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-
