I respectfully understand people’s politically pressured response to use politically correct terminology like diversity and inclusion. But these are terms used as a means for minority special interest groups to conquer majority groups. The terms are used to politically hide a special interest group based agenda to obtain special privileges for their represented groups personal agendas (this is unlawful under the 14th amendment and equal protection under the law clauses). When racial balancing and Affirmative Action failed to pass the equal protection under the law scrutiny tests diversity and inclusion concepts were invented to continue the special interest and privilege fight. Diversity and Inclusion have not been put to a constitutional test yet and will fail for the same reason other discrimination and privilege concepts advocated by and for certain groups and not ALL groups failed. I wholly support a diversity concept and inclusion concept that values skill and traits that individuals have, but not when these traits are applied by 14th amendment identified group concepts that are prohibited behaviors and classifications for determining privilege and discrimination. This is what makes the diversity concept illegal. It is group focused and based on discrimination and privilege by group. All “Individuals” should have an opportunity to fulfill their ambition and contribute to the success of their company and go as far as their ambition and talent allow, but this cannot extend as an inalienable right to groups. The problem is people don’t know the difference between individual rights advocacy and group advocacy. They think it’s the same but it is not. The point senior executives and HR people need to understand about the way they constructed hiring websites and hiring practices, is that these traits, and decisions to hire by law cannot have anything but equal opportunity for individuals, and cannot guarantee equal outcomes (1 of each). The decision to hire and association with organizations that politically support group based hiring practices often advocated by politically pressuring websites, can by the law enacted in the 14th amendment have nothing to do with or be based on race, religion, ethnic group, gender, lifestyle, physical abilities, or sexual orientation. You must by law consider only the individual and not their culture or any of the other identified traits you are not allowed to use to discriminate with as part of the hiring process or give special privilege to as part of the hiring process, or give special recognition to groups on company websites that advocate for privileges or on behalf of the people hired based on their association with groups, group names, group advocacies, group labels and advocacy concepts that discriminate against or give preference to individuals not identified as members of their group. When groups associate privilege with race, religion, ethnic group, gender, lifestyle, physical abilities, or sexual orientation based on groups that they represent they break the law. Such association and advocacy by these principals is an unlawful and unconstitutional hiring practice that can be challenged in the Supreme Court and any company doing so can be found guilty of discrimination or giving special privileges to groups rather than individuals. All such references to group traits identified above need to be removed from hiring and group diversity and inclusion advocacy websites and substituted with the term “individual”

Here’s why diversity and inclusion concepts create discrimination. If you have 100 people each of a different trait identified by those traits you are not allowed to give special privilege to or discriminate against, and you have 5 job openings, How are you going to determine who you hire? For every 5 people you hire, based on making sure you “include” one of each trait, or 1 person who has multiple traits who can count for several diverse traits, you have given those 5 people special privilege over the other 95 you choose to ignore based entirely on race, religion, ethnic group, gender, lifestyle, physical abilities, or sexual orientation groups that they represent. You have discriminated unlawfully against 95 people to give special privilege to 5. What happens when you get 100 more people each with 100 more different traits. Given the skill diversity, and talent range in any single “group” of individuals identified as a group by their race, religion, ethnic group, gender, lifestyle, physical abilities, or sexual orientation group that they represent, how can you possibly ensure the company gets “individuals” of the best skill and talent to fulfill their ambition and contribute to the success of their company and go as far as their ambition and talent allow? By law you must ignore everything except their skill and traits as individuals, or else you will discriminate and give special privilege based on race, religion, ethnic group, gender, lifestyle, physical abilities, or sexual orientation. For every individual you “privilege” and give special hiring consideration for based on these traits to meet a diversity or inclusion concept, you discriminate against another based on these same traits.

The courts currently rule that only strict, compelling and very narrowly defined reasons for preference must be clearly shown by evidence, other than to simply achieve diverse group quotas and racial, gender or ethnic group balances. Such “quota” concepts and numerical balancing concepts have been determined un-constitutional by Bakke (1978) and Grutter (2003) and Gratz (2003). Individuals are diverse, groups are not. Our US Constitution, the 14th amendment, and Bill of Rights gives equal consideration to all individuals, and not to groups. The Constitution protects individuals from discrimination “and special privilege given to others” by denying groups the right to force their special privileged rule of law on others not belonging to their racial, gender or ethnic group philosophy. It protects rights of individuals from discrimination and special privilege given to others and does not grant any person or group special privilege based on what group they affiliate with or belong to. It privides equal protection for ALL under the law, applied equally to ALL. If it does not, and any group or individual is left out that is unlawful. Discrimination is not about protecting rights of groups to have special considerations and special privileges based on race, gender and ethnicity, but to guarantee they are treated fairly without any reference or privilege to group, race, gender or country of origin. Diversity and inclusion are not equality. They are disguised forms of discrimination and privilege.

Be a man, door knock for Faisal (SOMEONE has to, he is too busy protesting in front of Paul Nichol’s house), write him a $2000 check, do SOMETHING for the guy you soooo strongly believe in. From what I have seen of you, you could use the exercise.

Somebody PLEASE bring a video camera in September and let’s make this a meeting Crapko, um, Kopko CANNOT forget. Bring your Marty Nohe signs, Julie Lucas signs, and let’s give this SOB the vote of no confidence he so rightfully deserves!!!

Just look what that convention, which Tom Kopko insisted upon…against the advice of many who had experienced previous iterations…has done to the party. The party is severely fractured. Why? Because of the aftermath.

By a very slim margin, the convention yielded an apparent “winner.” However, because of the thin margin, an appeal was filed. All was fine so far, but then, when a simple, unintentional, but result-changing personal error was discovered in the credentialing process, Tom Kopko has refused to set the record straight and designate the rightful Republican nominee.

Is there integrity there? No way, and THAT is not a part of the Republican party plan that I know. Absolutely disgusting…I don’t like to see it, but the PWC Republicans deserve to lose in November.

Isn’t it true that even Gill supporters are unhappy about how things went at the convention under Kopko’s leadership?

The GOP Committee’s Chairman Tom Kopko who favors conventions is either unqualified or uncapable of running one. Any chance Kopko will resolve the appeal for the 51st HOD convention before the general election?

As far as “scholarly articles”, for someone who CLAIMS to be a lawyer I find it hard to believe that ANYONE who is not MAN enough to litigate cases such as criminal or divorce cases is someone who spent money at a school for boys - is THAT where you got your Darth Vader costume, Jimmy, from your bunk mate? - and decided to take the EASY way out by working for a non-profit, could write a “scholarly article”. Aren’t non-profits the equivalent of the Peace Corps???

Face it, Jimmy, this ONE PAGE ALONE has MORE HITS than your entire website has had since its inception in Charles’ basement on a dark and lonely night. So, Jimmy, I think it is time that you leave the blogging to the professionals and have a nice cup of http://pics.livejournal.com/twoflower/pic/00023gph/g6

I suppose I would like to see the Help Save Manassas part of this blog called Bi-partisan. I see the issues of that organization as bi-partisan rather than Republican or Democrat. I am an independent and belong to no party. Been there, done that, don’t want to return.

Drawing a line in the sand along party lines really diffuses the issue of uncontrolled immigration and is a divider rather than a uniter of people with a common cause.

I just saw an “Ads by Google” ad at the top of the page for “Arabic Ring Tones.” I have no problem with Google hosting on AngryArab.Blogspot.com, but Google should host at BVBL also.

By any objective measure their website is more controversial than yours. For instance, they have pictures of civilians in Iraq screaming on the front page.

Of course, I am not sure what to do. Boycott Google? It seems pointless. Sue them? Not a libertarian approach. Since according to the Post you only made $1.50 per day anyway, maybe just find another ad vendor.

https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=23921

Putnam’s research would be consistent with the Liberal’s goal of having government assume all control and be in charge of everything. Creating civic malaise in the name of “diversity” would leave a vacuum of leadership and a requirement to just “make the trains run on time.” Voila, in step the Liberals with their promises to do everything for everyone, for a price, i.e., your paycheck and your freedom to dissent. It’s all clear to me now. Make sheep out of the population and it can be controlled without violence. In fact, the sheep will beg to be controlled.

The one thing they haven’t counted on is the Internet. They’ll try to take that over next, one way or another. Critical thinkers are their greatest fear. That’s why the MSM has been after Greg for interviews. One way or another, they will try to discredit and disarm him.

Oh. And several references to the guitarist for Styx (no relation, like the photographer).

I googled “NOT JY” and THIS is what I got:

http://www.emailjoke.com/inversion.html

Yeah, that’s about right.