Monday, July 22, 2013

Obama's - and everyone 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?" ( )

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.


No comments: