American Third Position

Posted: 25 Sep 2010 06:29 AM PDT

There are too many white jurors in New York and, with effect from last week, all would-be jury members are screened to make sure that they are of the "correct" nonwhite race before being allowed to carry out their duties.

The incredible policy — which would have provoked a torrent of accusations of "racism" had it been set up to reduce the number of nonwhite jurors — has been implemented in accordance with Judiciary Law 528, passed by the state legislature earlier this year.

The law was passed because of a 2006 Citizen Action–New York study which suggested that nonwhites are "significantly underrepresented in civil jury pools."

Instead of addressing that issue — possibly because the answer to the obvious question is so unpalatable — it is much easier for liberals to simply outlaw too many whites from doing civic duty.

The new law requires all people showing up for jury duty in New York to fill out a questionnaire that asks for their race and ethnic background.

The irony of this seems to have been lost on the liberal legislators who, on the one hand almost to a man deny that race even exists, or claim it is a "social construct," while on the other, they fail to grasp that it is extreme racial discrimination, to which they all claim to be opposed.

According to reports, guidance sent out by the state Office of Court Administration says that jury commissioners must hand out the information cards to jurors.

The guidance goes on to say that the commissioners must tell the jurors that the law obliges them to collect the data, with the relevant law printed on the back of the card.

Interestingly, the official guidance formally instructs the commissions not to say anything else about that card or why it is being distributed.

Furthermore, the guidance continues, commissioners are "not to offer any opinions on why the data is being collected."

The questions ask if the juror is male or female; year of birth; if they are of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin, with different boxes for different countries of origin; and race, with 15 options including "other" with a space for write-ins.

The law is yet another example of the poison of institutionalized anti-white racism which has been allowed and encouraged to spread all over the country.

The American Third Position exists to give political voice to white Americans to challenge these blatantly unjust laws. We need your help; join today.

Do We Have the Right to Force Democracy on Everyone Else?

Posted: 25 Sep 2010 06:11 AM PDT

The Obama administration spent $2 billion in 2009 in Sub-Saharan Africa to "strengthen democratic institutions," according to a new White House briefing paper — a policy which has clearly failed and which calls into question the right of America to demand that the rest of the world follow our system of government.

According to the Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU) Democracy Index, there is not a single fully functioning democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa, with even the much-lauded South Africa and Botswana being classed as "flawed democracies" in that ranking system.

The vast majority of African states are authoritarian dictatorships or military dictatorships, the EIU's annual report has revealed time after time.

The White House briefing paper, issued to coincide with President Obama's recent speech to the U.N.'s General Assembly, was designed to show how America is using its influence throughout the world to promote democracy.

According to the paper, the Obama administration has addressed "human rights situations in several countries, including Burma, Burundi, North Korea, and Cambodia."

In addition, the paper says, it has "lead the effort . . . to criticize the human rights situation in Iran" while hypocritically protesting the "politicized efforts of some members to target Israel while ignoring problems in their own countries."

In addition, the Obama regime has extended "international mandates to monitor and address human rights situations in several countries, including Burma, Burundi, North Korea, and Cambodia" and has spoken out on "serious human rights abuses in North Korea, Burma, Sudan, China, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Syria, Russia, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere."

Of course, no one wants to see other people suffer oppression of any sort. The real question is whether or not America has the right to interfere — unilaterally and in a blatantly partisan way — in another nation's right not to be a democracy.

Given the history of Africa and Asia, it is clear that democracy is not inherent or native to the peoples of those continents.

Democracy was formed in Europe, and only extends as far as European influence is felt. Why then would we expect other peoples to endorse our system of government, and the American system in particular?

What makes this gross political chauvinism worse is that it is not applied with any degree of consistency.

Iraq and Afghanistan can be bombed to pieces to "force" democracy on those nations, but China, a one-party Communist state, is treated with the utmost respect and courtesy, even though it has driven tanks over dissidents.

The reality is that democracy is innate to the people who created it and the historical record shows that it is not for export.

It cannot be bought, sold, or bombed into existence, and all attempts to do so are futile and a waste of tax dollars which could be put to far better use at home.