Do Black's Buy This Crap?

Meant to blog this earlier in the week but have been overcome by work.

If you are black and you believe that the greatest of threats to the black community are "racist" laws to insure the integrity of the ballot box, you are either a person making your living off of the racial grievance industry or an utter fool. If you found yourself nodding when Hillary Clinton tried to play you on Day One of her campaign for the presidency, you are ignorant of most, if not all, the relevant facts.



Ask yourself why Hillary and every politician on the left is trying to make you angry about voting laws. Those are laws that protect the vote of blacks and whites alike. Not a single one of those laws have been shown to have disenfranchised a single black voter. Or ask yourself why these same people are making Stand Your Ground laws such an important issue when such laws had nothing to do with the Trayvon Martin case (and indeed, which laws are invoked most often by black defendants)? Now ask yourself why not a one of these politicians is talking about the black community's problems with unemployment (over 50% for teens), poverty (risen to over 25% for blacks under Obama), education (the "civil rights issue of our time"), crime, or family?

For god's sake, think for yourself.

Is there still some racism against blacks on the fringes of America - I am sure there is. There is no place for it, and when found, it should be punished. But the unvarnished truth is that white racism is no longer any sort of major problem in this country, nor does it play any sort identifiable role in the problems facing the black community. So why then does every left wing politician from Hillary on down want to pretend that it is?

The answer is simple - they need the black vote to stay in power, but you might stop doing that if you start demanding that they actually address the problems besetting blacks today. Addressing those problems would mean two things. One, they would have to admit the problems are not caused by white racism. Two, it would soon become obvious that the left puts blacks far down on the list of interest groups. For instance, teacher's unions are the single most moneyed interest in the left's pantheon, and in any conflict between blacks and the teacher's unions, blacks come out on the short end of the stick. Or for that matter, take the DC City Council that is now driving Walmart out of the city at the behest of unions. With it goes thousands of jobs and the availability of low priced products. Do you really think that decision is being made in the best interest of the black community in DC? If you do, please, do the world a favor, don't reproduce.

For God's sake, wake up! Step off the left's plantation and look around. Hold the people you would elect accountable. The day the left is unable to take your vote for granted is the day the situation of blacks in this country will begin to greatly improve.

On a side note, it is not only blacks who are treated this way by the left - it is virtually their entire staple of low information voters. I blogged years ago about my horror at how MoveOn.org operated - asking people to act on pure emotion with no discussion whatsoever about policies. They tell you what to think and demonize any who do not agree. At Powerline, they make that same observation today. They are still operating on pure demonization and hate.

In the words of Instapundit: "Fuck ‘em. I’ve had it with this crap." Good. Glad to see the anger. We need ton's more of such anger if this "crap" is ever going to be stopped.

Over at RWN, John Hawkins has posted his Eleven Liberal Rules For Racism In America. Many of his points go directly to what I have addressed above:

1) Liberals aren’t held to the same rules as Republicans: When liberals say racist things, it’s just excused out of hand as if it’s no big deal. . . . [This holds not merely for racism, but the most venomous reverse racism as well - Jeremiah Wright being but the small tip of that iceberg.]

2) Minority racism must be ignored: According to Rasmussen polling, “Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. . . . [T]he most grotesque examples of racism from minorities are just shrugged off

. 3) You pay no penalty for falsely accusing people of racism: False accusations of racism can do just as much damage as actual racism. People can be ostracized for it, lose endorsement deals or even lose their jobs over being falsely accused of racism. Yet, the only reason you’ve heard of people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Touré, and Melissa Harris-Perry is because they’re willing to accuse people of being racists on the flimsiest of pretexts. It’s tempting to compare these race-hustling poverty pimps to the KKK, but the more appropriate analogy is the Spanish Inquisition. The attitude is, “So what if we unjustly accuse a lot of people as long as we get a few heretics in the process?”

4) Outrage matters more than facts: It doesn’t matter what Bush actually did in New Orleans or that the local government failed the people of the city; it matters how people FEEL about it. It doesn’t matter that Democrats have run Detroit since 1962; it matters that people FEEL Republicans are responsible. It doesn’t matter that Trayvon Martin wasn’t really a twelve year old kid and that he was slamming George Zimmerman’s head into the pavement; it matters that Zimmerman’s acquittal FEELS symbolic of law-abiding black Americans being profiled because so many other black Americans are criminals. Once an accusation of racism is made, facts are treated as if they’re of secondary importance to FEELINGS.

5) It’s okay to discriminate against white Americans: It’s unbelievable that in 2013, we still have race-based discrimination in America and liberals are perfectly fine with it. . . .

6) It’s always the fifties and sixties: Comparing the United States of 2013, when we have a black President of the United States to a time when black Americans couldn’t drink from the same water fountains as whites is so ridiculous that to do so should practically be considered a sign of mental illness. Yet, it happens all the time . . .

7) Past evidence must be ignored: Ironically, saying you have “black friends” is now considered to be something that a racist would say. That says much more about the sort of witch hunt allegations of racism have become in this country than the people who say it. Judge Charles Pickering put his life on the line to prosecute the Grand Dragon of the KKK in Mississippi in the early sixties; yet liberals falsely branded him a racist to stop his nomination to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. George Zimmerman tutored black children and fought to get justice for a black homeless man beaten by police and even voted for Obama, but he was still falsely portrayed as a racist. This can happen only because determining if someone is a racist has become a political tool that is completely disconnected from whether the person in question actually dislikes people because of the color of their skin.

8) Republicans secretly want to do things Democrats used to do: Conservative, moderate, and liberal Democrats were behind slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, segregation, the Tuskegee Experiment, lynchings and every other racist horror inflicted on black Americans in this country. Republicans stood against the Democrats while they were doing all of those terrible things and while we congratulate them on now agreeing with us that they were wrong, it’s disgusting to try to blame Democrat sins on the Republican Party. . . ..

9) Minorities shouldn’t be held to the same standards as whites: . . . If there is one general characteristic of white liberals, it’s their condescending and demeaning attitude toward blacks.” The soft bigotry of low expectations that liberals bring to the table encourages mediocrity, undercuts excellence and generally helps to hold minorities in America back.

10) When a white non-liberal disagrees with a liberal minority, it’s probably because of racism: Republicans absolutely detested Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton; so what kind of moron would assume that their intense dislike of Barack Obama must be driven by race? Tea Partiers love black conservatives that agree with them, like Herman Cain and Allen West; so could there be a reason that they detest Barack Obama other than race? Do we really need the Scooby Gang to figure out why a group that’s all about small government, low taxes, and cutting spending would dislike a socialist who’s all about big government, higher taxes and increasing spending? . . .

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Race & The Zimmerman Case (Updated)

The Zimmerman case is the poster child for all that is wrong and destructive with racial politics in America. The left has been trying to make this into a race hate crime, something which it never was. Nor was this case about Florida's Stand Your Ground law, something never raised as a defense at trial. This has been about racial politics from start to finish - facts be damned.

The race machine - and the left which is fully invested in it - has built up a pile of myths surrounding this case, none of which stood the test of evidence at trial. They painted Treyvon Martin as an innocent angel who did nothing wrong while demonizing a white man (actually a mixed race hispanic, white and black, but let's not confuse the issues with facts) who supposedly hunted Trayvon down, accosted him and then killed him for no reason but racial animus. No one more so than the nation's worst race baiter, Al Sharpton (a man actually responsible for murder) has led the charge:



As to the facts and law presented at trial, it is clear that both Zimmerman and Martin had every right to be where they were on the night of the shooting. What Trayvon Martin did not have a right to do was begin pummelling Zimmerman. What Zimmerman had a right to do was act in self defense if he reasonably believed himself in danger of serious harm. Listen to those screams on the 9-11 tape and it is apparent that the person screaming felt himself in extremis. Since we know that Martin was on top, pummelling Zimmerman, it follows logically that it was Zimmerman making those panicked screams for help. [Update: One of the jurors has just in confirmed the above as the basis for the jury verdict] This from Protein Wisdom:

Anyone with half-a-brain who actually watched the trial cannot come away without knowing that it was Trayvon’s own behavior that led to his death. It was the behavior embodied in his “creepy-ass cracker” remark, his braggadocio attitude about street-fighting and his problems with authority that had him bounced to his father’s home that ultimately killed him, not George Zimmerman. . . .

So when Martin circled back to teach the “creepy-ass cracker” a lesson in respect by punching George in the nose, then beating his head against the concrete for 40 seconds while George screamed for help, then it was Trayvon, not George, that ended his own life.

George never did anything illegal, though those that want the sheep civilians to “shelter in place” in their homes at night, tried to use this show trial to reinforce the meme that The State will take care of you, don’t you dare try it on your own. . . .

The race machine, epitomized by Sharpton, wants desperately to milk this incident for all of the black rage and white liberal guilt that its worth, irregardless of the facts. And for their part, many on the left, including Obama, want to use this as an excuse for limiting access to guns. Obama actually has a foot in both camps, calling not only for gun control - apparently irrespective of whether Zimmerman used his gun in a legitimate act of self defense - but also called on the nation to "honor" Treyvon Martin, certainly suggesting that Martin was the innocent in this matter.

The last thing any on the left, from Obama on down, want is to have someone point out that this case is, more than anything, an indictment of the black subculture that promotes violence and criminality. For instance, Tristan Breaux, the recently elected 25 year old head of the Norfolk NAACP wrote the following on his Facebook Page:

"I wonder why it is that we are always willing to say someone who clearly had a shaky past, was the victim," Breaux asked . . . referring to Trayvon Martin. . . .

The post went on to ask if people are blinded to why Trayvon was staying with his dad and why he wasn't at home at at time of the shooting.

For his intellectual honesty, the left has turned on Breaux and are now calling for his ouster. And Mr. Breaux is not the only voice of honesty - rapper Lupe Fiasco can also likely expect a backlash one would imagine for his non-conformist remarks in the wake of the trial.

As to the legacy of this case, the attorney who runs the site Talk Left gives a good summation:

. . . [T]he legacy of this case will be that the media never gets it right, and worse, that a group of lawyers, with the aid of a public relations team, who had a financial stake in the outcome of pending and anticipated civil litigation, were allowed to commandeer control of Florida's criminal justice system, in pursuit of a divisive, personal agenda.

Their transformation of a tragic but spontaneous shooting into the crime of the century, and their relentless demonization of the person they deemed responsible, not for a tragic killing, but for "cold-blooded murder," has called into question the political motives and ethics of the officials serving in the Executive branch of Florida's government, ruined the career of other public officials, turned the lives of the Zimmerman family, who are as innocent as their grieving clients, into a nightmare, and along the way, set back any chance of a rational discussion of the very cause they were promoting, probably for years. . . .

The NAACP is now calling for Holder's Justice Department to file civil rights charges against Zimmerman. The big problem for this is that none of the evidence, including that unearthed during an FBI investigation, showed any hint of racial animus in George Zimmerman's past. But then again, this is not about facts, its about myths and political power. This is doing a grave injustice not merely to our nation and to the Zimmerman family, but most tragically to the black community. This is saying that there are no problems in the incredibly dysfunctional lower strata of black society, but rather that it is all a function of racism. No one sums up the myths of this case or the specious argument more so than the NYT editorial board in their op-ed of yesterday:

. . . While Mr. Zimmerman’s conviction might have provided an emotional catharsis, we would still be a country plagued by racism, which persists in ever more insidious forms despite the Supreme Court’s sanguine assessment that “things have changed dramatically,” as it said in last month’s ruling striking down the heart of the Voting Rights Act. (The Justice Department is right to continue its investigation into whether Mr. Zimmerman may still be prosecuted under federal civil rights laws.)

The jury reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of Florida’s now-notorious Stand Your Ground statute. Under that law, versions of which are on the books in two dozen states, a person may use deadly force if he or she “reasonably believes” it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm — a low bar that the prosecutors in this case fought in vain to overcome.

These laws sound intuitive: who would argue that you may not protect yourself against great harm? But of course, the concept of “reasonable belief” is transformed into something deadly dangerous when firearms are involved. And when the Stand Your Ground laws intersect with lax concealed-carry laws, it works essentially to self-deputize anyone with a Kel-Tec 9 millimeter and a grudge.

It has been a bad year so far for gun control. But if anything, cases like this should be as troubling as the mass killings that always prompt a national outcry and promises of legislative remedy. We were heartened that President Obama, in his statement after the verdict was issued, took the opportunity to denounce once again “the tide of gun violence” sweeping the country.

In the end, what is most frightening is that there are so many people with guns who are like George Zimmerman. Fear and racism may never be fully eliminated by legislative or judicial order, but neither should our laws allow and even facilitate their most deadly expression. Trayvon Martin was an unarmed boy walking home from the convenience store. If only Florida could give him back his life as easily as it is giving back George Zimmerman’s gun.

The NYT is hardly the only outlet keeping up the myths, and indeed, are positively staid in comparison to Salon's Edward Wyckoff Williams who writes that the trial was part of the "new Jim Crow," that calls not to riot are unreasonable, and that:

The nation’s sociopolitical consciousness remains plagued by a three-fifths compromise that devalues the lives of black people in general, and black boys and men in particular. . . .

For African-Americans this is not new. The paradox of being implicitly excluded from the guarantee of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness has been reiterated and reinforced by public policy and social malaise for centuries. President Barack Obama is not immune — as he’s become the target of incessant “white rage”: race-baiting attacks, prejudice and bias even prior to his election. The Republican Party and its neo-Confederate Tea Party wing has been committed to invalidating his political and legislative legacy as much as the Zimmerman jury invalidated the civil rights of Trayvon. The disparate precedent set, therefore, becomes all the more insulting when we’re told to simply shut up and bear it. . . .

What words written here can suffice to argue on behalf of an innocent dead child, as his murderer walks free — absolved by the system that failed to hold him responsible from the very beginning? The very logic that precipitated Trayvon’s death and rendered jurisprudence to justify his killing reflects the misguided principles at the heart of Zimmerman’s defense: that this black boy had no right to live. . . .

And that's not even the most outrageous example of this political myth of victimization and rampant white-conservative racism. The worst comes from The Guardian, where Gary Younge wrote over a picture of then 12 year old Treyvon that it is now "Open season on black boys after a verdict like this."

The race machine is in overdrive and there not going to let this one go so long as they see the possibility for political and monetary gain. Al Sharpton, who demanded not merely the arrest of Zimmerman but his conviction, will be "mobilizing" protests in 100 cities . . . to pressure the Justice Department into taking legal action against George Zimmerman." And the animals are out, with death threats against Zimmerman and other "crackers." These are people fed on a steady diet of victimization and the myth that we are still in (Democratic controlled) 1950's Selma. It is obscene.

But the settling of accounts on this is far from just on the side of the race baiters. The parents of Trayvon Martin are considering a civil case against Zimmerman - and that is the one where all of the unvarnished truth will come out. What will be on trial in such a proceeding is not merely Zimmerman, but also Trayon Martin. All of the evidence kept out of the criminal trial will likely be admissible in a civil trial, and from just what is out in the public domain today, it would likely paint the picture of a young man with impaired judgement, uncontrollable by his mother and caught up in the black subculture of violence. Zimmerman, for his part, plans to sue NBC - and hopefully others - for their role in demonizing him.

And then there is the Special Prosecutor in this case, Angela Corey. One could argue that her decision to bring suit in this case - even for second degree murder - was within the outer boundaries of her discretion. But what is beyond argument is the way she handled this trial, including the withholding of key evidence and the termination of a whistleblower who brought her actions to the attention of the defense attorneys. She needs to be fired and subject to a civil suit for these acts.

Lastly, to add on a personal note, I am so tired of this horseshit it is beyond belief. I am deeply conservative, as are many, but hardly all, of my friends. I firmly believe in equality for all and that neither racism nor race baiting have any place in this country. And indeed, I know of no one among my friends, nor in the larger circle of those on the right, who believes in anything else. I resent the hell out of being labeled a racist by the left because I refuse to kow tow to their use of the race card or because I think their policies a complete failure. I am apoplectic with Sharpton and his ilk doing their best to gin up rage in the black community for their own power and wealth while doing nothing to fix the real problems in at least a large strata of black society. At the heart of those problems is, as David Goldman writes at PJM, "the breakdown of the black family" and all that means for criminality, jobs and education - something apparent ever since Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan raised it in his 1965 report "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action." As Goldman concludes at PJM:

Why have civil rights organizations and black clergy wagered their reputations on the Zimmerman case? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the issues that really concern African-Americans simply are too painful to discuss. Five years after the ultimate boost to self-esteem — the election of the first black president — things are getting worse faster. If black leaders — from Barack Obama and Eric Holder on down — can’t talk about the real problems, the prospects for the future are frightening indeed.

Goldman is right. The race baiters need to be called to account every bit as much as actual racists. And the race card, something that has done so much to harm our nation, needs to be put in the dust bin of history.

In conclusion, this from Martin Luther King, quoted in today's WSJ by Jason Riley:

"Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We've got to face that. And we've got to do something about our moral standards," Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told a congregation in 1961. "We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can't keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves."

The problems of actual racism in our society have greatly receded since MLK's remarks. But clearly, the problems raised by MLK have not - least of all by the race baiting industry exploiting the tragedy of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Compare & Contrast: An American Man & Some Race Hustlers

The look on Mike Wallace's face is priceless:



(H/T Primordial Slack and Power & Control)

Thank you Mr. Freeman. Now compare that with one of America's premeir race baiters, Jesse Jackson, calling for a Black National Anthem and arguing in support of multiculturalism and ethnic studies:



Then there is Charles Sherrod, husband of Shirley Sherrod, instructing his audience in the video below that "We must stop the white man and his Uncle Toms from stealing our elections."



(H/T, and more on this story, at Riehl World View)

The great struggle of the last half century was of the Civil Rights movement. The people who fought for equality won, but the civil rights movement itself long ago was taken over by the far left. Their goals were not equality, but political power and money. That has led to the greatest struggle of our time - whether our nation will be balkanized or once again become a melting pot. If, as I think is happening, the race card is loosing its legitimacy, then we will finally again become a melting pot. But expect Jessee Jackson and his ilk to fight it to the death. See more here.

Read More...

Summary only...

"These Are My People . . . Americans"

The gap between the MSM and race baiting industry and reality is a wide one indeed. Kathy Kelly interviews a tea party protester in the video below.



(H/T Hot Air)

Read More...

Summary only...

Ricci - The Rest Of The Story

The Supreme Court, in deciding the case of Ricci v. Destefano yesterday, held that, while employers have a duty to make their hiring criteria racially neutral, once they have done that, they can't use race as a basis to disregard merit. This decision . . .

. . . should significantly impact those class of claims where no actual racism is shown but claims of racisim are made on the basis of statistics;

. . . will make it harder for plaintiffs to prevail in "disparate impact" claims and should significantly curb the practice of employers caving to the demands of race baiters;

. . . may well have an important effect in areas outside of employer-employee law where such statistical evaluations of race are used, such as in college admissions and, of critical importance, under the Community Reinvestment Act;

. . . marks a step towards answering whether and to what extent affirmative action is Constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.

. . . looks bad for Sotomayor but will not by itself derail her nomination.

. . . the little publicized facts of Ricci are that vile race baiting and blatant reverse discrimination were the driving forces behind the City's decision to throw out the test results in that case. The claim of potential liability for disparate impact was a pretext.

************************************************************

The Ricci case was brought by some white and Hispanic firefighters from New Haven, Connecticut under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause. The firefighters had passed a promotion test that the City refused to certify because no blacks had scored high enough to also be promoted.

The penultimate issue is whether using race as a discrimating factor is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court did not reach that issue, limiting its holding to Title VII law. But as Justice Scalia noted, the case marks a step towards "the evil day" when the Court will have to answer that question.

Title VII allows two ways to prove discrimination. One is actual discrimination against a specific individual. In the legalese of Title VII, that is called "disparate treatment."

The second way is to prove discrimination under Title VII is statistically. If the overall process of hiring and promoting results in minorities being underrepresented, then it raises what is called a "disparate impact" claim. Once a plaintiff statistically shows a disparate impacat, then the employer has to show that the criteria it used was racially neutral and business related. If the employer can show this, then the plaintiff can only prevail if he or she shows that there was an equally viable test or criteria that would not have resulted in the disparate impact.

On the facts of Ricci, it was clear that New Haven took great care to insure that the hiring process would be racially neutral and carefully tailored to question on the most important topics relating to fire fighting duties. The people that were hired to design the test came to New Haven, engaged in extensive interviews and ride alongs, and when they developed the questions, they oversampled minorities to insure that the questions would not inadvertently favor whites. As to the boards for the oral exams, the people that sat on the boards were fire dept. senior personel from outside New Haven, two thirds of whom were minorities.

In short, the City had adopted a hiring criteria that resulted in situation where a minority plaintiff could bring suit and prove a prima facie case of disparate impact because no minorities scored high enough to be promoted. However, to toss the test based simply on this fact would be an unlawful act of racism / "disparate treatment" against those people who passed the test. And that was precisely what the Supreme Court said an employer cannot do. An employer can now only lawfully throw out tests and start over if they can show "a strong basis in evidence that the test was deficient . . ."

The general consensus is that this will make it harder to prove "disparate impact" claims. Further, it should significantly curb the practice of employers caving to the demands of race baiters when they have acted reasonably and without discriminatory intent - which actually is what went on Ricci. I cover those facts in detail at the end of this post.

The decision should also impact outside of employer-employee arena, in areas such as college admissions. Additionally, it might well have an impact on banks and mortgage lenders under the Community Reinvestment Act - that piece of ill advised legislation at the very center of our economic meltdown. The CRA now includes provisions that use statistical analysis to punish banks who have not made "sufficient" loans to minorities, irrespective of whether neutral lending criteria was followed in each and every loan decision. Obama has proposed vastly expanding the CRA under his proposal for massive regulation of our financial sector. But I see no reason that the Ricci decision would not also apply in the banking context.

As to Justice Sotomayor, this Ed Whelan at NRO

Judge Sotomayor thought it appropriate to use an unpublished summary order to dispose of the claims of the New Haven firefighters in Ricci v. DeStefano. Today the Supreme Court issued 93 pages of opinions in the case that Sotomayor acted to bury.

Further, although there is a sharp 5-4 divide among the justices, not a single justice thought that Judge Sotomayor acted correctly in granting summary judgment for the City of New Haven.

All of that is true, but the bottom line is that this was a split decision and trying to make the fine point that there is a significant difference between Sotomayor's handling of the case and the position of the four dissenters will likely be lost in the spin.

Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent in essence arguing for the good to be had from practicing reverse discrimination in the future to atone for original sins of our forebearers. Richard Epstein does a good job of fisking her stroll down memory lane.

On a final note, the facts of this case are far more objectionable than I have ever seen in the MSM stories covering it. The City threw out the test not simply out of fear of being sued disparate impact. Reverse racism played a predominant and ugly role. Justice Alito tells us the rest of the story in his concurring opinion.

This story is, I think, truly typical of the split in the African American community. You see on one side the majority of the african american community who take no substantial part in identity politics. On the other side are those for whom identity politics defines everything. Thus, in this case, the vast majority of African Americans who were involved in the hiring process thought it fair and that the results should be certified. Where you get the vile reverse racism is from a race baiting community organizer/Rev. Wright style preacher and a left wing Mayor who feeds the preacher in return for votes.

Here are the facts from Justic Alito's opinion minus the citations:

. . . “[A] jury could rationally infer that city officials worked behind the scenes to sabotage the promotional examinations because they knew that, were the exams certified, theMayor would incur the wrath of [Rev. Boise] Kimber and other influential leaders of New Haven’s African-American community.”

This admission finds ample support in the record. Reverend Boise Kimber . . . is a politically powerful New Haven pastor and a self-professed “‘kingmaker.’” On one occasion, “[i]n front of TV cameras, he threatened a race riot duringthe murder trial of the black man arrested for killing white Yalie Christian Prince. He continues to call whites racist if they question his actions.”

Reverend Kimber’s personal ties with seven-term New Haven Mayor John DeStefano (Mayor) stretch back more than a decade. In 1996, for example, Mayor DeStefano testified for Rev. Kimber as a character witness when Rev. Kimber — then the manager of a funeral home — was prosecuted and convicted for stealing prepaid funeral expenses from an elderly woman and then lying about the matter under oath. “Reverend Kimber has played a leadership role in all of Mayor DeStefano’s political campaigns, [and] is considered a valuable political supporter and vote-getter.” According to the Mayor’s former campaign manager (who is currently his executive assistant), Rev. Kimber is an invaluable political asset because “[h]e’s very good at organizing people and putting together field operations, as a result of his ties to labor, his prominence in the religious community and his long-standing commitment to roots.”

In 2002, the Mayor picked Rev. Kimber to serve as the Chairman of the New Haven Board of Fire Commissioners (BFC), “despite the fact that he had no experience in the profession, fire administration, [or] municipal management.” In that capacity, Rev. Kimber told fire fighters that certain new recruits would not be hired because “‘they just have too many vowels in their name[s].’” After protests about this comment, Rev. Kimber stepped down as chairman of the BFC, but he remained on the BFC and retained “a direct line to the mayor.”

Almost immediately after the test results were revealed in “early January” 2004, Rev. Kimber called the City’s Chief Administrative Officer, Karen Dubois-Walton, who “acts ‘on behalf of the Mayor.’” Dubois Walton and Rev. Kimber met privately in her office because he wanted “to express his opinion” about the test results and “to have some influence” over the City’s response. . . . Rev. Kimber adamantly opposed certification of the test results . . .

On January 12, 2004, Tina Burgett (the director of theCity’s Department of Human Resources) sent an e-mail toDubois-Walton to coordinate the City’s response to the test results. Burgett wanted to clarify that the City’s executive officials would meet “sans the Chief, and that once we had a better fix on the next steps we would meet with theMayor (possibly) and then the two Chiefs.” The “two Chiefs” are Fire Chief William Grant (who is white) and Assistant Fire Chief Ronald Dumas (who is African-American). Both chiefs believed that the test results should be certified.

Petitioners allege, and the record suggests, that the Mayor and his staff colluded “sans the Chief[s]” because “the defendants did not want Grant’s or Dumas’ views to be publicly known; accordingly both men were prevented by the Mayor and his staff from making any statements regarding the matter.” The next day, on January 13, 2004, Chad Legel, who had designed the tests, flew from Chicago to New Haven to meet with Dubois-Walton, Burgett, and Thomas Ude, the City’s corporate counsel. “Legel outlined the merits of the examination and why city officials should be confident in the validity of the results.” But according to Legel, Dubois-Walton was “argumentative”and apparently had already made up her mind that the tests were “‘discriminatory.’” Again according to Legel, “[a] theme” of the meeting was “the political and racial overtones of what was going on in the City.” “Legel came away from the January 13, 2004 meeting with the impression that defendants were already leaning toward discarding the examination results.”

On January 22, 2004, the Civil Service Board (CSB orBoard) convened its first public meeting. Almost immediately, Rev. Kimber began to exert political pressure on the CSB. He began a loud, minutes-long outburst that required the CSB Chairman to shout him down and hold him out of order three times. Reverend Kimber protested the public meeting, arguing that he and the other fire commissioners should first be allowed to meet with the CSB in private.

Four days after the CSB’s first meeting, Mayor DeStefano’s executive aide sent an e-mail to Dubois-Walton, Burgett, and Ude. The message clearly indicated that the Mayor had made up his mind to oppose certification of the test results but nevertheless wanted to conceal that fact from the public:

“I wanted to make sure we are all on the same pagefor this meeting tomorrow. . . . [L]et’s remember, that these folks are not against certification yet. So we can’t go in and tell them that is our position; we have to deliberate and arrive there as the fairest and most cogent outcome.”

On February 5, 2004, the CSB convened its second public meeting. Reverend Kimber again testified and threatened the CSB with political recriminations if they voted to certify the test results:

“I look at this [Board] tonight. I look at three whites
and one Hispanic and no blacks. . . . I would hope that you would not put yourself in this type of position, a political ramification that may come back upon you as
you sit on this [Board] and decide the future of a department and the future of those who are being promoted.

One of the CSB members “t[ook] great offense” because he believed that Rev. Kimber “consider[ed] [him] a bigot because [his] face is white.” The offended CSB member eventually voted not to certify the test results.

One of Rev. Kimber’s “friends and allies,” Lieutenant Gary Tinney, also exacerbated racial tensions before the CSB. After some firefighters applauded in support of certifying the test results, “Lt. Tinney exclaimed, ‘Listen to the Klansmen behind us.’” Id., at 225a. Tinney also has strong ties to the Mayor’s office. After learning that he had not scored well enough on the captain’s exam to earn a promotion, Tinney called Dubois-Walton and arranged a meeting in her office. Tinney alleged that the white firefighters had cheated on their exams — an accusation that Dubois-Walton conveyed to the Board without first conducting an investigation into its veracity. The allegation turned out to be baseless.

Dubois-Walton never retracted the cheating allegation, but she and other executive officials testified several times before the CSB. In accordance with directions from the Mayor’s office to make the CSB meetings appear deliberative, executive officials remained publicly uncommitted about certification — while simultaneously “work[ing] as a team” behind closed doors with the secretary of the CSB to devise a political message that would convince the CSB to vote against certification. At the public CSB meeting on March 11, 2004, for example, Corporation Counsel Ude bristled at one board member’s suggestion that City officials were recommending against certifying the test results. . . . But within days of making that public statement, Ude privately told other members of the Mayor’s team “the ONLY way we get to adecision not to certify is” to focus on something other than “a big discussion re: adverse impact” law.

As part of its effort to deflect attention from the specifics of the test, the City relied heavily on the testimony of Dr.Christopher Hornick, who is one of Chad Legel’s competitors in the test-development business. Hornick never “stud[ied] the test [that Legel developed] at length or in detail,” but Hornick did review and rely upon literature sent to him by Burgett to criticize Legel’s test. For example, Hornick “noted in the literature that [Burgett] sent that the test was not customized to the New Haven Fire Department.” The Chairman of the CSB immediately corrected Hornick. . . . Hornick also relied on newspaper accounts — again, sent to him by Burgett — pertaining to the controversy surrounding the certification decision. Although Hornick again admitted that he had no knowledge about the actual test that Legel had developed and that the City had administered, the City repeatedly relied upon Hornick as a testing “guru” and, in the CSB Chairman’s words, “the City ke[pt]quoting him as a person that we should rely upon more than anybody else [to conclude that there] is a better way — a better mousetrap.” Dubois-Walton later admitted that the City rewarded Hornick for his testimony by hiring him to develop and administer an alternative test.

At some point prior to the CSB’s public meeting on March 18, 2004, the Mayor decided to use his executive authority to disregard the test results — even if the CSB ultimately voted to certify them. Accordingly, on the evening of March 17th, Dubois-Walton sent an e-mail to the Mayor, the Mayor’s executive assistant, Burgett, and attorney Ude, attaching two alternative press releases. The first would be issued if the CSB voted not to certify the test results; the second would be issued (and would explain the Mayor’s invocationof his executive authority) if the CSB voted to certify the test results. Half an hour after Dubois-Walton circulated the alternative drafts, Burgett replied: “[W]ell, that seems to say it all. Let’s hope draft #2 hits the shredder tomorrow nite.”

Soon after the CSB voted against certification, Mayor DeStefano appeared at a dinner event and “took credit for the scu[tt]ling of the examination results.”

Those are some ugly facts indeed, but are hardly unique. To the contrary, this fact pattern is often seen with the race baiting crowd, from Al Sharpton, to Jeremiah Wright to Jesse Jackson, etc. They have suffered a significant blow as a result of Ricci. They only bad thing about this decision is that it was a 5-4 split. Should we lose any of the conservative justices, instead of equal protection of the laws, we will have reverse discrimination ensconced as Constitutional law. God please save the Court . . . at least through 2012.

Read More...

Summary only...