Attention. You're listening to the Todd Huff Radio Show, America's home for conservative
not bitter talk radio. Be advised. The content of this program has been
documented to prevent and even cure liberalism, and listening may cause you to lean
to the right. Here's your conservative but not Bitter host, Todd Huff.
All right, my friends, there we go. Welcomes the todhu Show.
I am your host, Todd Huff. Email should you want to be part
of the conversation today Todd at toddhof show dot com. You can also connect
with us by text that numbers three one seven, two one zero twenty eight
thirty. Indianapolis is home base for us, but we are on several stations
around the country. And no matter where you're listening, whether that's on the
actual radio, on podcast, or even on the video podcast of this program,
we welcome you and I hope you are having a great day. And
today I want to talk about what happened yesterday pertaining to the Supreme Court decision
of regarding affirmative action. So the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Harvard University and
University of North Carolina. I believe they're way of selecting students. The way
of admitting students, their admissions process violates the fourteenth Amendment because because of this
little thing called affirmative action. Now, what does that basically mean. We're
going to talk about that today. We're gonna talk about implications of this.
I've got a short personal anecdote story that I want to share with you as
well, and so, but I want to I want to kind of back
up here at at the beginning or take us back to where we got into
kind of the beginnings of the affirmative action line of thinking and process and why
that is has become what it is today. So, as you know,
and as we've discussed on this program, this nation has a history of racism.
It has at its found I want to differentiate between the Founding as the
fathers wrote about it, the Founding, as the fathers crafted the Constitution,
the words of the Declaration. Those things were marvelous principles and ideas, those
beliefs. Those ideas said that all men are created equal and downed by their
creator with certain unalienable rights, that among those are life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness. The Founders believed in the idea. They recognize the
idea of liberty, the importance of liberty, freedom for all people. They
saw it, but yet they did not live up to it in reality.
And in the early years of this country we had serious problems. We had
we had had laws and things happening in this country that violate the truth that
they wrote about in the Constitution, in the Declaration of Independence. And so
it was a systematic problem, not because of the Founding documents, but instead
instead because of laws and practices that people excused in those days. And you
know, if you go back and read some of the Founders, I mean,
it's it's you know, some of them. Some of them didn't like
the idea of slavery and that component. Some tried to, you know,
play mental gymnastics to come up with a way to justify it in their minds
and so forth. But I think they all knew, I do believe this,
They all knew deep down that that was that it was a atrocious and
wicked and evil thing, and it contradicted what they wrote about it. It
contradicted the ideas that they base this nation upon. And because of that,
because of that, this nation um eventually eventually went to went to war,
went to Civil War, and it was its slavery was eradicated, it was
ended. But the issue with slavery, or with racism, I should say,
did not end with the end of slavery being a practice that was allowed
in certain states in this country. Racism is a condition of the heart.
Racism is a reprehensible and evil idea. Racism is I would want to clearly
state racism is a well a sin. I don't. That's one way to
put it. I was gonna say it violates how God created humanity to live
with one another. In a simple way of saying that is, it's it's
a sin. To the to the Christian, to the follower of Christ,
it is evil. And so but it's a condition of the heart. And
so as America has moved from literally the days where slavery was legal and accepted
up to those years where we actually went to war, and the president of
the United States at the time, Abraham Lincoln, by the way, the
Republican Party was founded on this very principle of ending slavery, and Abraham Lincoln
did just that. That's a whole nother discussion in and of itself. So
you have this, you have this, uh, this timeline of history,
of a history of early slavery. Then you had this fevered pitch that ended
that I guess culminated with the Civil War, and then that ended slavery,
but it did not obviously end racial hostilities and tensions and so forth, and
so over time America continued. The founders put this in the in the constitution,
right, they said, in order to form a more perfect union.
And so we have been striving we should be striving today. We don't strive
for this collectively as a union. It's why this country's in such an absolute
disaster or a just it's a mess today because we don't strive to be more
perfect. Some of us do, but many people strive to get even or
strive to answer a wrong with another wrong, and that is going to never
that that will cause the pendulum to never settle at equilibrium of equal justice under
the law. And so as we moved from the end of slavery, if
you look at this, and really, I mean I'm just overly simplifying it,
but if you look at you know, from the Revolutionary War to the
Civil War roughly roughly one hundred years. Of course, slavery went back before
that, I'm just saying, from from the start of America to the Civil
War ball park a hundred years. Then you go from the Civil War to
the Civil Rights movement roughly one hundred years. So that movement, which of
course we know names like doctor Martin, Luther King and others who pushed for
pushed for racial equality because there were still reprehensible things happening in this country that
were systematically systemically racist, and so there was the Civil Rights Movement. In
fact, my friends, there's I'm not going to say verbatim, but you
there's one particular town that I'm aware of, and I'm sure that this has
happened. This happened in multiple towns, but there were towns in the say
fifty, well say seventy years ago, I'm ball parking this that had signs
as you entered the town threatening people of another race, threatening black people from
entering or being in the town. This is this has happened. Reprehensible,
evil, wicked, right, There were lynchings, there was some folks turned
a blind eye to some of the racist behavior and the violence, inexplicably and
inexcusably doing that. But from that point in time until today, America has
made great strides. I would say to you, and I think that this
is demonstrably true, that there is no more systemic or systematic racism in this
country. There is individual racists. There are individual racists. There are individual
or even groups of people who hate. And by the way, this can
go in any direction. People can hate a particular race, a particular religion,
a particular gender, a particular sexual orientation. I heard a pastor once.
I can't think of his name at the moment. It's just escaping me.
I thought this was brilliant. I don't want to get too preachy to
you here this morning or today, but the preacher, the pastor said,
Christians often, unfortunately fall into the category of one or two things. Whenever
they are dealing with, you know, dealing with certain sins that other people
commit, they either they either hate the person or they affirm, they affirm
the choices and the decision and the actual sin itself. And the truth is,
the truth is we should be able to love the person without affirming something
that is not a good behavior trait, and so forth, we have to
We should do this with ourselves. That's the other thing. I mean,
you know, sometimes I myself wondering why some people have all such a hard
time and understanding that just because I disagree with the decision that someone makes,
and you can apply that a belief that someone holds, it does not mean
that I hate I hate the person obviously to me, because I think there
are things that times that I have had to say to myself, I don't
like what I thought about this or did, I don't like my behavior,
And that doesn't mean I hate myself and I there's there's some confusion and some
conflating going on in some of the circles, and it actually, instead of
making it a worthwhile in a productive conversation, can actually heap more division and
hatred and so forth into that particular conversation or disagreement. So but so,
the idea of affirmative action was the government or running government funded institutions. And
this could be anything from employers through again, now that's I'm painting the spectrum
here. So it could be a business that's not under the control, if
you will, of the government, but it could be a government agency.
It could be education, it could be the military. There's policies and there
were programs developed to try to remedy some of America's past agregious behaviors and decisions
and so forth, as it pertained to racism, as it pertained to slavery,
and so forth. And so the idea was to say, okay,
we are going to try to put our finger on the you know, the
scale of justice and fairness, and trying to come up with a way to
say that this in this particular, this court case, it's dealing specifically with
education, with college education, we're going to admit some students. We're going
based upon a criteria that includes their race, so they could get I guess
if you will. If there's a grading scale, you get weighted, you
get weighted differently in your consideration if you are of one race instead of another.
And this generally speaking is called affirmative action. And so the government would
say, we are in embracing these policies. We are implementing these policies so
that we can have an outcome that helps those individuals who have been maybe impacted
negatively by some of America's past sins, if you will, pertaining to race,
and so we are going to choose to give them preferential treatment because of
that race. And so this is something that again has been done. This
has been done across the board in all sorts of places, from I mean
from colleges and education, you know, higher education, to I know,
the military academies which are in higher education, which, by the way,
from what I can tell from this decision, the military academies were actually given
an exemption here. And I've got a story about that, a short one.
I don't want to make it too much about my experience, but I
do want to share it because I think it's relevant to the conversation. So
some people who are applying to be a firefighter or a law enforcement officer,
there are there are certain crime tiria, and sometimes it's it's you know,
you've got to run this distance or do this many push ups or whatever.
It is some sort of a physical fitness test. And then sometimes there are
bonus points, if you will, for being of a different group. And
it's not just race, it can be gender. And sometimes sometimes the admission
standards, if you will, are dropped for in the case of gender,
for females to be able to meet the physical requirements and things like fire departments
and so forth. There's some incredible stories about that. Because you think you
need to be able to be pretty strong to pull people out of buildings.
Why are we dropping some of these requirements and ways to measure if they could,
if they could actually do that, if it pertains to the job,
and so forth. Anyway, but this case is specifically about education, higher
education college. So but we've seen this, We've seen this affirmative action throughout
For those of us that are, i mean, forty fifty years old,
you've seen this throughout throughout your life. You may have had debates about this
in classrooms and so forth, or maybe at a family dinner table or whatever.
But that's the idea. The Supreme Court yesterday announced their ruling that that
is no longer that is no longer permissible because it violates the fourteenth Amendment.
I'll read that on the other side of the break, But basically, that's
equal protection under under the law. And so if you remember, Martin Luther
King Jr. In his speeches, said that he he dreamed, he hoped
that one day his children would live in a nation that did not judge them
based upon the color of their skin, but rather by the content of their
character. Likewise, I think you could say, I think you could extrapolate
from that and implement and insert some of the things that have been used in
the world of affirmative action and say that Martin Luther King Junior would have probably
based upon that statement, would have said, I wish, I have a
dream that all college applicants be judged based upon the quality of their of their
knowledge, that the quality of their qualifications to be accepted, and not for
the color of their skin. Right. And so that's effectively the ruling that
was handed down by the Supreme Court yesterday a six to three decision six to
two, and the other in one of the other cases. Anyhow, there
were the two cases, so Harvard and I think it was North Carolina.
So timeouts in order. So now that we've kind of set the framework as
to how we got there, the rationale, and then what this argument's about,
I've got a short anecdote and story. We'll talk about the fourteenth Amendment.
Well that and much more, getting to some other stories as well,
including some things that I just you know that are that are comical to me.
Story about Hunter Biden. Here he's settled with the mother of his child,
who I believe is four years old. Now I got some news on
that that just I mean, it's just crazy. It's the intersection of all
these Hunter Biden stories, but a lot of other things to get to today
as well in due course. But I'm gonna take a time out, my
friends. You are listening here to conservative not better talk. I am your
host, Tod Huf back in a minute. Welck. So this I actually
sell a quote from Chuck Schumer during the break. I hadn't seen this until
the break, so much to processor, but this is a quote from Senator
Chuck Schumer, who is the majority leader Democrat majority leader US Senate. He
actually said this in regards to the Court's decision to rule that colleges and universities
cannot use the well specifically, there's a whole bunch of discussion as to what
this specifically means, because there are some that will say that since the case
well, the ruling, the law that actually allowed this was not technically overturned
like roversus Wade was regarding abortion, that this is still allowed. You just
can't do the particular program, if you will, that Harvard had in the
University of North Carolina had so. But they're out there, the left is
out there trying to frame this a certain way, and this is what Chuck
Schumer says. He says, the courts misguided decision reminds us how far we
still have to go to ensure that all Americans are treated equally. So when
Chuck Schumer's deluded perspective of the world, and in order to make people feel
like they're treated equally, you must give certain groups of people preferential treatment,
which is craziness. And so a couple of things about that. Number one,
I've never been a fan of affirmative action because my reasoning is very simple.
I think that the idea that says, in order to make right something
that was done wrong to another person, we have to now do do intentionally
do wrong to the next group of people, and that somehow we can buy
just our brilliance, the brilliance of the government or of the people who are
running the affirmative action and program, reach this absolute state of fairness. Which,
of course, what does that even mean. You'll have some say in
order to have complete fairness. Well, let's say they say equity. Now
it used to be equality. Equality is a good thing. All people are
equal under the law, all people are equal in the eyes of God.
Not all people are equal when it comes to their worth in the marketplace and
so forth. But that doesn't mean that the value of the person is any
less, and it doesn't mean that people should be treated differently under the law.
That's absolutely not what should not happen. And so but I just I've
never bought into this idea, and maybe partially it's because I had a tiny
bit of an experience with this when I was and I don't want to make
this so I'm gonna keep this short and sweet. But when I was in
high school, my senior year, I started getting recruited for football. Now
that's right. I used to play football, and I was getting recruited by
the United States Naval Academy and my coach, my high school coach, talked
with one of their coaches. Now, if any of you have either applied
to or know someone who's applied to one of the academies, or just you're
just familiar with it, you know that it's a bit of a process,
and I think they say it typically takes up up to a year, and
there's a lot of things involved. You have to get a congressional nomination,
you have to go through and you know, do tests. I remember having
to do pull ups, and there's you know, a medical exam and all
these different things. I don't remember honestly, all of the stuff, but
this was in This would have been in the fall of nineteen ninety five,
the beginning of my senior year. And I remember my coach talking with them,
the football team, the coach at United States Naval Academy in Annapolis,
and the coach said to my coach, the college coach said, to my
coach, the only way that Todd could get in this year as if he
was, is a minority or a woman. And to my coach obviously said,
no, he's not. So basically they said, well, there's not
even any point because of the amount of time it takes unless he's in minority
or a woman. And I always wondered why that mattered, why that mattered.
And I again understand that we laid out kind of the history of how
we got here. I don't want to. I think we should be willing
to understand the ration now that some people give as to why we ended up
with some of you know, some people who really thought that these policies should
be implemented. Of course, it's also then later weaponized. It's weaponized against
people to divide them further. It's weaponized against people to get votes, you
know, that sort of thing. So that's those things are not good,
and so I experienced a little bit of that. It's ultimately not what kept
me from getting in, because I continued or I started the process anyway,
and went my first year to Butler and went through the nomination process as I
was at Butler as a freshman, and I actually ended up getting I don't
care to say this, I was I got accepted to both West Point and
to Annapolis, not to the Air Force Academy. I was not good enough
for there, but um, I was medically qualified for sleepwalking, and I
don't know what I would have done had I not been disqualified. But anyway,
the point is I did see a little bit of that, and so
I just think that that's that's relevant as well, um to to just have
some some perspective because the collective experience of an individual. I mean, there
are there are people of all races who have experienced difficulty for a whole host
of reasons. The idea that we can boil our entire identity down to our
race, down to our gender, down to our sexuality down to our you
know, how we identify from a perspective of gender is just it's just nuts
to me. And I think we should be honestly looking for ways to find
our similarities, because we have a whole lot of similarities, but we don't
when we're fixated on these things. So the Supreme Court said, you can't
use these sorts of policies. It can be maybe considered in the overall scheme
of things, but it should not be It should not be you know,
weighted, should not be weighted regarding whether or not someone gets into a school
and so forth. And so now, of course there's all sorts of people
who are saying this is going to affect the number of black students and all
this sort of thing, and that has you talk about racist. I mean,
what in the world. Of course, remember Biden when he said poor
kids are just as good as white kids. Remember that that's how the left
thinks. And I think they think that way because they see it as an
opportunity to exploit people and gain their vote, and so they think of black
kids as being poor. That's what Biden said. Remember he also said to
Charlemagne, the god, whatever the world that's supposed to mean that if you
don't vote for him, if you vote for Trump and said a Biden,
you ain't black. Biden said these things. He also said you can't walk
into a seven eleven without an Indian accent. And then he said he was
serious. I mean this guy. You talk about the racist comments and the
ridiculous things that this guy says. And of course, if you ask the
average American who said those things, I've seen these men on the street interviews.
Everyone thinks it's Trump that said those things. Of course it was it
was Biden. And it doesn't matter when they find out that it's him,
because Trump, in their mind, is still the racist. Republicans are still
the racist. But if you want to really get to equality under the law,
you've got to quit messing with You can't try to continuously fix a previous
mistake, meaning if it didn't like, I don't want someone to say,
hey, because Todd or some other white kid didn't get treated the same way
when they were applying to the Naval Academy, that now we should make sure
we go out and get another white kid. No, just stop it,
just stop it. How about that? Just stop the nonsense and do it
fairly, and do it as objectively as you can understand that people are individuals.
They're not simply because they're of a certain race. They're not. You
don't know everything about them because you know someone else who is shares their race
or whatever. It's it's patently absurd and ridiculous, and it's actually quite racist.
And Chuck Schumer's out here saying, in order to have a quality,
we need to have more policies like affirmative action, which is again patently absurd.
A little bit along the segment, my friends gotta take a time out.
You are listening to conservative not bitter talk. I am your host,
Tod huff back in just a minute, talk about my friends. You know
something else that I it's borderline impossible to offend me. But one of the
things that drives me absolutely insane is this assumption, this starting position, that
racism is the single determining factor and everything that happens, or sexism or something
some is m my friends. I have said, I have said this on
here, We've we've built a team here. I can tell you it makes
no difference to me. Those things what matters to me and what I think
matters to the vast majority of people, and it should, by the way,
is the quality of the individual, their ability to do the job,
or, in the case of attending a school, their ability to be a
good a good student, a student that can go out and land a good
job. That then makes sure university look like it's producing students that are good.
Of course, ironically, these schools don't seem too interested in producing real
students. They want to produce leftists who candidly are not employable anywhere, and
who are a cancer in most I would say, in all businesses, unless
it's a leftist organization, and then the entire thing is a cancer as it
is. But I just it insinuates or starts with the assumption that everyone is
always racist. And that's why I reject this concept of white guilt, white
whatever they call these things. I'm never ever going to apologize for things that
I didn't. I can empathize with how they've impacted society and so forth,
how they've impacted generations. Absolutely, but don't blame me. Don't assume that
I'm part of the problem. The problem are these politicians who want to weaponize
it. The problem are the people who want to use it to divide and
to conquer and to drive us apart instead of driving us together. That's who
the problem is here. And so I I have a major issue, have
a major issue with that. So but this all assumes that. So let's
get a little bit into the decision now. The majority opinion was written by
Justice John Roberts, Chief Justice, but Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote what's
called a concurring opinion, which basically means, hey, I agree with the
decision, but there's some other rationale at is not in the majority opinion that
I want to make sure that gets into the record, And so I want
to read you this is an article of the Dailywire dot com. It's so
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas dropped a must read concurring opinion in the High Court's
decision striking down affirmative action, praising American exceptionalism, deriving victimhood, and even
taking aims squarely at fellow Justice Katanji Brown Jackson's descent. So Katanji Brown Jackson
wrote a dissenting opinion. Clarence Thomas wants to address that opinion head on.
I should also point out I think I read it's not I don't see it
here, but I believe. Well, let me let me double check that
before I say that. Anyway, this is what this says. Having been
born into poverty in the Deep South during the Jim Crow era, Thomas has
a poignant and powerful perspective on the issue, and the opinion released Thursday,
he pulled no punches. This is what he said. The great failure of
this country was slavery and its progeny, Thomas wrote, and the tragic failure
of this court was its misinterpretation of the Reconstruction amendments. Those were the post
world excuse me, post Civil War amendments to the US Constitution. Returning back
to his quote here, as Justice Harlan predicted in plus Cy, that's the
plus C v. Ferguson case. We should not repeat this mistake merely because
we think, as our predecessors thought, that the present arrangements are superior to
the Constitution. Thomas went on to say that the ruling helps move America closer
toward a more perfect union right from stat at the beginning of the program that
lives up to its promise despite past racism. Yes, this is what he
says. While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which would
befallen my race and all who suffered discrimination. By the way, if you
don't know this, most the vast majority of you do. But in case
you don't, Justice Clarence Thomas is back and is an incredible Supreme Court Justice.
By the way, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live
up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
of the United States, that all men are created equal, are equal citizens,
and must be treated equally before the law. So then he later addresses
Katangi Brown Jackson's opinion and he says this, let me make sure I get
to their right. Here we go. Jackson's race infused world view falls flat
at each step. Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges,
and accomplishments. What matters not the barriers there that they face, but how
they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything
good or bad that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic worldview based
on individual skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short
of racial determinism. Here here justice Thomas. He then went on says the
article warning of the dangers of relying on so called experts to divvy up racial
justice. Oh, boy, isn't that the truth. Just trust the experts,
they'll figure it out for us. Here's the quote from his dissent or
studment concurring opinion. Jackson then builds from her faulty premise to call for action,
arguing that courts should defer to quote experts and allow institutions to discriminate on
the basis of race. Magno mistake, Descent is not a vanguard of the
innocent and the helpless. It is instead a call to empower privileged elites who
will tell us what is required to the level of the playing field among casts
and classifications that they alone can divine. Oh he's just nailing liberalism right squarely
between the eyes here, my friends. He continues then, after salon siloing
us into into racial casts and pitting those casts against each other. The Descent
somehow believes that we will be able, at some undefined point to march forward
together into some utopian vision. Social movements that invoke these sorts of rallying cries
historically have ended disastrously. Here here, Justice Thomas well said, well done,
timeouts in order. My friends sit tight back in just a minute.
You know, I think there's a fine line between being terrified, being paranoid,
living in fear, and being prepared. There is a difference, and
that's why I think it makes a lot of sense to be prepared. Are
you prepared for supply chain disruptions and the food supply? Are you prepared for
whatever other mess these morons running our government are going to get us in regarding
anything from supply chains to inflation to you name it. And the question is,
again, it's not one of fear or panic, but it should just
be preparation. My family and I have a supply of survival food with four
patriots dot com. We've had it for a couple of years now. Maybe
you should get one to take a look at their survival food products. You
can find some power supply, some solar supplies, some water purification and so
forth at four patriots dot com, RV and camping supplies as well, even
have some home and garden supplies. Therefore, patriots dot com, that's the
number, four Patriots with an s four Patriots dot com use discount code.
Huff it's not taught on this one, my friends. It's Huff Discount code
Huff. You'll save ten percent on your order there. So time out is
in order here, quick time out. We'll come back and wrap up for
the week. You're listening to conservative not better talk. I am your host
to enough back in just a minute. A couple of quick things about the
latest Hunter Biden saga. There's another message that's been discovered, another WhatsApp message
that links Hunter Biden to a communist Chinese Party linked business associate. So that's
out there. He did settle with the mother of his of his child that
he's that's in Arkansas. She's not going to be able to use the last
name Biden as was originally requested, which I think was probably just designed to
get his attention. But that being said, that being said, she is
going to get some of his art. That's right. That's the best part
of this for me, Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden the artist is going to
give this his daughter art so that she can sell it and make money from
it. Who wants to bet that the amount of money raised by the art
that gets money that goes to her is nothing near what we've seen him get
on other pieces of my friends. That's all the time I've got. I've
got to go have a great weekend. STG.