An Easy Way To Ensure Unbiased College Admissions

Anonymity.

Make ALL applications anonymous.

It’s just… that… simple.

And, it’s EASILY facilitated!

Simply ID the applicant/prospective student by the first letter initials of their name, e.g., ABC, their birth date, e.g., 01022023, and the last four digits of their Social Security Number, or Alien Registration Number, e.g., 1234.

Thus, candidate “Iwannabe Funkybean Gobbledygook” would be IFG01022023-1234, or IFG010220231234, or IFG-01022023-1234, or similarly — even with last name first, GIF01022023-1234, or GIF010220231234, etc. Candidate “Al-Shaz Baraz el Hominy Jones-Smith” would be ASBHJS, ABHJS, or JSASBH, JSABH, or similarly.

It’s just ENTIRELY TOO EASY!

Our brethren in the UK have done so –and– they’ve also made job applications anonymous.

In a news article by Education Reporter Judith Burns published on the BBC News site 26 October 2015, she wrote that “Candidates’ names will be removed from university application forms from 2017,” and cited Prime Minister David Cameron’s OpEd, published in The Guardian Monday, 26 October 2015 02.00 EDT, which in part, read “We have already persuaded big employers to make job applications name-blind. Now universities will do the same.”

He wrote:

“At the Conservative party conference two weeks ago, I spoke about a young black woman who had to put a more white-sounding name on her CV before she started getting called for interviews. Such racism in 21st-century Britain, I said, was a disgrace, and I committed our party to ending discrimination and finishing the fight for real equality. The audience rose to their feet. It was a significant moment. And it provoked three reactions.

“The first was:

#Abortion Is A #Religious Matter

Your remark “in God we trust” has validated what I wrote, which is that “Abortion is a religious matter. It is NOT one for the government.”

On a strictly PERSONAL RELIGIOUS level, I oppose abortion. And yet, as a strictly legal, Constitutional matter, I acknowledge that our United States Supreme Court has decided that we the people have the FREEDOM to make deeply personal decisions for ourselves, WITHOUT governmental interference.

Imagine, if you can, if the government told you that you must have a tubal ligation, or that you must have a hysterectomy… or, for a man, that he must have a vasectomy, or an orchidectomy (surgical removal of the testicles) so that they could no longer reproduce. Would you like that? Would you think that would be good? What if your neighbor could

South Carolina BBQ Restaurant Chain Refuses to Serve Blacks Claiming Religious Objection

SC Restaurant Owner Refuses To Serve Blacks, Cites Religious Beliefs

July 2, 2014
By Manny Schewitz

In South Carolina, a BBQ restaurant owner (Maurice’s Piggy Park BBQ) claimed that he was within his rights to refuse service to blacks based on his religious beliefs. In the case brought before the Supreme Court, Maurice Bessinger stated that his religion required him to keep black people from eating in his restaurant, although he was perfectly OK with taking their money, so long as they ordered their food to-go.

The attorney representing the petitioners suing Piggie Park also addressed in court the “First Amendment religious privilege claim that petitioner asserted that his religion required him” to deny service to black customers.

“I’m just a fair man. I want to be known as a hard-working, Christian man that loves God and wants to further (God’s) work throughout the world as I have been doing throughout the last 25 years.” (Source)

And now for you who actually took the time to read the story instead of basing your outrage solely off a headline before sharing with an ALL CAPS blurb of “SEE? I TOLD YOU THE SOUTH WAS FULL OF RACISTS!!!”, this case was

It’s all about the money… says Hobby Lobby Store Lawyer Paul D. Clement to SCOTUS.

Here, all along, we’ve been made to believe that Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. – a privately held firm headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, which boasts themselves “as a major private corporation in Forbes and Fortunes list of America‘s largest private companies,” – objects on religious grounds (even though their owners are Protestant) to providing insurance coverage to their employees, which insurance includes coverage for female contraceptives.

Here is their attorney – Paul D. Clement, himself the 43d former Solicitor General of the United States – arguing their case:

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Docket Number: 13-354
Date Argued: 03/25/14

Growing America’s Middle Class and Increasing Profitability

Some time ago, a friend shared an unsolicited comment about “ObamaCare” before all the ruckus over it had reached the SCOTUS. He had observed about a fellow he knew and described as “a snaggle-toothed Tennessee hillbilly,” whom had joined the United States Army. He observed that the fellow had some health needs, among them poor dentition and the need for corrective lenses. Upon his enlistment, he noted that the fellow was given proper healthcare, and all of his needs – food, clothing, housing, and healthcare – was provided by the United States government.

“Now, why did they do that?,” he asked rhetorically.

Answering his own question, he said quite simply, “because they know

Perversions of Justice & Twisted Interpretations of Our Constitution by Activist Judges

Once, upon a time (in my lifetime), there was little to no need for $uch $pending as we recently witnessed in the November 2012 General Election.

Formerly, Pre$ident$ and Congre$$ were elected without much money.

Now, due in large part to

Dope-Sniffing Dogs (and their Law Enforcement owners) get their day in the United States Supreme Court

The so-called “conservative,” or Republican justices are showing their true colors.

Welcome to their police state.

—

Drug-Sniffing Dogs Have Their Day in Court as Justices Hear 2 Arguments

By ADAM LIPTAK

October 31, 2012

WASHINGTON — In back-to-back arguments about drug-sniffing dogs, the Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed open to limiting their use outside homes but not near cars.

The first argument concerned Franky, a chocolate Labrador retriever who detected the smell of marijuana outside a Florida house. The police obtained a warrant to search the house based on Franky’s signal, and they found a marijuana-growing operation inside.

The court’s four liberal justices all asked questions that were skeptical of allowing dogs to sniff around near homes without probable cause. They were joined by one of the court’s conservatives, Justice Antonin Scalia, who sometimes staked out positions more protective of homeowners’ privacy than the lawyer for the defendant in the case.

The Supreme Court has said the privacy of the home is at the core of what is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches. Justice Scalia is the author of the majority opinions in both a 5-to-4 decision in 2001 limiting the use of thermal-imaging technology to peer into homes and a unanimous ruling in January, on varying rationales, limiting the use of GPS tracking devices on cars.

Justice Scalia’s opinion in the second case was based on

Yes, it’s perfectly legal to lie to police.

Doubtless, at one time or another, many of us have read or heard of individuals being charged with “lying to police,” “giving false information to a Law Enforcement Officer,” or any of the other numerous charges which go by similar names.

Initially, the Miranda v Arizona case made it clear that according to our Constitution, one had no compunction or legal requirement to speak with police. What that illustrates is refusal, not dishonesty. However, the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Stolen Valor Act case reinforced the notion that, unless one is under oath, lying – blatant dishonesty – is perfectly legal. Here’s how.

The “Stolen Valor Act of 2005” (Public Law 109-437) sought to

Republican Father of ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate Denies He Ever Created It

Liar.

Weasel.

Republican.

Can you smell the hypocrisy cooking?

—

Column: Don’t blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate

By Stuart Butler

Updated 2/6/2012 10:40 AM

Is the individual mandate at the heart of “ObamaCare” a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no. {ed. note: That’s utter bullshit, which you’ll understand why as you read on.}

Stuart Butler, By Kate Patterson, USA TODAY (The liar looks happy as a lark, doesn’t he? Apparently, there’s no joy in Mudville.)

The U.S. Supreme Court will put the middle issue to rest. The answers to the first and last can come from me. After all, I headed Heritage’s health work for 30 years. And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare “adopts the ‘individual mandate’ concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation,” Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate “has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation.” Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.

The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that

Health Insurance Rebates – i.e. overcharges you paid for Health Insurance Premiums – on their way back into your wallet, thanks to “ObamaCare”!

A HUGE aspect of “ObamaCare” deals with regulating Health Insurance companies, and one aspect of that business regulation REQUIRES them to use 80% of the premiums for Health Insurance on… HEALTH! Not overhead expenses, not executive compensation, not stockholder payout, not office expenses, not advertising… but HEALTH!

What a novel idea, eh?

As a result, folks are now discovering just how much they’ve been screwed over by Insurance companies.

Remember… those folks DO NOT LOVE YOU.

They LOVE MONEY, and they want yours.

So, they play to your emotions by showing kitty cats, puppy dogs, babies, children, grandma and happy folks as seen through rose-colored glasses & soft-focus filters.

And then, you fall for their seductive pictures.

Once they have their meat-hooks in your wallet, you’re a goner.

Pure & simple.

—

U.S. health insurers to pay $1.1 billion in rebates: HHS

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON | Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:26pm EDT

(Reuters) – U.S. health insurance companies are due to pay out $1.1 billion in rebates to employers and individuals this summer, under a new industry regulation imposed by President Barack Obama’s health care law, the administration said on Thursday.

But whether the rebates actually reach those recipients depends on if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in a ruling expected by the end of next week, experts said.

Twenty-six U.S. states have asked the high court to

To send $25 to the political candidate of your choice, text “GO” to 43468

Here’s your WTF moment.

It’s not as if our nation doesn’t have enough problems already with unlimited political donations, Super PACs, and the concern for the influx of money from foreign concerns – although, SCOTUS justice Samuel Alito mouthed otherwise during the 2010 State of the Union address given by President Obama.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens – in a speech at the University of Arkansas – said that,

“[T]he Court must then explain its abandonment of, or at least qualify its reliance upon, proposition that the identity of the speaker is an impermissible basis for regulating campaign speech,” Stevens said Wednesday night, according to prepared remarks. “It will be necessary to explain why the First Amendment provides greater protection to the campaign speech of some non-voters than to that of other non-voters.”

He further noted that the court’s majority opinion in the Citizens United case, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, specifically did NOT address the possibility that foreign entities could bankroll U.S. elections.

There are – believe it, or else – Supreme Court Justices with level heads. One of them is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She petitioned the SCOTUS to reconsider the Citizens United case, arguing that by granting certiorari, it “will give the court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”

If you think we have difficulty tracing campaign contributions now, just wait.

Now, the Federal Election Commission is about to open wide the doors to…

—

FEC Poised to Allow Campaign Donations Via Texts

June 7, 2012, 5:10 PM, By Amy Schatz

Giving money to political candidates could soon be just a few taps away, thanks to federal campaign-finance officials who are close to approving a plan to allow political donations via text message.

Several Federal Election Commission commissioners signaled their interest in approving a plan from two political consulting firms to allow campaigns to accept donations via text message at a meeting Thursday.
The FEC rejected a similar wireless industry proposal to allow text message donations two years ago but

Tilting with the wind? Is the SCOTUS driving America back to Jim Crow?

As I’ve said before, some folks often say they want to “take America back.”

Problem is, they never tell you how far back they wanna’ go.

Before Civil Rights?

Before Suffrage?

While you may not be a religious person, there is a lesson in the Scripture that addresses “going back” – and we all know we CAN’T go back, it’s impossible.

The book of Ecclesiastes, chapter 7, verse 10 says, “Don’t ask, “Why were things better in the old days than they are now?” It isn’t wisdom that leads you to ask this!” (GWT)

We can’t go back in our childhood, we cant’ go back to yesterday, yesteryear or back in time in any way. We all move forward. We are meant for FORWARD travel. It should seem obvious from even natural observation.

That’s why we have eyes in the FRONT of our face, rather than in the rear.

—

Retired federal judge blasts direction of U.S. Supreme Court

Published: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 5:45 PM
Updated: Monday, May 21, 2012, 7:05 AM
By Thomas Spencer — The Birmingham News

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama — Once a guardian of civil rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has been rolling back those protections, said retired U.S. District Judge U.W. Clemon this evening, delivering the keynote address at the 2012 Law Enforcement and Civil Rights Conference presented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute.

Clemon, who in 1980 became the first black federal judge in Alabama, said since the 1986 appointment of William Rehnquist as chief justice, Supreme Court rulings have gutted the core of landmark decisions such as Brown v. the Board of Education, the landmark ruling that declared school segregation to be illegal. The Voting Rights Act, Clemon said, “has almost been interpreted out of existence.

“With the rise of the Rehnquist court, our wall against the flood became the flood itself. We have seen, in the past quarter century, civil rights on the scaffold.”

The conference,

News: Mitt Romney to attempt to buy November General Election

Among political observers of all stripe, there is broad consensus that the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, will continue to negatively affect the political process.

Some years ago I held that the only way to completely eliminate the corrupting influence of money in our political process was to allow donations – even in unlimited amounts as Super PACs do – and to place all funds in one pool, and divide the funds equally among all candidates. By so doing, candidates and incumbents would not have to be concerned with raising money for election campaigns. In essence, what we have now is a perpetual campaigning process in which elected officials continuously attend functions where money is raised, and in some cases transferred personally. Many of them have publicly expressed great distress at the time it takes away from their ability to govern and to perform the duties and responsibilities for which they were elected.

In essence, what we would have is a public/private partnership pool, which could have the best of both worlds.

Candidates could

Gerald Dial, Alabama State Senator, Wa$te$ Taxpayers’ Time & Money Writing Religious Law, Readying Federal Fight

Some folks just want to “out-Jesus” each other.

It’s as if they attempt to demonstrate by their actions that they love Jesus more than someone else… especially and particularly if they make efforts in the public square.

Christ called such behavior a type of hypocrisy, warning that such prayers were already answered – but not by the Almighty, but rather by humans – because that’s who they chose to pray to. “And when you pray, be not like the pretenders who like to stand in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets to pray, that they may be seen by the children of men, and truly I say to you, they have received their reward.”

Truly, I say to you, dear reader, this type behavior disgusts me more than I have words adequate to describe.

Not only that, but the ninnies and nincompoops demonstrate that they have absolutely nothing better to do, and are not about the people’s business, but rather are about their own private agenda. They’re wasting time and money on worthless things. They’re neither visionary, nor reactionary.

They’re just plain, old, STUPID.

Every damn one of ’em.

Besides, if I wanted live under some religious law, I’d move to a country where that crap went on.

Idiots all.

It’s time Alabama voters had a recall law, because many of ’em would be. At the very least, we should place term limitations upon them, just like we did upon the office of the governor.

Supporters say proposal could allow Ten Commandments to be displayed on state property

Published: Tuesday, March 06, 2012, 5:35 PM     Updated: Tuesday, March 06, 2012, 6:12 PM

By David White — The Birmingham News

MONTGOMERY, Alabama — Some state senators said a bill passed by a Senate committee today would change Alabama’s constitution to say, in effect, that