NYC division of the We the People Competition.

In my only semester of teaching at Sheephead Bay HS, where I taught second semester classes that contained all the kids who had previously failed a social studies course, the percentage of students passing the global studies NYC test cutoff increased by 13%, and the percentage passing the NY State Regents increased by 10%. The year after I was terminated, both passing percentages dropped over 11%. In US history, the semester of my employment, the percentage of students who passed the NYC test cutoff increased by 3%, and percentage who passed the NY State Regents increased 5%. The year after I was terminated, those pass rates fell 2 and 12%.

Being an former practicing attorney, with over seven years as a trial attorney representing the indigent (mostly nonwhite) charged with crimes in Brooklyn, NY, I was more qualified to run the legal program at Sheepshead Bay High, from where I was fired, than any teacher there. After I was terminated the person who ran the legal program was the same older Jewish female uncertified teacher who the Principal permitted to teach 5 math courses. That this teacher had no legal education or experience to run the legal program was as relevant to Principal Friedman as was the lack of math degree when the Principal assigned her to teach 5 high school level math courses. Interestingly, in September 2003, the new Sheepshead Bay High School Principal, Reesa Levy (Jewish), hired Thomas Everett (Jewish?), a NJ attorney to run the legal program. In 2005, Mr. Everett was disbarred, criminally convicted and jailed for fraudulently swindling former clients out of their savings.

My case, and the fact that the New York City Board of Education has engaged in a campaign to ethnically cleanse the New York City schools of white certified teachers and replace them with unqualified blacks and Hispanics is destined to be swept under the rug and discarded like trash, just like the qualified white teachers never hired, fired, or forced out of teaching.

What is currently happening in the Federal Judiciary is institutional racism against whites. White people in this country should not just sit around like the Jews in Nazi Germany prior to being marched to the ovens and shrug their shoulders and say the impending disaster is inevitable. The appointment of judges is crucial to changing the anti-white racist system.

The main problem is not that white politicians don’t know what is happening to the vast majority of whites in this country, the problem is the vast majority of white politicians are so far removed from the everyday lives of the ordinary individual that most just don’t care. White politicians in both the Republican and Democrat parties are very secure in knowing that their families are so well entrenched and have such a stranglehold on the political process, that they will be employed by rich connections when out of office, and when the political pendulum swings the other way, they will be elected again. For most white politicians its not about principles, ideas, philosophy, and certainly not about serving for the public good. For most, its about its about keeping the system the way it is so the politicians can serve themselves.

Unlike the white politicians President Obama finds it is important to reflect the desires of his constituency, and thus the nomination of the race supremacist and entitlement racist Sotomayor. Whites, do not, have a party or even powerful interest group in this country. In the future, to stop the current anti-white policies, whites must target Senators and Representatives who will vote their human rights. Presently whites do not have any rights. We are just a few short years away before we are not even considered human.

In 2003, Theodore M. Shaw, associate Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund aptly opined the philosophy of Latina Sotomayor and the majority of Federal Judges when determining cases involving justice and race when he stated, “Let us see race, and then act justly.”

Today, race, and only race, matters. Discrimination, defined as acting to the detriment and against a specific race/ethnic or religious group to advance the interests of another race/ethnic or religious group, is the ideal currently espoused in States and the Federal Government of the United States.

Years before the civil rights movement in the middle of the twentieth century, signs and policies announced that no black, Jew, Irish, Chinese, etc., need apply, whether it be for a job, and educational opportunity, or for a place to live. No matter how equal or superior in situation or qualification a person might be, the prohibitions were in place. It is now widely accepted in American that such past prohibitions were abhorrent. Citizens were told by the government that it was unfair to penalize or prohibit someone from obtaining a job, renting or buying a place to live, or obtaining an education, solely on the basis of their skin color or religious background. Such conduct was deemed and identified as an illegal and unconstitutional discrimination; and Americans accepted this to be true.

White Americans, in the 1970’s, however, soon found that race discrimination was not wholly abhorrent or the evil the government said. Discrimination, it seemed, was permissible, under certain circumstances, when discrimination was conducted against them. Race discrimination against whites in America was first deemed appropriate when an institution, company or municipality was deemed by the courts or had self-determined, that discrimination against minorities was part of a past policy. To even the situation and make amends, employers and governments were permitted to make hiring, promotion and lay-off decisions, and educational institutions were permitted to make admission and retention decisions, based on the darker race of employees. Due to the “greater good”, this became the law of the land as dictated by the Federal Courts.

Later, whites found that even in situations where no discrimination was court determined or admitted by an institution, company or municipality or State or Federal government, hiring/promotion decisions and education institution admission decisions were being determined by race. Although being white would not be an automatic bar to employment, being non-white became an overwhelming factor which out weighed other factors like job experience, skill, ability, education, education test scores and employment test scores. Once again, a “greater good” was determined by the Federal and State Courts, and supported by Federal and State Governments. An “affirmative” action, at the expense of whites and in favor of blacks and Hispanics, was required, said the courts, because after years of system wide and “institutional” discrimination, blacks and Hispanics were not able to compete fairly with their white fellow citizens. President Lyndon Johnson’s earlier proclamation that one could not expect a man hobbled in chains for their entire life to win a foot race after immediately being unshackled became the Government dictated and enforced reason for discrimination against the white race. Many whites were not happy with this Government proclamation, but most found hope that surely the discrimination against whites would end shortly since system wide and “institutional” discrimination, at least against blacks and Hispanics, was no longer permitted, and therefore, the justification for the future discrimination against whites would no longer be valid.

Over three decades after “affirmative” action discrimination against whites was first mandated, there is currently no hope that that discrimination against whites will end. With respect to discrimination law, the pendulum at the beginning of the twenty-first century has curiously swung to the other extreme. Almost forty years of “affirmative” action and “reverse” discrimination against whites is still the law of the land. The US Supreme Court has held in a college or university setting, under the banner of “diversity”, educational institutions are permitted by law to prohibit individual’s admission, solely on the basis of their white and Oriental race. In the Bollinger v. Gratz, in a 5 to 4 decision, the court declared that States have a compelling (overriding) interest in achieving diversity. Twenty-two States filed legal briefs in support of permitting such discrimination against whites (and minorities like Orientals and Asians who are “overrepresented”).

The US Government and majority of State governments have determined that black, Hispanic, or Native American Indian race of a candidate is a permissible positive admission factor and that the white and Oriental race is a negative factor where there is a desire by the university or college administrations that the student population reflect the racial and ethnic demographics of American society. Despite spin or court opinions with words to the contrary, any time it is permitted to give a black or Hispanic an employment position or university or graduate/professional school admission, because of their race, over a white candidate where the white candidate has superior qualifications, race is an overriding discriminatory factor.

Although the race discrimination “diversity” rationale has not been extended to private employment or government employment decisions by the US Supreme Court yet, it is only a matter of time before the “diversity” doctrine is eventually extended in those situations.

Presently job discrimination against whites is accepted and acceptable policy. Such was the original finding in the case in Ricci v DeStefano where the results of a municipal fire department’s test for lieutenant were overturned because no black candidate passed the employment test. The test was not found discriminatory, but the mere fact no black test taker could meet the testing standards was deemed sufficient reason to penalize non-blacks and deny whites promotion. That the 18 white and 2 Hispanic plaintiffs in the case were discriminated against seems self-evident. Yet the State Attorneys General of Alaska, Iowa, Arkansas, Maryland, Nevada and Utah, and the even the United States Department of Justice and the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission supported the Federal District Court and the Federal Appellate Court rulings that upheld the discrimination against the mainly white plaintiffs. The US Supreme Court decision to strike down the blatant discrimination directed mainly against the white plaintiffs was determined with a bare majority of five to four justices. With President Obama’s first selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill a vacancy on the US Supreme Court, it is clear discrimination against whites will be the continued and never changing policy in this country.

As most white Americans know, discrimination against whites in employment and job retention and promotion, and discrimination in university/college admission and retention, is not an aberration. It unfortunately is part of life and we have to live with the effects everyday of our lives.

Since the 1970’s, obtaining a job, whether there be both physical and mental demands (security guard, police officer, firefighter, fighter pilot, military personnel), or whether a job entail only mental faculties (doctors, lawyers or Judges), has involved race and gender criteria. While in past generations prior to 1970 there were signs that blacks, Irish, Jews, Poles, Mexicans, Chinese, Italians or whatever, need not apply, now the policies are that blacks and Hispanics and women must be employed, in numbers relative to their population, regardless of there suitability or capabilities.

Height, weight, strength and endurance ability had long been requirements for certain job careers in the past. Due to the adverse impact on Hispanics and women, of these obviously rational criteria, such requirements, if they exist at all, now only exist to the barest minimum. No longer will a 280 pound man be carried out of a burning building where he is trapped two floors or higher. No longer will a police officer walk into a precarious public situation and garner the instant respect height, sheer physical presence, and a club, innately gains. In the above situations the obese man overcome by smoke will in all likelihood burn to death, or at least die from affixation. In a crowded bar or street gathering, the officer, to gain the attention or at least personal space, will be forced to draw his or her gun, placing all around in needless jeopardy.

That all of us, regardless of race or gender, are endangered by the desire to have an inclusive work force has been deemed inconsequential by our government, our public education institutions, and the media. In response to hiring the physically unsuited, the solution of the government has been to decrease the individual accountability of each person and increase the total number of those employed to complete a task. This “solution” adds a huge financial burden to taxpayers and business owners, and such “solution” hardly protects society. In the Army, to solve to the problems [including female enlistees purposely getting pregnant to avoid military conflict] the physical inferiority women enlistees present (which absurdly required obstacle courses changed to “confidence” courses where men must go back and help the women complete the course), troop strengths are routinely set at the a certain number, with all the women added to whatever the ideal number is. For example, if it took one thousand military men personnel generations ago, to secure a certain area, now, if 100 women are in that unit, the current specified required troop strength will be one thousand plus one hundred. Such added troop strength does not even begin to overcome the added risks that women, by virtue of being captured and raped, present to the men in the field.

In regard to California women “firefighters”, who are incapable by themselves, of managing to control a fire hose, the number of firefighters employed has to be increased to respond to each fire to pick of the slack and fix the problems the extra useless personage at the scene present.

With respect to decreasing the physical abilities of our firefighters, military personnel, and law enforcement personnel, it is not just the women who present the danger. The decrease in physical capability is decreased across the board for all applicants, which means that the entire population of those hired, including men, are less capable than the employees of years prior. Not only is a woman, at five feet two inches and ninety pounds, hired as a court officer, but now, a man of the same build is also hired. (Part of a court officers job includes on a second notice restraining a border-line schizophrenic man of gigantic proportions who goes stark raving mad when a judge orders them jailed). The lack of physical ability standards in our law enforcement has lead to numerous situations where, due to the lack of size and strength, police and court personnel have been overpowered, and had their guns taken away; which in turn has resulted in the completely preventable shooting and deaths of the public. To our government, whose most fundamental duty is to protect society, such deaths caused by the desire to make a work-force inclusive, is of no concern; for the greater good must be served, no matter how many innocent people must be killed or maimed.

Since the 1970’s, due to adverse impact among certain race/ethic groups, namely blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians, mental capability, or intelligence, is a factor forbidden consideration in hiring. No longer is the intelligence of a potential employee permissible to use when making a job placement. When hiring, an employer is only permitted to use and exam attributes needed to perform the barest minimum requirements of a job. Astoundingly, to many, in our society, this regulation seems completely fair and rational. In application, this restriction in hiring is disastrous. Though it is true very little intelligence is required to mop a floor, the smarter person hired will be less likely to leave a wet floor unattended to cause injury to customers or workers, and will be more responsible in placing signs and cordoning off areas. When hiring a fast food worker, the smarter employee will be less likely than the dumber employee to take a bath in the sink. When hiring a security guard, it would be highly unlikely that the smarter person would have physically removed a 6 year old boy, seemingly left unattended in the toy area, from the store, to be abducted moments later, then tortured and killed.

Disregarding the intellect of the applicants to diversify the workforce presents not only the danger of incompetent actions and decisions, it also presents the real danger of incompetence coupled with racial bias. Those nonwhites hired and promoted with disregard for intellect know who they are, know the reasons why they’ve been hired and promoted, and for the most part really believe that but for “oppression” of a white society, they could have risen to their level without “affirmative” action.

A case in point is the former Montgomery County Sheriff Police Chief Charles A. Moose. Police Chief Moose, a black, was in charge of the investigation of the Beltway sniper attacks from October 2 to 22, 2002. During the 3 weeks of shooting, under Moose’s direction, law enforcement was directed to seek out white men in a white van or truck to the exclusion of all other vehicles and suspects. This despite on October 3, a witness reported a Chevrolet Caprice fleeing the scene. This despite the two black snipers’ 1990 Caprice was observed and recorded in a least 2 check points set up after two of the shootings, and the sniper Caprice was encountered on at least 10 occasions by law enforcement in Montgomery County, Baltimore, and Washington D.C.

But for the instructions of Moose, four more people might be alive and 3 people not shot and wounded. Moose obviously was unfit and did not have the intelligence to be Police Chief, yet he was hired, because he was black and because he possessed a worthless college degree from the University of North Carolina. Moose’s college degree is tainted with the stench of preferential treatment. In 1970, the US Government found North Carolina’s Consolidated University system in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The University began scrambling to remedy the situation. That year the first blacks were recruited with football scholarships and the first black was named homecoming queen. The following year a black counselor was hired, black cultural programs were initiated and promoted and financial aid was awarded based on darker skin color. The black Moose also enrolled at the University taking advantage of the “opportunity”, and opportunity which eventually led to needless deaths.

Yet despite the fact that, generally speaking, smarter employees make better decisions and therefore make better employees, Federal courts have determined, with the full insistence and enforcement of the Federal Government, that intelligence is a forbidden attribute to consider, even when hiring teachers and firemen. In the Second Federal Circuit where self-described and self-proclaimed Latina Sotomayor hails, the Appeals Court in Gulino v. New York State Dept. of Ed., 460 F. 3d 361 (2006) determined that when testing for teacher certification, “ ‘intelligence or common sense’”, was “ ‘no more relevant to the job in questions than to any other job’”.

Yes, you’ve read it correctly. According to three judges, in Sotomayor’s panel of appeals judges, intelligence of teachers is no more important than the intelligence of a cannery worker or janitor. As stated in the Second Circuit Appellate Court, which reversed the lower court finding that the testing of intelligence was related to teaching and had upheld the validity of the test where whites had a 85% passing rate and blacks could on muster a 45% pass rate, the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has drawn the sharp distinction between the permissible testing for knowledge and skills or abilities required by the job, and testing for areas which measure for “constructs” and the “‘ inferences about mental processes or traits, such as intelligence, aptitude, personality, commonsense, judgment, leadership and spatial ability.’”.

And in the federal courts, the five to four decision of Ricci is meaningless. The lower courts continue marching to their own preconceptions of what is just. Instead of seeing the law and Constitution and concept of justice as an objective to determine cases by, the judges, like Sonia Sotomayor, see race and then determine the law, Constitution, and justice. The NYC firemen’s test case, USA v. The City of New York, Fire Department of New York City, issued on July 22, 2009, days after the Ricci case, is a prime example of this. The Federal Judge, Nicholas Garaufias, in a case brought by President George W. Bush’s Justice Department, held that the EEOC requires much stricter validation of test questions than questions which are “job related”. Despite the fact that EEOC only requires inquiry into testing disparities where there is more than an 80% difference between whites and the “underrepresented” minorities, the judge threw out two firemen’s test where the pass rates of one test where the Hispanic pass rate was 95.5% that of whites and the black pass rate 87.8% of whites, and he threw out the second test were the Hispanic pass rate was 85.5% of whites, and the black pass rate was 60.3% of whites. To the Judge, the percentages were irrelevant because “if” a certain number of black and Hispanic candidates did not pass the test, and that “if” was within “3 standard deviations” of 80%, then, the test would be discriminatory. This is yet another clear case of a Federal Judge creating law to suit his own personal preconceived notions and making the case outcome to shape the country the way he wants it to be. It is obvious when a judge twists clear federal regulations to suit his own agenda, that issues such as test question validation which are completely subjective, have no chance of passing judicial scrutiny. It was clear through the entire opinion that the judge “felt” that questions which might measure intelligence were not going to be permitted. The judge was incensed and specifically pointed out that that an “expert” stated the test questions were written at an above 12th grade level.

That intelligence is a forbidden quality and somehow “racist’ in natures demonstrates the utter absurdity of the Judiciary. Blacks and Hispanics, when not employed or admitted university admissions are denied not because of some ulterior inherent racist scheme. They are denied because they have chose to be excluded. Robert Kennedy once said keeping blacks unemployed with nothing to do means creating blacks who want nothing to do with society (and therefore more likely to engage in actions like riots to bring down society). The present day it is not whites keeping affirmative action blacks and Hispanic unemployed with nothing to do, it is these blacks and Hispanics doing nothing and not wanting anything to do productive in society that keeps them unemployed.

Blacks and Hispanics who fail, for the most part, choose to fail. Poverty and racism are just crutches used by the entitlement racists to justify their own deficiencies. The inner city public school systems are terrible, but they are terrible because the schools and States bend to the desires to those vocal and empowered in the demographic. Students who don’t want to learn should be removed from the students who do. Removal has nothing to do with racism. In Newark, there were schools that didn’t just have a fire alarms every day, but instead, because the officials disengaged the alarms, the student set actual fires to get their daily fire alarm break. Finding these students and imprisoning them is not racist. Empowering students to fire teachers in a “black student said” versus “white teacher said” situation invites anarchy and placates the militants in our society and does nothing to improve the intelligence of the kids.

Despite the fact that the inner city schools are so bad, the situation does not stop the top achieving students, as evidenced by GPA or test scores, or college admissions test, who are white or Oriental. Nor does the inability to read or write in a phonetic language stop the ethnic Chinese immigrants from achieving higher scores than blacks and Hispanics

Affirmative action blacks and Hispanics choose to be who they are. Education is not the only situation where disparities exist between races. Blacks have an astronomically higher rate of herpes than do whites, and racism has nothing to do with it. Blacks have an astronomically higher birth out of wedlock rate, measured at over 70%. Drug use, as objectively measured by Emergency Room overdose statistics (not some “study” or “study” that includes marijuana) shows blacks and Hispanics have much higher rates of drug abuse. Criminal forcible rape rates, which simply can’t be rationalized as being a function of poverty, are committed by black and Hispanic perpetrators at much higher rates than in the white demographic.

Testing for intelligence is not discriminatory. The Supreme Court in 1979 in Beazer v. New York City Transit Authority was faced with a challenge to the Transit Authority’s methadone testing policy because evidence was presented showing blacks and Hispanics in NYC were more likely that whites in NYC, based on NYC Methadone clinic data, to be methadone users. Logically the Court ruled the attack lacked merit.

It is time the Courts stop the insanity of barring intelligence as a function of employment. Affirmative action blacks and Hispanics choose to live the La Vida Loca; an existence where they believe they are victims and life just happens to them irrespective of conscious decisions made. Pregnant from consensual sex without protection, La Vida Loca. Shot and dying after instigating a gang fight, La Vida Loca. Drug addicted, La Vida Loca. Can’t graduate High School because of not studying. La Vida Loca. Can’t get a job because they did nothing to improve themselves as a human being. Yep, La Vida Loca again.

Yet, when anyone points out the complete absurdity of such present hiring and education policies and the anti-white racist agenda, such people are branded racists, misogynists, bigots and hate mongers. It is not hatred to be outraged at policies that based on race, deny a livelihood to some, and which cause injury and death in the name of “equality” and “fairness”.

Often the antagonists who scream “bigotry” against those who don’t possess the same beliefs as themselves, are in fact, the biggest bigots themselves.

The above proposition is very much self-evident in numerous pre-Supreme Court nomination speeches Sonia Sotomayor gave in 1994, 1999, 2001, 2002 and 2004, when she unabashedly, before a groups of ideological intimates, stated that being a Latina, or female Hispanic, gave her a superior nature and superior personal view of American society when compared to a white male.

Such an admission of beliefs as to one’s personal racial (or ethnic) and gender superiority, publicly pronounced by a white male, would have been sufficient to brand any white male a “racist” and “sexist” and would not only have led to the derailment of any judicial aspirations, be it to the US Supreme Court or local district judge, but it also most certainly would also have led to impeachment had the orator been a judge, disbarment had the orator been a lawyer, and termination of employment had the orator been a University professor or high school teacher.

Yet Latina Sotomayor, instead of hanging her head in shame and being denounced as the race/ethnic supremacist she is, marched proudly to Washington DC for her pre-coronation hearings in the federal capital, just as our former Secretary of State Madeliene Albright did in her own pre-coronation confirmation hearings, to “tell it like it is”, to the hoots and howls of her energized supporters, the most ardent among them; the media. Taking a lead from the media and interest pressure groups, even US Senator Mitch Mc’Connell, an opponent of Sotomayor’s confirmation, undeservedly compared his own wife, an Oriental who received no affirmative action handout, to Latina Sotomayor, and stated on Fox Sunday television how Sotomayor’s story was “compelling”.

In reality, Sotomayor’s rise is not as “compelling” as the White House and the television media would lead the public to believe. Sotomayor’s life is one in which racial preferences, racial handouts and racial assistance were routinely bestowed. Despite stellar grades doled out in her high school and college years, Sotomayor admitted on more than one occasion her college entrance exams and law school admissions exams “were not comparable” to those of her fellow classmates at Princeton and Yale. In short, Sotomayor, the woman with the Latina soul, was provided an affirmative action windfall which enabled her to misappropriate from two whites the opportunity to receive the educational credentials bestowed to the Latina, an education free to her, and paid for by those not so fortunate to have been born dark-skinned. Sotomayor has justified her racial/ethnic action windfall saying that “cultural bias built into testing” discriminates against certain minority groups.

Were a white first year college student in their first year told at Princeton, like Sotomayor, that their English skills were sub-par and in need of remediation, it would indeed be “compelling” were the white student to graduate first in their class. For whites who have seen affirmative action at the college and the graduate/professional school level, that Sotomayor was deemed insufficient in English skills, and later graduated with the highest grades in her last year of Princeton is not a surprise. First hand experiences of many white college graduates and numerous books and news reports verify how subpar performance by black and Hispanic affirmative action babies (as Sotomayor has referred to herself) has led to graduation of students who can’t pass a law licensing exam, can’t pass the medical boards, and can’t pass teacher certification tests, and can’t even write a coherent paragraph. And when faced with the reality that certain minorities simply can’t qualify, State licensing examiners, like the bar examiners in New York in 1988, simply dumbed down the law exam to increase the average pass rate of first time takers from 66 percent to 78 percent. The medical profession across State lines have also redefined the “skills” required to license doctors so that “underrepresented minorities”, blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, don’t have to endure the testing hardships that whites, Orientals, Middle Easterners and Indians (from the subcontinent) have little difficulty mastering.

What is surprising to whites who have witnessed the affirmative action bonanza to those of darker skin is that any of these affirmative action babies lack the skills necessary to compete and live in the world, or that more of these award recipients don’t graduate in the top of their class or rise to the tops of their field in the world. Many of these skin color lottery winners are given full scholarships and don’t have the financial worries that non-affirmative action contestants have. Many of the racial preference award recipients also receive special classes and tutoring to “assist” them to improve their grades. A fair number, like Sotomayor, who had Yale General Counsel and Yale professor Jose Cabranes, have mentors to ensure their academic success and future job placement.

That unqualified blacks and Hispanics rise to professional levels, such as that of lawyers or medical doctors, is not surprising. In a survey reflected in the pro-diversity book by Bowen (of Princeton University) and Bok (of Harvard) partly entitled “Long term consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions,” indicates blacks and Hispanics awarded elite college admission based on race, were slightly more likely that whites at the same institutions to obtain degrees in law and medicine. This despite having lower test scores and grades. That society fears the quality of any black or Hispanic doctors in the US is not racism, it just makes common sense. In a legal brief filed by the Association of American Medical Colleges in support of diversity admissions in the Bollinger case, the Medical schools stated how relying on MCAT (medical school admissions test) scores and grade point averages, without giving candidates an award for being black or Hispanic, would had “disastrous consequences” for minority enrollment in medical school. That our country’s medical schools are not concerned about the disastrous consequences of unleashing these lesser intelligent doctors on society underscores the dire need for the abolition of race consideration in medical schools.

In selecting a Supreme Court Justice, given her past academic history and record, Sonia Sotomayor cannot be said to be entitled to the position based on her intellect.

Nor can Sonia Sotomayors life experiences qualify her for the US Supreme Court. Before the court in every year and certainly every decade come cases, and petitions, which involve government intrusions and regulations of family life. Such issues, include but are not limited to: strip searches or drug testing of our children in public schools: abortion regulation: or efforts by the powerful in our country to strip children away from their families under the guise of their “best interests”. Sotomayor has no children, nor has she adopted any. Due to such choice, Sotomayor, like former Justice Souter, lacks a basic human experience which is shared by the vast majority of the human race. No matter how “empathetic” Sotomayor is, she will never be able to place herself in the position of a parent. The choice of not having children is one which monarchies and governments of the distant and not-so distant past, deemed sufficient to bar a person of a significant position in the government service for the simple reason that a person who made such a choice, had no stake in the future decisions made. Sonia Sotomayor, like former Justice Souter, also, has chosen to remain unmarried. This also separates her from the experiences shared by the vast majority of human kind. When someone has chosen to isolate themselves from intimate human contact, it is clear such person is has chosen a path in life at great variance to the vast majority of humanity. Without the same experiences so universally accepted and sought after by human beings, it is difficult to understand how such a person even be human, let alone how they can empathize with anyone but themselves or other society hermits.

A person who shuns intimate human contact exists in a vacuum alien to most of humanity, a “life” of evolutionary extinction. Such people should never be placed in positions that can directly and immediately adversely impact peoples lives, especially in the position of a judge where appeals are for the most part cost prohibitive, and certainly never is a position of a fractured Supreme Court.

Unlike Justice Souter, of which very little was or is known of the inner workings of the man, an overriding passion is evident with Sotomayor. During her full scholarship stay at Princeton University, Sotomayor became a race activist and co-chaired the Accion Puertorriquena organization which sought more “opportunities” for Puerto Ricans. In April 1974, she filed a complaint against Princeton alleging the university discriminated in its hiring and admission practices. She also worked in the Princeton University admissions office and traveled to high schools to seek out more Puerto Rican college applicants and was instrumental in gaining a Princeton seminar on Puerto Rican history and politics. While in her third year at Yale Law school, when a Washington law firm at a recruiting dinner suggested Sotomayor, with her low test score, was an affirmative action recipient (something the Latina has since admitted on numerous occasions), Sotomayor filed a complaint with the faculty-student tribunal and garnered an apology from the firm in December 1978. If determining the objective “truth” is something we seek from every one of the nine members of the non-reversible Supreme Court, how will it be possible for Latina Sotomayor to fulfill her responsibility when she was offended by the truth and demanded an apology when a person spoke the truth? It is beyond all doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that Sotomayor will not let facts interfere with her ethnic beliefs. When facts conflict with Sotomayor’s Latina heart, Sotomayor will simply disregard the facts.

Sotomayor has been supported by government handouts for the vast majority of her “working” life. Since graduating law school Sotomayor was provided numerous positions in government to support her. From 1979 to 1984, Sotomayor was given a position at the Manhattan District Attorneys office. From 1987 to 1992 she was provided a position on the board of the State of New York Mortgage Agency. From 1988 to 1992 she was provided a position on the New York City Campaign Finance Board. In 1992, Sotomayor was appointed to Federal District Judge in Manhattan, New York City, and in October 1998 she was confirmed by the US Senate by a 67 to 29 vote as a judge to the US Second Circuit Federal Court. In short, since her law school graduation, all but three years of Sotomayors positions awarded by the City, State and Federal Government. In short, much like a welfare public assistance recipient, Sotomayors existence has been almost wholly subsidized by other people’s tax dollars. Sotomayor’s employment history presents an obvious question; how is it possible that any person can be entrusted to make decisions that will impact the lives of every citizen in the US, when that person has been handed government positions their entire life and never demonstrated her ability to earn a living in the real world?

As a Federal Judge Sotomaor was a member of the Second Circuit Task Force on Gender, Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts. In 2008 she became a member of the women’s only invitation group Belizean Grove. She is a member of the Second Circuit which in 1999 implemented a Equal Opportunity Resolution Plan to recruit “minority and women candidates for all positions at all levels”, to “provide the widest possible employment and advancement opportunities”. As of 2002, the Circuit boasted 54% of all positions were occupied by women, and 18% by nonwhites.

Despite being given a government employment and salary for the vast majority of her life, Sotomayor continued to be consumed with her feelings that whites were oppressing Hispanics. Her misplaced feelings of oppression were brought to the forefront in her Ricci decisions.

With Judges and Justices like Latina Sotomayor, and politicians refusing to stand up against anti-white racism in the courts, there is one future in the United States, and it is painfully obvious: to forever deny whites (and Orientals, Asians and Middle Easterners) the ability to survive and enjoy a life better than those groups around them who, generally speaking, as test scores and productivity reveal, make little or no effort to improve their intelligence, skills, and abilities. Already, the most secure jobs requiring the most marginal of ability and least amount of effort, the administrative civil service jobs in government, are occupied with an overrepresentation of blacks and Hispanics. While whites in factories, industry, technology, and sales and support related to those parts of the economy, are losing their livelihood, the “underrepresented minorities“ who are overrepresented in government employment feel no pain. Those racial and ethnic groups in our society that have made the most effort and shown the most ability in our society find themselves in a government imposed economic ghetto as employment is mandated to the “underrepresented minorities” of our society, by direct government hiring and education quotas, and by court imposed discrimination litigation blackmail. The progeny of the whites, the only race that can objectively and legitimately claim responsibility for building this nation (and improving the human condition of the entire human race), has been deemed unfit and unworthy of the protections of equal opportunity to live or even survive in the United States.

Years before Hilter invaded Poland in the Nazi conquest for world domination, and later marched 6 million Jews and 6 million others deemed “degenerate” to forced labor camps and their deaths, it was obvious to anyone, after reading Mien Kampf, that Hitler, given the opportunity and left unstopped on his own course, would eventually destroy and oppress all the people he could and would mass murder hundreds of millions. Likewise, It was also obvious to anyone who did not ignore the obvious, that Imperial Japan, unchecked, would kill, subjugate and oppress, everyone they could. Hitler and Hirohito did not rise to power and commit atrocities under the banner of racial superiority. Hitler and Hirohito’s main proposition and argument to their people is that their people each had a racial right, or a racial legal claim, to take from and subjugate other races.. Currently, America faces a similar undeniable future. Leaders in our country, white leaders, whose positions of power are all infested with the shortsightedness of greed, have determined that a fractured society is the one by which it is best to rape the country of its riches. Only a homogenous society of race or even ideas, is one which could unite to guarantee this is a country truly for and by the people. Likewise, the leaders, white leaders of our country have implemented a policy attributed to a long ago Chinese emperor who in a moment of epiphany determined that an intelligent population was the most dangerous to any sitting government. (Recall it was just 19 men, all well educated, with the resources of a few other educated men, that caused the September 2001 attack on the United States. Any similar size group of uneducated men would have neither the means nor ability to carry out such a devastation.)

Yet despite the fact that our government leaders have determined to marginalize whites in our country and indeed even cut off their legs by prohibiting them from working, the population, the majority who are white, do nothing to stop the bleeding. It is only a matter of time before there are broadcast over the media, similar to the broadcast in the radio in Rwanda which directed the Hutus to “chop the tall trees” and ignite a genocide.

Presently the only way the progeny of the great mass of white humanity that built this country (not a diversity proclaimed by current text books) and fought its wars to ensure freedom from modern tyrannical dictatorships and oppressive government, will survive, will be to seek to obliterate through intermarriage all vestige of any indicia of whiteness. And even will be insufficient as the government will then undoubtedly require a citizen rights test based on degree of non-whiteness. Whereas in the past in the US, blacks sought to hide their heritage to live life as a human beings, in our future whiteness will determine not employment or education, but degree of servitude and probably life itself. Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.