serously barrack, you remove these stupid ass laws or gtfo.
So I figured I'd check out these claims and the website and all that itself before making any comment on them.
So, first things first, the website. Looking around the page I see links to numerous articles and other media on the website. The first which catches my attention is "Twitter explodes with death threats against George Zimmerman, white people". Here the name itself is obviously written to attract attention to the fact that people were making death threats against white people. Of course, one article is not enough to make a claim against the trustworthyness of the website, as I'd say that there probably were death threats made against white people. The second piece of media which attracted my attention was an inage gallery of "Jihadist Muslim Propaganda". The images in this gallery were obviously chosen to scare/anger white people as it included threats against non believers. Reading further on, a video about Obama's mentor giving a race obsessed speech. The speech itself contained some pretty racist stuff against white people. Looking into this, all that this man is is a pastor at a church which Obama attended for twenty years. This does not mean that obama agrees with this man or supports any of his views. Next, at the bottom of the page there are three related readings followed by 8 more random articles from the site. All three related readings contained similar views and were all racially biased. Continuing, of the eight random articles, three were definitely against black people/obama, one of which was an article containing a quote by the leader of the communist party, who mentioned that obama winning was a good thing for the people. Evidently this article was engineered to present the viewpoint that the communists support obama, and therefore obama is bad.
Not to be outdone, I read the author's biography to find that he was a member of the tea party as well. After finding similar articles supporting white people and white superiority in general, I came to the logical conclusion that the website was biased towards such beliefs, and therefore through thst bias the website could not be trusted (by me, at least).
Not content with simply debinking the website, I realised that the article could have some truth to it. I read further into the article and found that it was in fact rewritten from a website which looked slightly more trustworthy. The site, called Investor Business Daily, firstly redirected me to an OPINION piece, and secondly had no relations with any kind of mainstream media or other slightly trustworthy source. A blind leap of faith.
One other quick clarification which became apparent: these alleged laws were not in fact laws at all, they were simply policies which Obama's ADMINISTRATION (Not Obama himself, and not necessarily with his approval) has requested or made certain groups follow. Alas, through all this, I continued.
Looking at the author's previous posts on the website, many were anti-obama and seemingly pro-white, as they had similar claims about Obama's policies. Another thing to note here is there is NO SOURCE WHATSOEVER for these claims. Nothing. If alarm bells aren't ringing already you're probably dead. Or maybe just a bit m4d.
Upon reading the article I found there was too much to make a broad comment on, so I'll dissect it below. Please note that the article that was linked in the above post was a rewrite of this opinion piece, and highly exaggerated many of the claims in this piece to suit its own extreme, sensationalist agenda. I will henceforth directly quote each piece of the article that I'm dissecting as I do so.
To boost minority hiring, the EEOC recently warned employers they could be considered guilty of "race discrimination if they choose law-abiding applicants over applicants with criminal convictions." The predictable result: hiring quotas for felons.
At the same time, the Labor Department is warning federal contractors to refrain from asking employees about felonies.
It's also demanding they modify their hiring policies to favor minorities.
The agency also advised that all FDIC-insured banks must develop and implement an "affirmative action program" for hiring.
Firstly, this first quote is completely out of context. It was made in relation to about hiring people with criminal records, in which the study detailed here
found that employers were three times more likely to hire white people with criminal records than they were black people. The predictable result is not hiring quotas (which this article seems to have a fetish for), but simply removing discrimination in the first place. I'm insure what the Labour Department intends by being indiscriminate about felonies (presuming this article is true), but my guess is that it would have something to do with giving criminals a second chance instead of condemning them for life. In terms of changing hiring policies to favour minorities, I'm kinda sceptical as to whether this is just a misquoted person saying that there should be more equality in hiring policies.
The administration, moreover, has adopted an interagency "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" that makes it "permissible" (and strongly advisable) for banks to apply more favorable lending terms for minority borrowers "to address past discrimination."
I literally read the entire law only to find that these more favourable terms meant equality of loaning. Seriously. All it is is an anti-discrimination law allowing people to get loans regardless of race, gender, sexuality, etc. If this isn't a basis not to trust this article, give up all hope right now. I'm pretty sure these guys could get sued for libel or something.
The Justice Department has forced the nation's largest home lenders — including Wells Fargo, Bank of America and SunTrust — to adopt minority-friendly lending policies and even open new branches in depressed areas with large minority populations.
CFPB's diversity police are also cracking down on banks that turn down minority students and small-business owners for loans, or charge them higher interest rates.
The bureau's also setting up "minority inclusion" offices in all financial regulatory agencies — including the Federal Reserve — with the goal of diversifying their workforces.
The administration thinks there are too many white bank examiners.
So, in effect the government are making people not be discriminatory. Oh, the horror! How could we let this happen? Next up we have it that banks are now opening branches in low-income areas, some of which have black people in them! Oh god, how could we let the black people use a bank? Why would we let them tap into our precious money? I'm starting to think this whole article is one big fucking joke and that the author didn't intend for it to be taken seriously.
Next we have the awfully shocking news that the government is cracking down on racism by instituting EQUALITY, NOT PRO BLACK LAWS, and that is somehow a bad thing. Then the author comes to the fantastic conclusion that that means Obama thinks there are too many white bank examiners. Wut.
At the same time, the Education Department is investigating some 20 school districts across the U.S. for allegedly racist disciplinary policies that have a "disparate impact" on black students. Faced with the threat of reduced federal funding, some districts already have set caps on the number of blacks suspended for violent behavior.
The department's diversity cops are also cracking down on selective high schools in New York and elsewhere for using entrance exams that have a "disparate impact" on African-American students.
More shock horror when we learn that Obama wants equality. Holy shit what the fuck guys.
Basically, this is a very clear lesson in CHECK YOUR FACTS. I personally will not tolerate racism of any kind at all, and this is just disgusting. Please go elsewhere if you wish to express such views. I would suggest a group such as the KKK or Anonymous would suit you much better than a network security forum.