Unconstitutional, illegal, anti-white discrimination/pro-minority privilege is even institutionalized within law dictionary definitions! The following passage comes from a Tennessee study on the costs of capital vs. non-capital first-degree murder cases.

The Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure differentiate between capital and non-capital trials by entitling both the prosecution and defense to additional peremptory challenges when the offense is punishable by death. Rule 24 requires that both parties receive 15 peremptory challenges for capital offenses, compared to eight for offenses punishable by incarceration for one or more years. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a peremptory challenge as ‘one of a party’s limited number of challenges that needs not be supported by any reason, although a party may not use such a challenge in a way that discriminates against a protected minority.’ The higher number of challenges may increase the size of the potential jury pool and the duration of the jury selection process.

[Tennessee’s Death Penalty: Costs and Consequences (PDF), by John G. Morgan, Comptroller of the Treasury, Office of Research, July 2004, 37.]

Racial discrimination against whites, and on behalf of blacks and Hispanics is unconstitutional, in violating the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and illegal, in violating the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act, the very statutes that racial egalitarians purportedly treat as holy writ. In reality, the “egalitarians” are just like the majority of Supreme Court justices, about whom the old law professor—but don’t hold it against him—Lino Graglia, at last month’s Preserving Western Civilization conference said, “They just make it up as they go along.”

Yesterday’s Associated Press account describing the NAACP’s class action lawsuit filed against two major banks [NAACP Says Bank Giants Steered Blacks To Bad Loans, by Jesse Washington, Associated Press, March 13, 2009] in Los Angeles raises the idea that blacks were (yet again) victims of “racism” because a disproportionate number of blacks were more likely to receive sub-prime loans. The lawsuit claims that Wells Fargo and HSBC were “forcing” blacks to buy “sub-prime mortgages while whites with identical qualifications got lower rates.”

The irony of the sub-prime problem seems lost on Melissa Murray, vice president of corporate communications for Wells Fargo & Co.: “We have never tolerated, and will never tolerate, discrimination in any way, shape or form in any of our business practices, products, or services,” Murray said.

Perhaps if banks had discriminated, i.e. maintained strict standards in scrutinizing the credit ratings of some of these borrowers then the banking industry may have avoided the brunt of the sub-prime meltdown.

What’s next a class-action lawsuit against furniture retailers claiming blacks were “forced” to buy furniture on time?

Dr. Norm Matloff, below, discusses an argument between Ron Hira, [email him]who is an American citizen of Indian descent, but born in the US, and Vivek Wadhwa [Email him] who is an Indian immigrant. During this argument, reports Matloff:

“Vivek is an Indian immigrant, while Ron is the son of Indian immigrants, and many of Vivek’s comments, delivered in a quite pointed tone, had the theme that the TARP legislation was anti-Indian. Vivek hurled rather emotionally-toned remarks at Ron along the lines of, “Next, they’ll come after you!” And I suppose the implied subtext may also have been that Ron was somehow a traitor to Indian-Americans.”

You can still watch the video here. Matloff goes on to make the point that Indian-Americans suffer more from H-1b visas than most people, and it’s also true that Mexican-Americans tend to suffer more from illegal immigration than most Americans. Raymond Herrera is an imigration reform patriot in Arizona. He used to have a carpentry business.

But you see the point of Wadhwa’s accusation–he saying that Hira’s loyalty to America is disloyalty to his blood, represented by all those people in India looking for visas. He thinks it’s wrong for Hira ever to put America first.

Richard Nadler accused conservative patriots like Pat Buchanan of wanting “an echo of the “conservatism” of the old world, built on blood and soil”–but that’s what Wadhwa and the anti-deportation Hispanics want.The difference is that it’s their blood and your soil.

This Vivek Kundra scandal has the possibility of breaking the whole Indian body shop/Affirmative Action scandal wide open* A very intelligent report has appeared on Computerworld.com

Instant analysis: Bribery case may undo Kundra’s Web 2.0 vision
By Patrick Thibodeau March 13, 2009

…According to court documents, the case is nothing more than a straightforward financial crime committed by two people. But that’s only the starting point for peeling this onion….

AITC is listed by the District as being “small, local disadvantaged” on the contract, which means it’s qualified to receive preferred procurement and contracting opportunities. But while AITC may be based in D.C., the company touts its offshore operations in India. Does that still count as local? What made AITC’s capabilities stand out in this competitive market?

This of course develops the issue I asked in my blog:

• Could Vivek Kundra’s presence explain the increased use by DC of Indian outsourcing? (Probable answer: Yes – before even considering corruption.)

Thibodeau gets even more to the point:

Did AITC send District IT work offshore? If that’s the case, will Kundra, as federal CIO, encourage U.S. agencies — and by extension, commercial businesses — to send IT work offshore?

This raises the issue of: does Obama favor offshoring tech work? He clearly likes the consequent Indian exploitative culture as a fund raising scource.

Welcome to MOG

* If the MSM were about news rather than indoctrination.