Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Obama's - and everybody else's - ethnic ID

This post updates the change in the method used by the federal government to define racial classifications. It comes from the post in the Federal Register by the US Census Bureau. You don't want to miss this . . . it's America's next BIG story about affirmative action.


Kenneth E. Lamb

++++++++++++

As a matter of integrity, I must update my findings by telling you that the US Census Bureau changed the definition of "race" for classification purposes. You'll find it in the Federal Register. The quotes following are from them:

Race is no longer defined by "genealogical or anthropological" characteristics as illustrated in my article. Race is now a matter of "sociopolitical self-identification." The Bureau now allows an individual to classify him- or her- self by as many, and whatever, "sociopolitical self-identification" classification(s) appeals to the individual. You can be African-American today, change your mind and be Native-American tomorrow, add Asian the day following, and toss them all out the next day and classify yourself whatever you please the day after that.

So as it stands now with this change in the law, Sen. Obama is legally anything he wants to be. Any of us are; more on that in a moment.

The effect of this was meant to give minority-gerrymandered districts more foundation by removing requirements that challenges to them rest upon the ability of district residents to "prove their lineage" and thus validate their minority status. In sympathy to the Bureau, it's reasonable to believe that coming up with birth records from say, the former South Viet Nam, or Myanmar, to prove Asian minority status, might prove daunting.

The same is true for America's African-American population. I won't go into it too deeply now, but here is a short explanation how it affects that particular segment of American society:

While there may be some states that do not do what follows, I am not aware of any:

States do not allow the mother of a child to claim a father's name on the birth certificate unless the father acknowledges paternity, either by being married at the time of birth, voluntarily admitting paternity, or through a court order assigning paternity.

The most recent figure on black illegitimacy that I am aware of is about 70%. You can figure this out for yourself; if your lineage is from a series of illegitimate births, as we now have with our multi-generational welfare underclass, with no father named on the certificate, how do you prove your "genealogical or anthropological" characteristics if the father is not listed through multiple generations of birth certificates?

Birth certificates lacking a father at high rates also apply to Hispanics as well, although not yet to that level. The reasoning is not only illegitimacy per se, but also the institution of some immigrants seeking to stay in America by having a child on US soil, thus creating an American citizen through that birth.

Either way, how do you prove your minority status if half your lineage through multiple generations doesn't exist on paper?

Please note especially that this is a "change" in the method of defining racial classification. My research was based on the rules before the Census Bureau changed the rules. For those defiling my work, go research for yourself what was the method the Bureau used before it made its "change" in classification methodology.

As the ignorance of the Obama apologists in this blog and other forums demonstrate, America is now to the point that the truth doesn't matter anymore. Just look at the referenced Chicago Tribune article about Mr. Obama's autobiography, and you see for yourself that "An Inconvenient Truth" is not the sole domain of any one political brand.

The reason there were definite standards defining racial classification was to keep the use of affirmative action programs, set-asides, and racial quotas enforceable by keeping out whites who tried to claim minority status. If you take people to court to deny them a seat in the classroom, you must have a defined set of characteristics in law to explain why those people do not qualify for the set-aside. It's too bad so many of America's so-called "intelligentsia" are too dense to get past that rather obvious legal construct.

If all it takes is a claim of, as one recently said, "a single drop of blood," then you have just set up a legal definition of what it takes to qualify as a member of the minority group.

In my own experience with my research, one after another Obama supporter attacked my work because they didn't like the criteria I cited; too bad, take it up with the courts. How do you think they kept whites out of Harvard who claimed to be blacks? They did it by saying the whites didn't have any black in their lineage. That then raises the question of how much black they needed to be classified as blacks. That is where the 1/8 (12.5%) rule of law came from. And it is that 1/8 rule that the Census Bureau tossed out the window in its "change."

Now the rule of law is "sociopolitical self-identification."

It escapes many Obama supporters that you must have a legal definition if you plan to enforce a law. Apparently, the Obama supporters ranting against my article missed the concept that the law is not allowed to be "arbitrary and capricious" - it must be defined, clearly, so that everyone knows when it does, and when it does not, apply.

It's truly scary to read these people and see they completely fail to grasp the idea that the law consists of definitions, or else you can't enforce the law. How else do you think you determine if an applicant for a set-aside qualifies if you don't have a legal definition of what it takes to meet the set-aside criteria? Yes, they are truly scary spouting off their brain-dead, hate-filled bigotries.

Unfortunately, this new twist to defining race is about to prove a major problem for many sectors of society. Let's start with Federal set-aside programs.

Now that anyone is able to classify him-or her- self by their own, private, "sociopolitical self-identification," anyone can legally cash in on these minority-directed programs. If there is a set-aside for African-Americans, just check the box because you feel that your "sociopolitical self-identification" is African-American that day. It's now all perfectly legal.

Couldn't get into the college of your choice because you didn't get past the minority set-aside hurdle? No problem; if you feel that your personal, private, "sociopolitical self-identification" is one of the targeted minority groups, well, go ahead and check the box. With the legal criteria now "sociopolitical self-identification," the days of Harvard, and the University of Michigan, or any of the other hundreds of institutions of higher education throwing you out when you show up white to fill one of their black set-asides is over. You met the legal definition. What are they going to argue in court now that your "genealogical or anthropological" characteristics aren't legal standards for defining racial classification?

I'll let the brains of America's shrinking cadre of affirmative action advocates work on that for a while. It will be breaking nationally soon enough.

Now a couple of very quick responses:

1) I have to admit I'm amazed at the circulation my research got. However, I often see it with a headline authored by someone other than me, and this causes problems because people reading the picked up article think I wrote the inflammatory headline.

My headline is: "Barack Obama: Washington Post, Chicago Tribune investigations confirm autobiography lies; now asking: Is "African-American" a lie too?" ( http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/2008/02/barak-obama-questions-about-ethnic.html )

I note that particularly for those posters who did not comprehend that those first-tier news organizations are the source for much of the article. That's why I included their links. Too bad those of you trashing it didn't pick up on that validation of the article's contents. Perhaps you find reading articles that make your prejudices into lies too disconcerting. For you, it's just easier to hate, and run.

2) Many, many, people need a course in African culture before commenting on my work. For example, one poster named Kent Paul Dolan (you can Google him and find out he is a newspaper comics freak) is typical. He, and so many like him need a course in the realities of racial and ethnic segregation as practiced in Africa. Have you yet noticed the fierce tribal identities that cause the bloodbath in Darfur? Perhaps you missed the slaughter along tribal lines in Rwanda? Or the Congo? Or the Ivory Coast?

To Mr. Dolan, and others like him, Arabs do not intermarry with African Negroes in Kenya, or anywhere else in Africa. And neither do African Negroes intermarry with Arabs. Your ignorance of the realities of the African continent is appalling.

Which brings up the New York Times-created legend of Barack Obama's great grandmother. The "black" Obama "great-grandmother" trotted out by the NY Times is his "step" great grandparent. She is therefore not in his bloodline. It's a point the Times didn't dwell upon, just as they didn't bother to go to his father's relatives in the capital and show off their Arab characteristics and family photos.

This brings up another point about the senator’s father. Please note that the Times ran into a serious problem describing his father's relationship with a woman in Kenya that existed when he married "Barry's" mother in Hawaii. It turns out that Mr. Obama was already married to the Kenyan (who was not African Negro either.). That makes Senator Obama the product of a bigamous marriage. And we all know what that means as far as the legality of the marriage and the legitimacy of the marriage's offspring.

I had to laugh watching them wordsmith the relationship with the Kenyan woman as "unclear" and end up calling her his "consort."

And what is the definition of a "consort?" According to the dictionary, it is a spouse. Leave it to the NY Times to be so conflicted about telling the truth about Sen. Obama's situation, that they resort to using their own "unclear" description to paper over it.

-30-

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Could you please provide a link to the source data, the actual genealogy and source documents that indicate the predominantly Arab heritage of Obama's ancestors? Thank you.

Anonymous said...

I reviewed the Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/1997standards.html

and I am unable to find exactly where you came up with your interpretation of it.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I second that request.

I'm a libertarian; and although I think McCain is a disaster, Obama is downright frightening; especially with a Dem-majority congress.

The 'steamroller of government' comes to mind. I'd much rather see chaos and gridlock in DC than any kind of 'effective' government. We need fewer laws and agencies, not more.

In any case, you called this an 'update', but it isn't. It doesn't add new info; and again fails to provide links to hard source docs.

I'd VERY much like to be able to point people to indisputable FACTS on his Arabic background; and more generally how he's lied in presenting himself.

thanks much.

ps; if you don't actually have them, then please just say so. Without accessible docs, or refs to clear statements in MSM outlets which have to back up their stories or suffer lawsuit, your posts/claims have no real value to the fight.

Stop Racism said...

As an American you should be ashamed to post such hatred and discrimination… It seems as if your just afraid of an AFRICAN AMERICAN to be our President. Sen. Obama is still a American regardless if he has a percentage of Arab ancestry. Your posts are disgusting and your site should be shut down immediately because you have provided no facts. It’s obvious that you and your mindless followers are so uncertain about McCain securing a victory. People like you keep racism alive. Just disgusting… I cant wait to read your blog after Obama wins.

Anonymous said...

It is not hateful or racist to point out someone's true race, but it is racist to assume that everyone who comes from Africa is African; or that Obama gives a damn about blacks because his skin is dark. You know for a group of people who beat the drum of equality and tolerance...Democrats are very good about making assumptions base on their own generalizations based on skin color, gender, or religion.

Personally I don't care if Obama is Arab, but I do care that he runs from and blatantly lies about it. Not to mention that his Kenyan relations essentially have dictatorial powers in that country; and that on his mama's side of the family tree you will find Churchill, Madison, JFK, and George Bush Sr & Jr.

We need to stop pretending that Obama isn't hiding something, that he isn't a well connected and privileged individual. We need to stop acting like he is the messiah and he is going to save this country...

vrajavala said...

according to genealogist, Dr.Leroy Vaughn, there have been 5 black American presidents thus far. Thomas Jefferson,Andrew Jackson (whose own brother was sold as a slave, Abraham Lincoln, Warren harding and Calvin Coolidge. He is investigating Dwight D.Eisenhower, but hasn't yet confirmed. You can google it.

Anonymous said...

Add my voice to the request for proof of Obama's Arab background.

I do this knowing it doesn't exist.

There is a slim possibility that he has some Omani Arab blood in his background, just as there is a possibility that decendents of African slaves have some European blood. But even this is unlikely as his family is from the Western parts of Kenya--parts that saw very little contact, let alone colonization by Omanis.

Anonymous said...

Personally I agree...I don't care if a president is Black, White, Purple, Green, or any color or Race for that matter. What matters to me is the kind of person they are...Are they the kind that will do great things for the US? Are they the kind that would drive us deeper into the Recession that has begun? Obama's Problem isn't his Race...It's the fact that he lied the whole way through his campaign and into the White House. He has already begun to go in the opposite direction than what he has proposed during his campaign. President Obama needs to admit to his actions. and face the consiquenses. I swear each and every election we get worse with who we have in office.

Anonymous said...

That is what is wrong with America.America is a racist nation built on racist ideas of white supremecy.I am African American and to me whites are so afraid of this brother winning the presidency under claimming to be an African American.Obama is right his father is an African from Kenya and his mother is an American white women from Kansas.So therfore his is African American.Arab are related to African people down the line,we even call each other brother and sister.

Proud American of Spanish decent said...

This is to ANONYMOUS and anyone else who wants to call themselves, AFRICAN AMERICAN...
The majority of the blacks in America (probably over 95%)were not born in Africa - including, Obama. So, if this is true, then that term would not be correct. Obama and the majority of blacks in the US should be called American of African decent. It's funny how 'ANONYMOUS' and the liberal news media like to call all blacks, African Americans and all light skinned people are clumped into one group called whites.
If you are born in Africa and move here and become a US citizen then you would call yourself an African American. Think about it...if what you say is correct, then someone from Africa should be called an African African American. If we are going to be a Nation of one and there is going to be "change", then it needs to start with El Presidente - he is an American first and foremost and then whatever else he wants to call himself second. The same goes for the rest of you who want to be treated equal but be called something different.
It's time we hear all of you, including Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Obama call themselves a Proud American...I think we all know your ethnic background...you certainly don't need a label!
There are very few people who can call themselves African American, Asian American, Irish American, Russian American and so on. If you were born here then the correct terminology would be American of whatever decent!

Anonymous said...

I am a white woman from Kansas too. The subject is lying. Taking a true African-Americans place when he is NOT an African-American.
If only so many AA's were accepted in Harvard, who's position did Obama take? Why won't he show us his birth certificate? I am not prejudice, I take people for who they are, not what race they are. We all are of one race, the human race.My son is Puerto-Rican, he has blonde hair and blue eyes,not for a second would I ever not say he was biologically his father's son, whom I loved very much. Wise up fellow Americans, don't be lied to, and why is the birth certificate hidden? Obama is our president, I want the copy with the seal of Hawaii produced!Do your homework,look into Abe Lincolns, T.Jeffersons family lines they were AA's.

thruwithliars said...

These are written by a disillutioned American woman who doesn't care to be lied to, and neither should the rest of us. I am appalled by all of Obamas lies, as I voted for him too,unfortunately at the time of the election I had recently come out of a coma, but I'm certainly not going to let the color of anyone's skin,nor anyone elses let my mind sail out the window. Aren't we all tired of being lied to by politicians?

HE IS NOW THE PRESIDENT. WHAT'S THE BIG SECRET? WHY WON"T YOU SHOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE? DOES HAWAII HAVE ONE? LET'S SEE IT WITH THE STATE HAWAII SEAL ON IT. NOT SOME SO-CALLED COPY YOU HAVE. LOT'S OF US VOTED FOR YOU,AND DONATED MONEY TO YOUR CAMPAIGN. IF YOU CARE SO MUCH ABOUT "YOUR" AFRICAN-AMERICAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS AS YOU SAY YOU DO. THEN SHOW ALL OF US YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE. IF THIS ISN'T A LAW, THEN LET'S GET ONE PASSED, WE DESERVE THE TRUTH. WE ALL DESERVE THE TRUTH. NO MATTER WHAT COLOR OUR SKIN IS.IF YOU'RE NOT HIDING ANYTHING,THEN WHY CAN'T WE SEE IT? SOMETHING'S WRONG ABOUT ALL THIS SECRECY.

Joan of Argghh! said...

@Anon 01:51

I went to your link and found this in para B1, within about 30 seconds:

1. The racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standards should not be interpreted as being primarily biological or genetic in reference. Race and ethnicity may be thought of in terms of social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry.

Even scarier is B2:
2. Respect for individual dignity should guide the processes and methods for collecting data on race and ethnicity; ideally, respondent self-identification should be facilitated to the greatest extent possible, recognizing that in some data collection systems observer identification is more practical.

This last sort of recommendation leaves the census-taker blameless for whatever they wish to ascribe to a respondent.

Want power, dear Republicans? Work for the Census bureau this time around. It's not like anyone has a real job anymore.

JOHN said...

government or law cannot tell you who you are. it is one of the most immoral acts i can think of.

And so, self identification MUST to play a MAJOR part in ethnicity but not the SOLE.

the world has changed- for you old folks.. People of diverse RACE are brought up to be of different ETHNICITY according to where they were born and raised. Hence why Census Bureau must adapt accordingly.

Claim of ethnic minority related privileges being taken advantage of by the ethnic majority may sound plausible (and scary!!), it is far fetched. I say this as the new Standards for classification stance is clear:

"ideally, respondent self-identification should be facilitated to the greatest extent possible, recognizing that in some data collection systems observer identification is more practical."

it clearly recognizes the NEED for self-identification.

There is a difference between race and ethnicity sir, hence entry quota into Harvard (or whatever) will be based on genetics- race (whatever % they decide to incorporate)

as far as Obama and ethnicity goes, if Obama feels he is AA- and has african blood in him (no matter how small, yes 1% will be sufficient in defining ethnicity) he can rightfully claim so. We are in NO position to define what he is.

Anonymous said...

He has admitted he does not know who his father is. Listen to the 0:43 mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh7xMhsLnac

luvsiesous.com said...

John,

But, if you self-identify as a muslim Arab but tell the people are you are African American and a Christian, you have a much better chance winning the election ....

Don't you think?

Wayne

luvsiesous.com

Anonymous said...

Anyone remember when they went digging up Damien Thorne's mother's grave in The Omen??
Wonder where this is all leading. No one seems to be interested in the truth anymore. Deeds not words, people! Noones allowed to know anything about this man's past except for what he delivered in his memoirs. By the way who thinks their life is so important that they deserve to publish such before the age of 40? Wake up please. This isn't the high school popularity contest of who's hip. Its the difference of having the mean aunt who cares for you babysit rather than the cool girl next door is position. This position is for arguably the most powerful leader in the world and I guess Americans will get exactly what they deserve. Please grow up.

Anonymous said...

The things about the previous black presidents are unverified.
Jefferson- The claims came from a book portraying him as a Southern bumpkin.
Jackson- Wrong Jackson- the one that was mentioned was a former slave from Kentucky.
Lincoln- Although his mother was indeed of mysterious heritage, Lincoln believed she was the child of a planter and a certain Lucy Hanks.
Harding- Rumor from an election.
Coolidge- His mother's last name
(Moor) referred to semi-Africans, but the name is so common it's hard to say for sure.
Eisenhower-No proof, ancestry makes these claims impossible
Look what I found looking through Kenya Birth Certificates!
http://tinyurl.com/cu3t2cv