Update II: No-WASP Scholarship (Whites: Wither!)

Affirmative Action, Ilana Mercer, Labor, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Multiculturalism, Outsourcing, Private Property, Race, Racism, The West

VDARE’S SLEUTHHOUND Rob Sanchez has uncovered a scandalous tidbit that might amaze even those (like himself) who deal daily with the workings of the Treason Class:

Bill Gates Scholarships Exclude White Kids [Poor whites too]

By Rob Sanchez, VDARE.COM

When I saw a webpage by the “National Policy Institute (NPI)” titled Bill Gates: White kids not eligible for my scholarships I thought it was just a baseless rant. The commentary didn’t provide any references which added to my skepticism that it was a hoax

Bill Gates has made his scholarship fund off limits to white teenagers. The Gates Millennium Scholarship fund is financed by a $1 Billion endowment Bill Gates made in 1999. The fund explicitly denies eligibility to white students.

“Students are eligible to be considered for a GMS scholarship if they: Are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian and Pacific Islander American, or Hispanic American;”

I decided to do some research in order to debunk this rumor before it starts racing through the internet. Much to my displeasure I confirmed that it’s true that the Bill Gates scholarship intentionally excludes white people. Actually it excludes many races besides Caucasian. Keep reading to understand how I came to that conclusion — and don’t worry — I will provide enough references to make your head spin!

The first place to go is the source — the Gates Millennium Scholarship home page. The NOMINEE PERSONAL INFORMATION FORM 2010 reveals a few disturbing surprises — scroll down to Item #8 where you will find that U.S. Residency is required, and then you must choose from the following choices:

* U.S. Citizen
* Permanent Resident / National

If you are a permanent resident or a foreign national you are required to enter your “COUNTRY OF CITIZENSHIP”. So, in other words you don’t have to be a U.S. Citizen but you do have to be a legal alien, which might mean nothing more than having a student visa. It might sound like anybody in the world is welcome to apply for the scholarship but item #9 quickly disproves that idealistic notion. My first impression is that somebody made a mistake on the form:

Race/Ethnicity – REQUIRED (YOU MAY CHECK ONLY ONE, EVEN IF YOU IDENTIFY WITH MORE THAN ONE OF THESE GROUPS. IF CHECKING AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKA NATIVE,ASIAN PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN, OR HISPANIC AMERICAN, ALSO IDENTIFY A TRIBE OR ETHNIC SUBGROUP IN THE BOXES PROVIDED.)

You must choose one of the following:

* African American
* American Indian / Alaska Native
* Asian Pacific Islander / American
* Hispanic American

By now you have noticed that “Caucasian” isn’t offered as a choice but at this point I thought it was a mere oversight. The FAQs page gives answers to some of the obvious questions:

If a person is applying for their permanent residence or U.S. Citizenship are they eligible to apply for the Gates Millennium Scholarship?

A student is eligible to apply for the Gates Millennium Scholarship if (he or she) is a citizen, national or legal permanent resident of the United States

What are the requirements for the American Indian/Alaska Native designation for Gates Scholar Nominees?

American Indian/Alaska Native students will be asked to provide proof of tribal enrollment or certificate of decent from a state of federally recognized tribe if selected as a GMS candidate finalist.

What are the eligibility criteria for the GMS program?

Students are eligible to be considered for a GMS scholarship if they:

• Are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian Pacific Islander American or Hispanic American • Are a citizen, national or legal permanent resident of the United States

What ethnic groups comprise Asian Pacific Islander Americans?

Asian Pacific Islander Americans include persons having origin from Asia and/or the Pacific Islands. Asian includes persons having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent. Pacific Islander includes persons having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawai’i, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. Citizens of the republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau are also eligible to be nominated.

The NPI report isn’t new news as you will see from the following papers.

Theodore Cross, writer at the The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, wrote a paper in 1999 that discusses the history of the Bill Gates scholarship: “Bill Gates’ Gift to Racial Preferences in Higher Education“. Make no mistake, Cross thinks it’s a darn good idea that Gates discriminates against whites, and he isn’t very subtle about it either:

Racial conservatives are correct. The huge billion-dollar Gates Millennium Scholarship program is racially discriminatory. The terms could not be cleaner. Whites may not apply!

Theodore Cross hasn’t been very sympathetic in other writings either: The Folly of Setting a Grand Theory Requiring Race Neutrality in All Programs of Higher Education“, 2000.

If you believe that there should be no room whatsoever for any race-conscious policies in higher education, have a careful look at the legions of university programs that are now in place. You may then change your mind. In fact, what you see may cast some doubt on the theoretical underpinnings of the Hopwood ruling banning all considerations of race in student admissions.

Cross has written many other papers, like for instance: “Barack Obama is the Superior Choice for African-American Voters“, 2007.

For the first time in the history of our country, a black man has a credible chance of becoming president of the United States. After the long nightmare years of slavery, lynchings, Jim Crow, and enduring race discrimination, one would expect that, in the upcoming presidential primary contest, Illinois Senator Barack Obama would be the overwhelming choice of black American voters.

I want to conclude with a few other opinions mostly because it’s interesting to see the cold and indifferent ways discrimination against Caucasians is discussed in academic circles, and how widely it’s understood that the Gates scholarship is discriminatory.

Towards an Establishment Clause Theory of Race-Based Allocation after Grutter: Administering Race-Conscious Financial Aid“, Maurice R. Dyson, Southern Methodist University, Law School, 2004

Thus, there is a multi-layered analysis of private choice. The private choice of donors to restrict aid on the basis of race and the private choice of scholarship recipients to direct the aid to whatever institution would be acceptable. This accounts for why a Gates Millennium scholarship or United Negro College fund might withstand strict scrutiny for each involves private donors and private recipients without any university intervention.

The Impact of the Gates Millennium Scholars Program on Selected Outcomes of Low-Income Minority Students: A Regression Discontinuity Analysis, Stephen L. DesJardins, Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, University of Michigan and Brian P. McCall, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota. October 2006

The Gates Millennium Scholars (GMS) program, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, was established in 1999 to improve access to and success in higher education for low-income and high-achieving minority students by providing them with full tuition scholarships and other types of support.

Estimates are provided for each of the minority groups covered by the scholarship (African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latino/a students).

Considering all of the open talk that has occurred for over a decade of time about the Gates scholarship, it’s truly amazing that whites have been so silent. Maybe they don’t care whether their kids get lucrative scholarships, or maybe they feel that designated minorities deserve preferences. Go figure!

[Rob Sanchez] @ 3:15 pm, 2 February 2010

Update I: The fact that this is Gates’ money and he has the right to use it as he pleases should never preclude discussion on the ethics of the man’s deed—a man who has the ear of the US legislature and who works tirelessly to displace American workers.

I’ve said it again and again: on this forum, the discussion does not end with the libertarian law. The real debate is whether civil rights law, which is on the books despite my opposition to such a species of law, ought to be used against this excuse of a man. Reasonable people will disagree on this matter.

Gates uses his influence to ensure taxpayer’s money is used to subsidize imported, redundant, cheap labor. His company is a labyrinth of well-policed, multicultural, volitionally adopted regulations. Some would argue that Hayim’s method is fair game; others will disagree.

Update II (Feb. 5): I find myself addressing and readdressing many of the same pet arguments to which readers prefer to cleave. What about a learning curve? Or, how about addressing the response I gave to a particular pet argument, instead of making me rehash it? That’s one way to advance the debate.

Or, we could compromise: I’ll keep addressing your oft-repeated pet argument. For my efforts and time, you, in return, can buy my book or donate to the site.

Myron, this is a repeat performance.

I agree that “voluntary affirmative action is perfectly acceptable by private firms, but far more problematic when undertaken by government.” Contrary to the civil servant, the private person’s freedom of association ought to be sacrosanct. State institutions don’t have the prerogatives of private property.

But you’ve already advanced the wickedly wrongheaded opinion that whites hurt by affirmative action are playing victim. Instead of petitioning the courts, they should go gentle into that good night. (Easy to say when you’re not one of those whites who gets tossed aside.)

You did so with respect to the case of Frank Ricci, a firefighter from New Haven, Connecticut. Ricci was denied a promotion because he bested all the blacks in the department on a test 77 other candidates took. City officials didn’t like the results, so they voided the test, and put the promotion on hold until a less sensitive test could be developed – one that better screened-out proficiency and ability.

I covered the issue in “Beware of Absolut Libertarian Lunacy.” Somewhere in the BAB archive is a thread similar to this one.

White men like Ricci are NOT seeking equality of results much as blacks do through coercive civil rights laws. Most are wronged for excelling. These whites are not petitioning for special favors; but against them. If anything, Ricci asked only that the city accept inequality of outcomes; accept that not all are created equal.

Flipping them the finger is worse than flippant; it’s twisted.

Back to what y’all can do to make up for my dedication to supplying you with a forum and patiently addressing repetition (such as Hugg’s devotionals to the Republican Party). The publisher of Broad Sides, who also supplies Amazon, tells me that those of you who spoke of buying the book in bulk for your errant friends and relatives most certainly have not done so.

I’m waiting.

Updated: Daddy Brown Creeps Me Out (He Should You Too)

Education, Etiquette, Family, Gender, Music, Republicans, Sex

It’s been my perception for some time that American fathers, generally, are sexually inappropriate with their daughters. The fault lies—again, generally—not so much with the hapless dad, but with these young, assertive females, taught by pedagogues and reinforced by parents and the culture that, “I’m like a sexual being” (uttered in Meghan-McCain like tart tones). The onus is on those around the girl to let her act out her sexuality 100% of the time—or so the consensus seems.

Repulsive. Improper. Unnatural.

However, Scott Brown, the man from Massachusetts who filled Kennedy’s sacred seat in the U.S. Senate, went beyond the call of an American dad’s duty in advertising his girls’ availability during his acceptance speech.

This picture of Brown with his girls, jutting boobs and all, certainly reinforces my view of impropriety (yuckiness).

More obscene than anything discussed here, however, is Ayla Brown’s singing. No, she’s not talented. Strained, bedroom groaning is not good singing. On the other hand, I guess it has its places …

Update (Feb. 4): The comment about my hailing from a once-Christian conservative country (South Africa, RIP), and thus not acclimatizing well to the hyper-sexual American family is completely off. It demonstrate to me that even conservative-minded readers are incorrigible cultural libertines.

It used to be the most basic of things that young women were modest about their sexuality around their fathers. The father-daughter relationship is a primary one for a girl. From it will develop all her future relationships with men. This is precisely why to me the specter of fems letting it all hang out around their fathers is disturbing. And why a father should know better (and Brown has carefully crafted his public image, including the pics he has released to media), and ought to be able to tell his proudly presenting girl, “Here’s my Hawaiian shirt, sweetheart, cover up.”

When you talk about restoring the middle-class family and its values, this is it. When you talk about returning America to a healthier time when parents where parents and not potential admirers or friends or sexual coaches, this is it.

For touting a slut like Kim Karsashian as a role model for “young girls” (read: budding sluts) because she doesn’t drink (but films herself adoringly copulating), Sean Hannity is a libertine. Am I from Another Culture to suggest this? Cultural conservatism used to be apple-pie American. Now my so-called culturally conservative readers find me quaint.

I despair. It’s beyond repair.

Incidentally, where on the continuum of tender (or, dare I say twisted) soft porn, suggestive, father-daughter tease are our wholesome Miley and Billy Ray Cyrus situated?

Updated: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell For Hets & Homos

Etiquette, Feminism, Gender, Homosexuality, Military, Sex

In his “State of the Union remarks, President Obama said he would work with Congress towards repealing the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law on which the policy is based.” The Generals, sitting in the front row, remained conspicuously stone-faced.

Today the news was all a-flutter when a politician in fatigues, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “made an impassioned plea for allowing gays to serve openly in uniform, telling a Senate panel it was a matter of integrity and that it is wrong to force people to ‘lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.'”

As the top- old dogs of the military are replaced by younger, more hip men, faces will soften on hearing such ludicrous ideas. So will the will.

The issue can be solved by returning the military to an earlier formation of disciplined men, united in common purpose. The ubiquity of women in the military has introduced into its ranks rampant, promiscuous sexuality. Combine youth, on-hand studs, testosterone, abundantly available loose women, and enabling laws—and you’ve created an assembly line of unwed, welfare moms, operating in a sexually charged atmosphere.

Remove women from the military, and you’ve removed the toxic effects straight women have on esprit de corps (and on rates of illegitimacy and welfarism).

In this kind of all-male outfit, there is no need to parade sexuality, straight or gay. Think of an all-boy school. Yeah, some hanky-panky goes on, but clandestinely.

Gay men who’ve chosen a military career are probably inclined to keep quiet about their sexual exploits. If he is the very poofy, prancing type, who doesn’t shut up about his beloved or bathhouse exploits; then our gay military man is probably unfit to serve.

As a wise woman said back in 2002, “The closet, sadly, has come to signify oppression, not discretion.”

I propose restoring indiscriminate discretion.

My answer to this facile debate is thus, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” for all military men, hets and homos.

Update (Feb. 4): A while ago “some industrious Army general in Iraq sought to limit the wages of whoring in the military. Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo III, quite reasonably, issued a policy on Nov. 4, 2009, ‘forbidding pregnancy among his soldiers.'” Cucolo was shot down by just about everyone. His, however, is a reflection of a healthy traditional morality. So screwed up have we become—so corrupt a culture are we mired in—that we think that our “civil rights”; in this case the right to fornicate, impregnate, procreate on the public dime, must accompany us wherever we peddle our sorry behinds.

I suspect most individuals who associate gays in the military with prancing poofs who feminize the force have a stereotypical view of gays. Homosexual men are not necessarily feminine. Men who join the army are seldom feminine. Among the vocal DADT advocates I’ve seen on TV, none was feminine; in fact most were way manlier than Markos Moulitsas, the editor of the Daily Curse, who has served.

The point is to restore decorum and morals to an army in which everyone is sexing it up. See? Back in the closet, hets and homos.

Updated: $3.8 Trillion Budget, All Borrowed

Barack Obama, Debt, Democrats, Economy

Courtesy of FoxNews, below is the “U.S. Federal budget fact sheet for fiscal year 2011.”

Remember: When government sports a ‘surplus,’ this implies that the political pickpockets have stolen more funds than they can possibly dream of spending. The property is not theirs to keep! Conversely, when ‘deficits’ are reported, this means that the kleptomaniacs have not been able to steal sufficient funds to cover their profligacy.”

Like Bush’s budgets, this one is borrowed.

Why Fox calls tax credits “tax cuts” is beyond me, although, judging from the questions GOPer posed to BHO the other day, they do not distinguish between the two.

HERE GOES:

Key Budget Facts

· Overall 2011 Spending: $3.834 trillion.

· 2011 Discretionary Spending: $1.415 trillion.

· 2011 Projected Deficit: $1.267 trillion or 8.3 percent of GDP (down from $1.556 trillion or 10.6 percent of GDP in 2010).

· 10-year Deficit Reduction: $1.2 trillion, excluding war savings.

· Tax Cuts: More than $300 billion in the next 10 years for individuals, families, and businesses.

Jumpstarting Job Creation and Helping Middle-Class Families

· The Budget reflects the President’s commitment to make job creation his top priority this year. The Budget includes $100 billion for immediate job-creating investments in small business tax cuts, infrastructure, and clean energy. This includes a new Small Business Jobs and Wages Tax Cut to spur small business hiring and wage increases; this will cost $33 billion.

· Extend for another year the broadest tax cut in American history – the Making Work Pay Tax Credit – for 110 million American families.

· Increase the child care tax break for middle-class families.

· Eliminate the tax on capital gains from new investments in small business.

· Extend through 2010 the Recovery Act provision that allows small businesses immediately to expense up to $250,000 of qualified investment.

Tough Choices

· A three-year spending freeze on non-security discretionary spending – a move that will save $250 billion over 10 years.

· More than 120 terminations, reductions, and savings for more than $20 billion of savings.

· A financial crisis responsibility fee on the nation’s largest financial institutions to repay the taxpayer for the extraordinary action taken through the TARP program, as well as to reduce the chance of future risky behavior – raising $90 billion over 10 years.

· Eliminate tax preferences for oil, gas, and coal companies – raising $40 billion over 10 years.

· Allow the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire for households making more than $250,000 – raising $678 billion over 10 years.

Education: Preparing Our Children for the Jobs of the Future

· $28 billion – a $3 billion increase – for programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), plus up to $1 billion in additional funding if Congress successfully completes a fundamental overhaul of the law. Together, these measures would represent the largest funding increase for ESEA programs ever requested.

· $1.35 billion to continue the President’s Race to the Top challenge and to expand the competition from states to school districts that are ready for comprehensive reform.

· $17 billion increase in Pell Grant funding from 2010.

Innovation, Infrastructure, Science, and Technology: New Industries and New Jobs

· $61.6 billion in civilian R&D, an increase of $3.7 billion or 6.4 percent.

· Over $100 billion in aid to states and localities for infrastructure investment.

· A new $4 billion dollar National Infrastructure Innovation & Finance Fund to focus on infrastructure investments of national and regional significance.

· Over $6 billion in funding for clean energy technologies, most of which focuses on research, development, and demonstration.

Keeping America Safe

Defense and Diplomacy

· $33.0 billion for a 2010 supplemental request and $159.3 billion for 2011 to support ongoing overseas contingency operations, including funds to implement the President’s strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

· DOD family support programs grow more than 3 percent over the 2010 enacted level, to $8.8 billion.

· State Department funding, excluding war costs, is up 2.6 percent.

Homeland Security

· Department of Homeland Security funding up 2 percent to $43.6 billion.

· $734 million to support the deployment of up to 1,000 new Advanced Imaging

Technology (AIT) screening machines at airport checkpoints and new explosive detection equipment for baggage screening.

· Funding to increase the number of international flights covered by Federal Air Marshals to defend against attempted attacks on aviation.

Veterans Affairs

· Record funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs; the Budget builds on the historic increase in funding for the VA with a 20 percent total increase since 2009.

· $50.6 billion in advance appropriations for the VA medical care program so that care for the Nation’s veterans is not hindered by budget delays.

Update (Feb. 2): Peter Schiff on BHO’s plan for America:

“Rather than tightening the reins on the reckless monetary policy that undermined our savings, diminished our industrial output, inflated asset bubbles, and led to reckless speculation on Wall Street and excess consumption on Main Street, we are loosing them further. Rather than repealing regulations that distort markets and create moral hazards, we are adding new ones that do more of the same. Rather than cutting government spending to reduce the burden it places on our economy, we are increasing both the amount of the spending and the size of the burden. Rather than making government smaller so that the private sector can grow, we are making government bigger and forcing the private sector to shrink. Rather than paying off our debts we are taking on even more. Rather than encouraging people to save we are enticing them to spend. Rather than creating jobs, we are merely creating unemployment benefits.

As a result, instead of seeding the soil for a real recovery we are setting the stage for a prolonged depression.”