Sunday, August 04, 2013

Another example of anti-white discrimination

A retired white is emboldened to speak out:

I would like to add my comment regarding blacks discriminating against whites. Once Affirmative Action took hold at many companies, whites not only lost out in promotions, but suffered a loss of income as well.

In my case, I was discriminated against by a black supervisor at an airline I worked for back in the late 1960s. I applied for a position that was a union job that paid several hundred dollars more per month than my current position. All the workers in that position were black. I would have been the first white male in that position. I never got an interview for the position and was told by my supervisor that I was over qualified for the job. I not only lost ten of thousands of dollars in wages, but lost out on a better pension, which would be three times higher than what I'm receiving now, plus a better health plan for union retirees.

Blacks have been catered to for many years and no matter how much the government or company does for them, it is never enough. I'm tired of their BS about racial discrimination. That line was an excuse in the 19th century and the first part of the 20th century, but after 1965, more than two trillion dollars has been spent on helping them through President Johnson's Great Society programs. They have been on a gravy train ever since.


Black bigot who forgets that the KKK were Democrats

In an interview with the Daily Beast published Friday, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) suggested Tea Partiers are the "same group" who fought for segregation during the Civil Rights movement.

“It is the same group we faced in the South with those white crackers and the dogs and the police. They didn’t care about how they looked," Rangel said.

Because of this, Rangel said the Tea Party could be defeated using the same tactics employed against Jim Crow.

"It was just fierce indifference to human life that caused America to say enough is enough. ‘I don’t want to see it and I am not a part of it.’ What the hell! If you have to bomb little kids and send dogs out against human beings, give me a break,” said Rangel.


Massachusetts "weeding out" foster & adoptive parents who won't support children's LGBT identities

It's now official policy in Massachusetts: Adults holding traditional values will no longer be allowed to adopt or be foster parents.

On May 15, 2013, the Boston Bar Association held a forum with the Mass. Department of Children and Families (DCF) and the Mass. Commission on LGBT Youth. The DCF speakers confirmed that they are "weeding out" adoptive and foster parents who are not willing to wholly accept and support LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender) self-identification by a child in their care.

The general topic of the evening was the growing number of LGBT youth needing foster care. The hour-long event can be seen on YouTube. (Video credit: CatchoftheDay Video News.)

The shocking admission of the DCF's discriminatory policies towards parents holding traditional values comes in the last few minutes of the video.

Summary of major points at the forum

Erika Rickard, Vice Chair of the Mass. Commission on LGBT Youth and herself a foster parent, called attention to the urgent need for "supportive" foster parents for LGBT youth (who, she estimates, make up about 20% of youth in foster care in the state). The Commission is working in conjunction with the Mass. Department of Children and Families (DCF) to find them "safe, welcoming, and affirming homes."

Pointing to their high levels of rejection by their families, DCF wants to be sure these youth are placed with adults who completely accept the child's self-identification as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer. They have found that many adults who say they're OK with sexual orientation and gender identity issues before the child is in their home then change and don't give "proper support."

Every social worker in the Massachusetts DCF system now has LGBT issues training (first reported by my MassResistance blog in 2005). The DCF also now runs a mentoring program for foster and adoptive parents. The 8-hour course includes discussion of sexual orientation, gender identity, and trauma understanding. One DCF staffer, Jody, hopes to have the True Colors Out Youth Theater group (part of the Theater Offensive) perform at every regional office as part of staff training. She recommends that the group PFLAG (Parents Families Friends & Allies of LGBT People) speak to all foster parents on how they can show their acceptance and support.

Jody recruits foster parents. She emphasized that the foster parent has to be able to support whatever develops with the child, for example, if he comes out as gay, or learning disabilities become obvious.

The question was asked, "Can transgender people be foster parents?" The answer: "We [at DCF] are not considering your sexual orientation or gender identity. It's about your fitness." You can't have a criminal background; you must be able and willing and have the means to support a child. "Gender identity is not at all a factor." Rickard (co-chair of the Commission on LGBT Youth) repeated that foster parents need to be ready to accept whatever may come with the adolescent. The DCF staffer said that the non-discrimination policies within the DCF apply to foster families as well as staff.

The youth panelist said there's a need for foster parents who don't question the rightness of being gay. Just "passive acceptance" is not enough. One attendee asked if there is a difference between abusive homes, non-supportive parents, or parents who just ignore the LGBT issues presented by the child. The DCF staffers Michelle and Jody explained (in the last few minutes of the video):

Foster parents who may hold more traditional values and who "age out" of the system makes this change to supportive homes easier. "It gives us an opportunity to train folks in a different way of thinking and being more accepting." (Ten hours a year of LGBT-sensitive training is required of foster parents.) The DCF is "setting new expectations; we are weeding out some of the ... destructive behaviors that are occurring" in the foster homes. Sometimes these are very "subtle" but "a case has to be built." Further, "now that the climate is changing," DCF wants the youth to understand that the DCF will not accept this kind of behavior from a provider or caretaker. LGBT-ally liaisons in each foster care office can fill in gaps if some social workers are not doing their job adequately to ensure this policy. This "re-education" of staff and foster parents is ongoing.

We have documented in past years how the DCF (formerly the Department of Social Services, DSS) was moving in this radical direction. In 1994, the Office of Child Care Services (overseeing adoption) issued a regulation (though not law) that a placement agency must "not discriminate in providing services to children and their families on basis of ... sexual orientation." Lesbians and homosexual men have been allowed to adopt ever since. As long ago as 2000, the DSS urged parents to accept homosexuality or bisexuality in their children, asking: "If the adolescent has identified a sexual orientation of gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual, has he/she disclosed this information to a parental figure or trusting adult? If so, has the adolescent received an appropriate, receptive and supportive response?"

The MassResistance blog reported on "LGBT youth issues" training given to about 1,800 Mass. DSS employees in 2004, including those working in adoption and foster care. The radical National Gay & Lesbian Task Force led the training sessions (funded in part by the leftist Tides Foundation). Also at this time, the DSS set up a group home specifically for "out-of-home youth" identifying as "transgender" in Waltham, MA.

So now the radical evolution of the Mass. Department of Children and Families adoption and foster care department (and adoption agencies it works with) is complete. LGBT adults – singles or couples – have a hugely disproportionate chance of receiving an adoptive or foster care placement.

Even more discriminatory (as the May 2013 video confirms), you need not bother applying to be an adoptive or foster parent in Massachusetts if you hold traditional values – and would wish to dissuade your child from "identifying" and behaving as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Such attitudes are now considered "destructive behaviors" by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. You won't even get past the screening process. Only those "straight" adults who are LGBT "allies" will make it.


Private detectives to need licence in UK

Another choke on the flow of information

Operating as an unlicensed private detective is to be illegal in England and Wales, the home secretary has said.

The Home Office said it wanted to "ensure rigorous standards" in an industry where "rogue investigators" had been infringing privacy.  Those who break the new rules - to be rolled out from autumn 2014 - could face up to six months in jail.

MPs earlier said police had linked 100 firms or individuals to investigators who had obtained information illegally.

Anyone can currently set themselves up as a private investigator, regardless of their skills or even criminal convictions.

But under the Home Office's plans, investigators will be licensed by the Security Industry Authority after completing a training course and passing a criminality check.

The new regulations do not extend to investigations carried out in relation to publishing legitimate journalism.

Home Secretary Theresa May said: "It is vital we have proper regulation of private investigators to ensure rigorous standards in this sector and the respect of individuals' rights to privacy.

"That is why I am announcing today the government's intention to regulate this industry, making it a criminal offence to operate as a private investigator without a licence.

"Anyone with a criminal conviction for data protection offences can expect to have their application for a licence refused."

Firms could be barred from being licensed if they have been involved in offences including:

Unlawful interception of communications, such as phone hacking
Accessing data on computers without permission
Gathering personal details by posing as someone else, such as blagging information from a call centre

The Home Office said that all contractors would need to be licensed and the maximum penalty for failing to comply with the new rules would be six months in jail.

Tony Imossi, president of industry body the Association of British Investigators said the proposals were a "good start" but did not go far enough.

The government's long-awaited decision to regulate private investigators will go some way towards controlling who carries out private investigation work. But the question is - will it help define the line, often blurred in practice, between what is legal and illegal?

Even the so-called "blue-chip" clients of PI firms say it can be hard to ensure the information they ask for has been legally gathered. Sometimes PIs use illegal methods to track down the information they need - and then apply legally to obtain it.

But it's unlikely regulation will quell the current accusation that not enough has been done to investigate clients known to have commissioned rogue private investigators.

Settling old scores, some in the media see this as a case of double standards in which law enforcers went after media phone hackers but not corporate commissioners of private eyes.

Publishing the list of clients who used the Operation Millipede PIs would help establish who was using investigators and why. But Soca and the police remain resolutely opposed.

The move was welcomed as a "positive step" towards protecting people from unwanted surveillance by privacy campaigners.

"For too long private investigators have been allowed to operate in the shadows," Big Brother Watch director Nick Pickles said.

It comes as pressure mounts on the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) to release the names of more than 100 companies and individuals potentially linked to rogue private investigators who were convicted of obtaining information illegally.

The Home Affairs Select Committee has published a breakdown by business sector of clients linked to the jailed investigators, but has not named them individually.

Chairman Keith Vaz said the identities of the firms and individuals had been held back from the report so as not to "compromise" any investigations by the police or information commissioner.

Eight of the clients on the list were used as evidence in prosecutions under Operation Millipede, an investigation that led to the conviction of four private detectives for fraud last year. A further 94 were judged as potentially relevant to the case, but not used as evidence.

"When we publish our report into private investigators, we would like to be in a position where we publish the entire list," the Labour MP added.

Meanwhile Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, said: "I have a lot of sympathy with those who say, if there are big companies and organisations that are using private investigators to find information about individuals and organisations, they should be open about it."

The clients include 22 law firms, financial services and insurance firms, accountants and two celebrities.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



No comments: