Federal judge--appointed by bribem--orders all funding be restored to federal DEI programs

How many of ya heard about last Friday's court ruling below?  From NPR:

On Friday (Feb 21) a federal judge largely blocked sweeping executive orders from President Trump that sought to end government support for programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion.
   U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson granted a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts considered equity-related.

Abelson was nominated by the corrupt vegetable.

Abelson found that the orders likely carry constitutional violations, including against free-speech rights.

This phrase alone--if it's really in the actual decree instead of made up by NPR's "reporter"--shows the lack of reasoning skill by Abelson, since nothing in Trump's order limits free speech.  Rather, it orders the government to stop funding the DEI empire (and it's a hella lucrative one), with "DEI consultants" can make $50,000 a day.  

Trump signed an order his first day in office directing federal agencies to terminate all "equity-related" grants or contracts. He signed a follow-up order requiring federal contractors to certify that they don't promote DEI.

The plaintiffs — including the city of Baltimore and higher education groups — sued the Trump administration earlier this month, arguing the executive orders are unconstitutional and a blatant overreach of presidential authority. They also allege the directives have a chilling effect on free speech.

In court, attorney for the plaintiffs, Aleshadye Getachew, said "What's happening is an overcorrection and pulling back on DEI statements."

News flash: I'm pretty sure "overcorrection" and "pulling back" aren't actionable.

The Trump administration has argued that the president was targeting only DEI programs that violate federal civil rights laws. Attorneys for the government said the administration should be able to align federal spending with the president's priorities.
   Abelson agreed with the plaintiffs that the executive orders discourage businesses, organizations and public entities from openly supporting diversity, equity and inclusion.

"The harm arises from the issuance of it as a public, vague, threatening executive order," he said during the hearing.

Ahh, "Vague, threatening EO"?  And wouldn't any EO necessarily have to be public?  Not seeing the problem with "public," and the judge's citing "public" as objectionable shows he's an activist grasping at straws.
   The EO said the federal government would no long FUND such programs.  As in, paying tax dollars to corrupt cronies.  States and woke companies are totally welcome to fund any programs they like.

Abelson's ruling does allow for the attorney general to investigate and prepare a report on DEI practices in accordance with one of the orders, but it blocks enforcement.

Note well what just happened: the activist judge's restraining order is NOT temporary, just "preliminary," so unless struck by a higher court it won't expire until the Attorney-General of the U.S. has investigated and prepared a report to Abelson's satisfaction.  And meanwhile the entire lucrative fraud will continue, unabated.  Nice work for the DEI consultants.

In his written opinion Abelson said the EOs are unconstitutionally vague, leaving federal contractors and grant recipients with "no reasonable way to know what, if anything, they can do to bring their grants into compliance."

He described a hypothetical scenario where an elementary school received Department of Education funding for technology access and a teacher used a computer to teach about Jim Crow laws. Or if a road construction grant covered the cost of filling potholes in a low-income neighborhood instead of a wealthy neighborhood, "does that render it 'equity-related'?" the judge asked.

Those examples aren't remotely on point.  It's the DEI seminars, training, hiring and university administrators sucking up dollars that could be used to hire more actual professors.  The EOs aren't concerned with whose potholes are fixed, or teaching actual history.

Efforts to increase diversity have been under attack for years by Republicans, who contend the measures threaten merit-based hiring, promotion and educational opportunities for white people.

Hiring on the basis of merit and hiring based on DEI are mutually exclusive.  For young Americans that means it's either one or the other.  DEI replaces merit, so NPRs use of the phrase "Republicans contend the measures threaten merit-based hiring is a deliberate mislead: hiring on the basis of diversity does replace merit.  If the best candidate was other than white, merit would select that person without DEI existing, eh?  

[The purpose of DEI] was to foster equitable environments in businesses and schools, especially for historically marginalized communities.

As every American should know by now, decades ago "equitable" meant everyone played by the same rules, but DEI interprets it as "equality of outcomes, regardless of study or effort."  If you haven't been tuned in, American medical schools have already lowered test scores for minority admissions.  When that was challenged, universities eliminated tests as a component of selecting for admission.  Seriously.

The NPR piece uses "racial justice" several times.  That's a term of art used by DEI consultants to mean NOT hiring on the basis of performance or merit.  Rather, DEI consultants insist that hiring must be done on the basis of race, to achieve equal outcomes.  (Of course not ALL hiring: sports are obviously exempt.)

Attorneys for the grifting plaintiffs argued that Trump's efforts to end DEI programs will cause widespread harm, because it puts an end to the money tree awarded by every part of government.

"Plaintiffs and their members receive federal funds to support [teachers], academics, students, workers, and communities across the country...and will be left in limbo."

I don't think "being left in limbo" is legally actionable.

The rest of the NPR piece lists lots of DEI gravy-train groups: the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, which claims to represent restaurant workers across the country.

Their attorneys claim the groups are already suffering the effects of the executive orders as Trump encroaches on the powers of Congress, and seeks to suppress views he doesn't agree with.

Ah, the false "he's taking away ouah freedom of speech claim" again.

So the DEI grifters say Trump is "encroaching on the powers of congress," eh?  Ooohh, serious!  Kinda like the vegetable changing the wording of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to add "...or gender" to the specially-protected classes (girls and gays).

No one sued bribem when he did that, eh?  Democrats just smile:  "We're smahtah den yew."

So let's see what actual federal law says about "DEI," shall we?  If you google "What's the statutory basis of DEI in federal law?" google shows you this:

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin."

Wait...non-discrimination would be "color-blind," totally merit-based--the opposite of DEI.  What are the bastards at google trying to pull?

Of course you already know: Show the cunning google mislead first--the true statement that Title VII bars discrimination on the basis of race (etc)-- and everyone who looks will assume DEI is codified in federal law--because of the cite to Title VII.  But DEI is the opposite: it discriminates based on race!

Go deeper and ask "Is DEI a legal requirement under federal law?" and AI replies:

DEI initiatives are not specifically mandated by federal law, but are consistent with anti-discrimination laws.

No!  This is the same lie as earlier: DEI is the opposite of non-discrimination, replacing merit with race preferences.  DEI deliberately favors some minorities over Asians and whites.

To deflect anyone who may be starting to smell a rat in google and AI "misleads," AI helpfully adds this: 

"Explanation: While there are no federal laws that specifically regulate DEI, employers must comply with equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws.

Notice the cunning, deliberate use of "specifically regulate," which implies that federal laws ordering DEI do exist, but congress just hasn't gotten around to "regulating" 'em yet.  But an honest answer would have said "While there are no federal laws that specifically establish or mandate DEI..."

If you think that misleading word choice is an accident you're too stupid to breathe.

The rest of google answers are reasons why google and other woke corporations believe DEI is faaabulous.  

SO...if congress wants to codify DEI into federal law, I say go for it.  In fact I think we need to start a totally independent non-profit called "Democrats for DEI as federal law!" (exclamation point in the name) pointing out the grave oversight and demanding that the Dems introduce a bill making DEI federal law.

The buzz-phrase would be "Democrats: are you tired of supporting policies voters don't like?  Then make DEI federal law!"

It's a sure winner!