U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

The Obama Administration’s “Open Government” Empty Rhetoric

by Hans Bader on March 20, 2011

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal

Liberal “open government” advocates are giving the president a medal for supposedly promoting “government transparency.”  He shares their liberal ideology, but not their alleged commitment to transparency. In reality, President Obama is so hostile to open government that “the Obama administration censored 194 pages of internal e-mails about its Open Government Directive,” according to the Associated Press. For example, “it blacked-out one e-mail discussing how to respond to AP’s request for information about the transparency directive.”

Moreover, “the Obama administration has developed a reputation for ruthlessly prosecuting whistleblowers for leaks to the press.” It recently demoted a whistleblower who revealed to Congress how the Department of Homeland Security was violating the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The administration discriminates in responding to requests for documents under FOIA. It illegally forces its critics to wait years for the documents to which they are entitled — well beyond the 20-day legal deadline for responding — or refuses to even respond to their requests for documents. Meanwhile, it gives many of its supporters the documents they seek in just a few days.  These are just a few of the ways that Obama has broken his promise to have the most transparent administration in history.

[click to continue…]

Dodd-Frank Financial “Reform” Violates Property Rights and Equal-Protection Guarantees

by Hans Bader on January 9, 2011 · 2 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal, Property Rights, Regulation

Last week, I described how the Dodd-Frank financial “reform” law passed last summer violates constitutional separation-of-powers safeguards by giving unaccountable bureaucrats the power to seize companies and legislate through administrative fiat.  But that is not the only way Dodd-Frank violates the Constitution.  It also violates property rights and equal-protection guarantees.

For example, it contains racial preferences that were criticized by members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. It “imposes race and gender employment quotas on the financial industry,” noted economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth in the Washington Examiner. Its ”Section 342 states that race and gender employment ratios must be observed by all government agencies that regulate the financial sector, as well as private financial institutions that do business with the government.”

This unconstitutional requirement is the brainchild of Los Angeles Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the Castro-loving, left-wing ideologue who earlier praised the Los Angeles race riots that destroyed scores of Korean-owned businesses as an “uprising” against injustice. Waters once told a CEO in a public Congressional hearing, “This liberal will be all about socializing . . . .uh, uh . . . would be about, basically, taking over and the government running all of your companies.”

Law Professor Richard Epstein notes that Dodd-Frank is also an unconstitutional “taking” of private property, since it deliberately forces certain banks to process debit card transactions at a loss. (That provision is being challenged in a lawsuit called TCF Bank v. Bernanke. Debit cards did not contribute to the financial crisis in any way, but Dodd-Frank regulates them at the behest of large businesses that objected to being charged any fee by banks for processing debit card payments. Thanks to Dodd-Frank, some customers will now be charged annual fees for their debit cards.)

Dodd-Frank itself contains little “reform,” reinforcing the very features of the status quo that spawned the financial crisis.  Congressional Democrats blocked a GOP amendment that would have reformed the government-sponsored mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Obama administration lifted a $400 billion limit on bailing them out and showered their executives with $42 million in pay — even though Treasury Secretary Geithner has admitted that “Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong” in the financial crisis.

Fannie and Freddie helped spawn the mortgage crisis by buying up risky mortgages and repackaging them as prime mortgages, thus creating an artificial market for junk: “From the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime.”

At the direction of the Obama administration, Freddie Mac ran up more than $30 billion in losses to bail out mortgage borrowers, some of whom had high incomes. Federal regulators sought to make Freddie Mac hide the resulting losses from the SEC and the public.

Dodd-Frank is not unique in containing racial preferences. Many bills backed by Obama are riddled with racial set-asides, including the health care law passed last year. Obamacare has attracted criticism from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for containing both racial preferences and lower standards for treatment in predominantly-minority institutions, potentially harming both white applicants and minority patients. This racial discrimination appears to violate court rulings like the Supreme Court’s Adarand decision, and the Rothe and Western States Paving decisions issued by the federal appeals courts.

Civil Rights Commission: Administration Lied About Who Dropped Voter Intimidation Case

by Hans Bader on October 29, 2010 · 1 comment

in Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has found that political appointees, not career Justice Department lawyers, made the decision to drop a voter intimidation case against two black panthers after the Justice Department had already won a lawsuit against them by default.  That contradicts claims made by the Obama administration and its civil-rights chief, Tom Perez.

Earlier, a career Justice Department lawyer, Chris Coates, testified that under the Obama administration, the Justice Department has a policy of systematically ignoring voter intimidation and voting-rights violations when the perpetrator is a minority.

The case arose out of intimidating behavior by members of the bigoted New Black Panther Party outside a Philadelphia polling place.

The testimony by Coates, a former ACLU lawyer hired by the Justice Department under the Clinton administration, “supported earlier accusations made by J. Christian Adams,” a former Justice Department lawyer:

Adams had told the commission that DOJ officials “over and over and over” showed “hostility” to prosecution of voter-intimidation cases involving “black defendants and white victims.”

Adams testified that Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, a political appointee, himself overruled a unanimous recommendation for continued prosecution by Adams and his associates of voter intimidation of white voters by members of The New Black Panthers at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008.

Adams had also testified that Julie Fernandes, a deputy assistant general in the Civil Rights Division in charge of voting matters, told Voting Section leadership that the Obama administration would not file election-related cases against minority defendants — no matter what the alleged violation of the law.

Coates verified Adams’ testimony about Fernandes, and also said he had been “specifically instructed” by Loretta King, acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, “not to ask any other applicants whether they would be willing to, in effect, race-neutrally enforce the VRA (Voting Rights Act).”

The Washington Post recently ran an interesting story about “deep divisions” and internal infighting at the Justice Department about whether to enforce the civil-rights laws “without regard to race,” even in cases where the perpetrator may be a member of a minority group — like the Ike Brown case in Mississippi, where a black political boss violated the voting rights of many whites as well as a few blacks. (Lawyers who worked on that case during the Bush Administration ended up being harassed by left-wing colleagues who did not believe that the civil-rights laws should be enforced when the perpetrator is a minority.  A relative of one of those lawyers who worked in the Justice Department was also harassed.)

The Supreme Court has ruled that voting rights protect people of all races, not just members of historically disadvantaged groups.

Obama Justice Department Sued Over Stonewalling and Cover-Up in Black Panther Case

by Hans Bader on May 26, 2010 · 2 comments

in Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Judicial Watch is suing the Obama administration over its stonewalling in the Black-Panther voter intimidation case, where the administration has flouted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in order to hide how it protected members of the racist, anti-Semitic New Black Panther Party. Although FOIA requires that documents be released within 20 days, the administration has withheld for over a year the records Judicial Watch requested about how the administration dismissed a lawsuit that career Justice Department lawyers had won against Black Panthers who used a nightstick and racial epithets to drive white voters away from a polling place.

Earlier, a career Justice Department lawyer resigned after the Obama administration illegally defied a subpoena from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The Civil Rights Commission is investigating the administration’s politicization of the Justice Department and its selective refusal to enforce the Voting Rights Act against the Black Panthers and black political bosses.

A former Justice Department lawyer describes the Obama administration’s stonewalling, cover-up, and deceit at this link. The Black Panthers that the Obama administration sought to protect by dropping the lawsuit included a local Democratic official and Obama poll-watcher.

One of the Panthers, who has been videotaped saying “that he wanted to kill white people,” is shown in a recent documentary talking about “how much he hates and wants to kill white people, including white babies.” He called a terrified black poll watcher a “race traitor,” and told him there would be “hell to pay” if he interfered with the Panthers’ campaign of voter intimidation.

In their campaign of voter intimidation, the Panthers told a white former civil-rights lawyer and former publisher of the liberal Village Voice, “Now you are going to find out what it is to be ruled by the black man, cracker.” They called a white poll watcher who lives nine blocks from the polling place a “white devil” and a “cracker,” telling him he would be ruled by the black man the next day, and he would have to get used to “living under his boot.”

The New Black Panther Party, which has a venomous hatred for what it refers to as “bloodsucking Jews,” is designated as a hate-group even by the liberal SPLC, because of its anti-Semitism.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that discrimination against whites is prohibited under federal law (including voting discrimination). The Obama administration seemingly disagrees with those rulings (which include a 9-to-0 Supreme Court decision).

The Hidden Costs of Health Care Reform: “Obamacare Is A Budgetary Disaster”

by Hans Bader on March 8, 2010 · 2 comments

in Health and Illness, Healthcare, Insurance, International, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony

The health care bills backed by President Obama will cost $2.3 trillion, not the $900 billion Obama claims, and will be a “budgetary disaster” that drives up the national debt, explains health care expert James C. Capretta.  The Obama administration managed to hide $1.4 trillion in costs generated by the health care reform bill though a series of budgetary “gimmicks” that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is required to treat as valid in scoring the bill’s enormous cost.

Although the CBO is low-balling the costs of ObamaCare, even it concedes that as a whole, “President Obama’s policies would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.”

ObamaCare spends money on frills like “cultural competency,” while cutting spending on crucial things like anesthesia.

Most Americans oppose the health care legislation backed by the president. It would reduce lifesaving medical innovation, raise taxes, drive up insurance premiums, break many campaign promises, and increase state budget deficits.  It  would jeopardize the quality of medical care, while imposing restrictions that failed when tried at the state level.  It ignores advice from doctors and federal experts, and lessons from countries with universal health care, about how to keep costs down.

Fact-checkers say Obama is lying about health care. Obama often contradicts himself. In the very same speech, Obama claimed that Medicare is “unsustainable” and “running out of money,” then contradicted himself by claiming that “Medicare is a government program that works really well,” making it a model for national health care.  The bill does nothing to curb massive waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, even though it proposes to make massive cuts in Medicare (cuts so painful that most of them will never happen: year after year, Congress waives “the annual cut in fees paid by Medicare to physicians” mandated by an earlier law).

A CNN commentary noted that Obama’s plan would take away “5 freedoms,” contradicting Obama’s claim that the bill will leave you free to choose your doctor and keep your health care plan without government interference.

ObamaCare has also attracted criticism from groups like the Civil Rights Commission for containing both racial preferences and lower standards for treatment in predominantly-minority institutions, potentially harming both white applicants and minority patients.  This racial discrimination appears to violate court rulings like the Supreme Court’s Adarand decision, and the Rothe ruling by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

Experts Question Enormous Cost and Constitutionality of Healthcare Legislation

by Hans Bader on January 13, 2010 · 1 comment

in Health and Illness, Healthcare, Insurance, Legal, Nanny State, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

The health care legislation backed by the president and congressional leaders will increase Americans’ health care costs by more than $200 billion, concludes an expert at the federal Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services.

Earlier, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a lawyer, argued that the “individual mandate” in the health care bill legislation, which forces people to buy health insurance, is unconstitutional.  Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum likewise is questioning whether it is constitutional to force people to do so.

This so-called “individual mandate” is unprecedented and appears to exceed Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  As the Congressional Budget Office noted in 1994, “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

As a news story notes, in Supreme Court rulings issued in 1995 and 2000, “the high court said the commerce clause is limited to economic activities that substantially affect interstate trade.”  (I was an attorney in the latter ruling, United States v. Morrison (2000).)  As UPI notes, “the weight of Supreme Court jurisprudence seems to favor a Commerce Clause challenge” to the health care legislation.

The individual mandate does not regulate activities, much less economic activities, but rather inactivity, by penalizing those who decline to buy health insurance. That exceeds Congress’s powers under the Supreme Court’s Morrison ruling, as I explained earlier.

The health care legislation also contains unconstitutional racial preferences for minority applicants, and lower standards of care for patients in predominantly-minority institutions.  These drew criticism from the Civil Rights Commission.

Most Americans oppose the health care legislation. It would reduce lifesaving medical innovation, raise taxes, drive up insurance premiums and the deficit, break many campaign promises, and impose heavy burdens on state budgets.  It  would also jeopardize the quality of medical care for many, while imposing restrictions that failed when tried at the state level, and ignoring advice from federal and academic experts, and lessons from countries with universal health care, about how to keep costs down.

Florida Attorney General Questions Constitutionality of Healthcare Bills in Congress

by Hans Bader on December 31, 2009

in Health and Illness, Healthcare, Insurance, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is questioning whether it is constitutional to force people to buy health insurance, as the health care bills backed by the Obama administration require.  This “individual mandate” is unprecedented and appears to exceed Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

As the Congressional Budget Office noted in 1994“,

A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.

As the news story about the attorney general’s concerns notes, in Supreme Court decisions issued in 1995 and 2000, “the high court said the commerce clause is limited to economic activities that substantially affect interstate trade in goods and services.”  (I was involved as an attorney in the latter of those two decisions, United States v. Morrison (2000)).

The individual mandate does not regulate activities, much less economic activities, but rather regulates based on inactivity, by penalizing those who decline to buy a product, health insurance (a product that young people generally do not need — as a young man, I did not go to the doctor or dentist, or purchase any drugs, for a 10-year period, and if I had become ill, my family could have easily paid my expenses).

That exceeds Congress’s powers under its Morrison and Lopez rulings, as I explained yesterday in a more extended analysis of the issue.  However, it is likely that at least four members of the current Supreme Court would vote to uphold the individual mandate, since the Morrison and Lopez decisions were 5-to-4 decisions.

Other aspects of the health care bills have also attracted legal criticism, such as their racial preferences and racial discrimination (it discriminates against white applicants in some provisions, and against minority patients in others; both forms of discrimination drew criticism from the Civil Rights Commission), and the manner in which they regulate insurance companies.

Regardless of whether the individual mandate is constitutional or not, it is certainly controversial — as are other aspects of the health care bills, which most Americans oppose.  As noted earlier, the bills would reduce life-saving medical innovation, raise many taxes, drive up insurance premiums and the deficit, break many campaign promises, and impose heavy burdens on state budgets.  They would also jeopardize the quality of medical care for many, while imposing restrictions that failed when tried at the state level, and ignoring advice from federal and academic experts, and lessons from countries with universal health care, about how to keep costs down.

Obama Signs Hate-Crimes Bill Into Law; Critics Say It Circumvents Constitutional Safeguards Against Double Jeopardy

by Hans Bader on October 28, 2009 · 2 comments

in International, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Privacy, Sanctimony

Today, President Obama signed into law a bill that will dramatically expand the federal hate crimes law, enabling prosecutors to bring federal charges against people who were previously found innocent of hate crimes in state court.  The hate-crimes provisions were added to a defense appropriations bill, which the President signed in a White House signing ceremony this afternoon at around 2:30 p.m.

The new law dramatically expands the reach of the existing federal hate-crimes law that was already on the books, by getting rid of the requirement that a hate crime affect federally-protected activities to be prosecuted in federal court.  It also adds sexual orientation, gender, disability, and transgender characteristics to a law that was originally designed to protect racial minorities.

The hate-crimes bill was opposed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for allowing the reprosecution in federal court of people found innocent in state court.  The Commission called the new law a “menace to civil liberties” because it is an end-run around constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy.

As explained earlier, the bill’s sponsors seek to use it to reprosecute people in federal court who have already been found innocent of hate crimes in state court, taking advantage of the “dual sovereignty” loophole in constitutional protections against double jeopardy.  Civil libertarians like Nat Hentoff and Wendy Kaminer thus object to the bill on double-jeopardy grounds.   Backers of the bill, like the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Commissioner Michael Yaki, supported the bill partly as a way of prosecuting all over again people who were either found not guilty, or who were convicted only of ordinary crimes, while being acquitted of hate-crimes (like the teenagers acquitted of hate crimes in the Shenandoah incident, and the California case of Joseph Silva and George Silva).

Such re-prosecutions can be an enormous waste of money, and grossly unfair to the people who are reprosecuted, driving them into bankruptcy to pay lawyers to represent them all over again when they have already been found innocent in state court after an expensive trial.  When the government re-prosecutes someone, it gains an enormous tactical advantage over the defendant from using the prior prosecution as a test-run, even if the defendant is innocent — making a guilty verdict possible even if the defendant is in fact innocent.

The bill also raises serious constitutional federalism issues under the Supreme Court’s Morrison decision.

Passage of the bill was aided by lousy reporting, in which some journalists, like Reuters, depicted the bill as simply a harmless measure to add sexual orientation to the list of protected characteristics covered by the federal hate-crimes law, ignoring its many other, far more important (and dangerous) changes to federal hate-crimes law.

Many supporters of the hate crimes bill want to allow those found innocent to be reprosecuted in federal court. As one supporter put it, “the federal hate crimes bill serves as a vital safety valve in case a state hate-crimes prosecution fails.” The claim that the justice system has “failed” when a jury returns a not-guilty verdict is truly scary and contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to trial by jury.

But it is a view widely shared among supporters of the hate-crimes bill. Syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum pointed out in 1998 that Janet Reno, Clinton’s Attorney General, backed the bill as a way of providing a federal “forum” for prosecution if prosecutors fail to obtain a conviction “in the state court.”

Supporters of the hate crimes bill also see it as a way to prosecute people even in cases where the evidence is so weak that state prosecutors have decided not to prosecute. Attorney General Eric Holder has pushed for the hate crimes bill as a way to prosecute people whom state prosecutors refuse to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. To justify broadening federal hate-crimes law, he cited three examples where state prosecutors refused to prosecute, citing a lack of evidence. In each, a federal jury acquitted the accused, finding them not guilty.

As law professor Gail Heriot notes, “Some have even called for federal prosecution of the Duke University lacrosse team members–despite strong evidence of their innocence.”  Advocates of a broader federal hate-crimes law have pointed to the Duke lacrosse case as an example of where federal prosecutors should have stepped in and prosecuted the accused players — even though the state prosecution in that case was dropped because the defendants were actually innocent, as North Carolina’s attorney general conceded (and DNA evidence showed), and were falsely accused of rape by a woman with a history of violence (including trying to run over someone with her car) and making false accusations.

The Obama administration has long supported the hate-crimes bill, which it used as a wedge issue in the 2008 election.

As law professors like Jonathan Turley and Eugene Volokh have noted, the Obama administration recently urged restrictions on hate speech at the United Nations, joining in calls to treat such speech, protected by the First Amendment under Supreme Court rulings, as a human-rights violation in violation of international human-rights treaties. In the U.S., college hate-speech codes have been used to discipline students for criticizing affirmative action, discussing the racial implications of the death penalty, and calling homosexuality immoral.  In Canada and Britain, hate speech laws have been used to punish religious criticism of Scientology and homosexuality.

Hate Crimes Bill Passes, Eroding Civil Liberties and Double Jeopardy Safeguards

by Hans Bader on October 23, 2009 · 1 comment

in International, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

Yesterday, Congress approved a measure to dramatically expand the existing federal hate crimes law, by adding it to an unrelated defense appropriations bill.  The measure would expand current law to cover virtually all hate crimes already covered by state law (both by adding gender, sexual orientation, disability, and transgender characteristics to a law originally designed to protect racial minorities, and by getting rid of the requirement that a hate crime effect federally-protected activities to be prosecuted in federal rather than state court.)

The measure was opposed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on double-jeopardy grounds.  As I previously explained at length, the bill’s sponsors seek to use it to reprosecute people in federal court who have already been found innocent of hate crimes in state court, taking advantage of the “dual sovereignty” loophole in constitutional protections against double jeopardy.  Civil libertarians like Nat Hentoff and Wendy Kaminer also object to the bill on double-jeopardy grounds.   Backers of the bill, like the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Commissioner Michael Yaki, supported the bill partly as a way of trying all over again people who were either found not guilty, or who were convicted only of ordinary crimes, while being acquitted of hate-crimes (like the teenagers acquitted of hate crimes in the Shenandoah incident, and the California case of Joseph Silva and George Silva).

Such re-prosecutions can be an enormous waste of money, and grossly unfair to the people who are reprosecuted, driving them into bankruptcy to pay lawyers to represent them all over again when they have already been found innocent in state court after an expensive trial.  When the government re-prosecutes someone, it gains an enormous tactical advantage over the defendant from using the prior prosecution as a test-run, even if the defendant is innocent — making a guilty verdict possible even if the defendant is in fact innocent.

The bill contains speech-related provisions designed to allow prosecution of people who are not violent and do not intend to cause hate crimes, but whose speech inadvertently incites a hate crime by some violent, bigoted nut.  For now, courts are likely to block such prosecutions on First Amendment grounds, under the Supreme Court’s Brandenburg decision banning prosecutions of people whose speech unintentionally incites violence or other illegal acts (and the federal appeals court ruling in White v. Lee faithfully applying that principle to speech that incites violations of federal civil-rights and anti-discrimination statutes).  But if the ideological composition of the Supreme Court changes substantially, it is conceivable (although far from certain) that that could change.  Although the provisions will probably prove unsuccessful in censoring speech, it speaks volumes about the mindset of the hate-crimes bill’s backers that they would even try.

The bill also raises serious constitutional federalism issues under the Supreme Court’s Morrison decision, as I explained earlier.

Passage of the bill was aided by lousy reporting, in which journalists, like Reuters, depicted the bill as simply a harmless measure to add sexual orientation to the list of protected characteristics covered by the federal hate-crimes law, ignoring its many other, far more important (and dangerous) changes to federal hate-crimes law.

Many supporters of the hate crimes bill want to allow those found innocent to be reprosecuted in federal court. As one supporter put it, “the federal hate crimes bill serves as a vital safety valve in case a state hate-crimes prosecution fails.” The claim that the justice system has “failed” when a jury returns a not-guilty verdict is truly scary and contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to trial by jury.

But it is a view widely shared among supporters of the hate-crimes bill. Syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum pointed out in 1998 that Janet Reno, Clinton’s Attorney General, backed the bill as a way of providing a federal “forum” for prosecution if prosecutors fail to obtain a conviction “in the state court.”

Supporters of the hate crimes bill also see it as a way to prosecute people even in cases where the evidence is so weak that state prosecutors have decided not to prosecute. Attorney General Eric Holder has pushed for the hate crimes bill as a way to prosecute people whom state prosecutors refuse to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. To justify broadening federal hate-crimes law, he cited three examples where state prosecutors refused to prosecute, citing a lack of evidence. In each, a federal jury acquitted the accused, finding them not guilty.

As law professor Gail Heriot notes, “Some have even called for federal prosecution of the Duke University lacrosse team members–despite strong evidence of their innocence.”  Advocates of a broader federal hate-crimes law have pointed to the Duke lacrosse case as an example of where federal prosecutors should have stepped in and prosecuted the accused players — even though the state prosecution in that case was dropped because the defendants were actually innocent, as North Carolina’s attorney general conceded (and DNA evidence showed), and were falsely accused of rape by a woman with a history of violence (including trying to run over someone with her car) and making false accusations.

The Obama administration supports the hate-crimes bill, which it used as a wedge issue in the 2008 election.

The Obama administration recently urged restrictions on hate speech and blasphemy at the United Nations, joining in calls by left-wing lawyers and conservative Islamic countries to treat such speech, protected by the First Amendment under Supreme Court rulings, as a human-rights violation.  Religious minorities have often been persecuted for “blasphemy” in Islamic countries for disagreeing with Islam, criticizing the prophet Mohammed, or interpreting Islam’s holy book, the Koran, differently than the majority of Muslims do.  In the U.S., college hate-speech codes have been used to discipline students for criticizing affirmative action, defending the death penalty against racism charges, and calling homosexuality immoral.  In Canada and Britain, hate speech laws have been used to punish religious criticism of Scientology and homosexuality.

Civil Rights Commission Criticizes Obama Health-Care Plan’s Racially-Discriminatory Affirmative Action

by Hans Bader on August 12, 2009 · 2 comments

in Healthcare, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights says Obama’s health-care plan is racially discriminatory. The House health-care bill backed by Obama is filled with “sections that factor in race when awarding billions in contracts, scholarships and grants” and give “preferential treatment to minority students for scholarships.” Taxpayers of all races will end up paying more because of these arbitrary racial preferences. The Civil Rights Commission has concluded that this racial discrimination is unjustified, and that it will neither “reduce health care disparities among racial and ethnic groups,” nor “improve health care in underserved areas.”

Earlier, I wrote about other provisions backed by Obama that would mandate affirmative action in health care to promote “cultural competence” — whatever that means — and fund left-wing community organizers. “ObamaCare” also contains preferences for illegal aliens, who are exempt from its taxes and penalties, but can access its benefits due to lack of eligibility verification safeguards. The safeguards were blocked by liberal lawmakers allied with Obama.

Historically, affirmative action did not apply to health-care in general, only to employment, education, and government contracts, although Obama has advocated expanding it to health-care in his published writings. When critics of affirmative action passed state constitutional amendments banning racial preferences in California, Michigan, and Nebraska, they applied such bans only to “employment,” “education,” and “contracting,” because it never occurred to them that anyone would advocate affirmative action elsewhere. But Obama seems determined to go further than any other president in pushing affirmative action. In his 2006 book “The Audacity of Hope,” he advocated race-based “affirmative action” in the form of “targeted programs to eliminate existing health disparities between minorities and whites.”

Earlier, the Civil Rights Commission chided the Obama Administration for letting an Obama poll-watcher and Democratic official get away with racist voter intimidation against non-black voters in Philadelphia (even though they were caught on videotape wielding a nightstick and using racial epithets) and for backing a hate-crimes bill designed to allow people who have been found innocent of hate crimes in state court to be reprosecuted all over again in federal court.

One of Obama’s own advisers says the Obama Administration’s health-care plan will harm people with insurance while raising their taxes. ObamaCare will take away 5 important freedoms, notes a CNN commentary. It will also destroy many affordable health-care plans while breaking Obama’s campaign promises.

← Previous Entries