The New New Jim Crow under the Chumph and KKK Sessions…
The Trump administration is planning to disband the Labor Department division that has policed discrimination among federal contractors for four decades, according to the White House’s newly proposed budget, part of wider efforts to rein in government programs that promote civil rights.
As outlined in Labor’s fiscal 2018 plan, the move would fold the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, now home to 600 employees, into another government agency in the name of cost-cutting.
The proposal to dismantle the compliance office comes at a time when the Trump administration is reducing the role of the federal government in fighting discrimination and protecting minorities by cutting budgets, dissolving programs and appointing officials unsympathetic to previous practices.
The new leadership at the Environmental Protection Agency, for instance, has proposed eliminating its environmental justice program, which addresses pollution that poses health threats specifically concentrated in minority communities. The program, in part, offers money and technical help to residents who are confronted with local hazards such as leaking oil tanks or emissions from chemical plants.
Under President Trump’s proposed budget, the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights — which has investigated thousands of complaints of discrimination in school districts across the country and set new standards for how colleges should respond to allegations of sexual assault and harassment — would also see significant staffing cuts. Administration officials acknowledge in budget documents that the civil rights office will have to scale back the number of investigations it conducts and limit travel to school districts to carry out its work.
And the administration has reversed several steps taken under President Barack Obama to address LGBT concerns. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example, has revoked a rule ensuring that transgender people can stay at sex-segregated shelters of their choice, and the Department of Health and Human Services has removed a question about sexual orientation from two surveys of elderly Americans about services offered or funded by the government.
The efforts to reduce the federal profile on civil rights reflects the consensus view within the Trump administration that Obama officials exceeded their authority in policing discrimination on the state and local level, sometimes pressuring targets of government scrutiny to adopt policies that were not warranted.
Administration officials made clear in the initial weeks of Trump’s presidency that they would break with the civil rights policies of his predecessor. Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered a review of agreements to reform police departments, signaling his skepticism of efforts to curb civil rights abuses by law enforcement officers. His Justice Department, meantime, stopped challenging a controversial Texas voter identification law and joined with the Education Department in withdrawing federal guidance allowing transgender students to use school bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity.
While these decisions have been roundly criticized by liberal activists, administration officials said that civil rights remain a priority for the Trump White House.
“The Trump administration has an unwavering commitment to the civil rights of all Americans,” White House spokeswoman Kelly Love said in an emailed statement.
But Vanita Gupta, who was the head of Justice’s civil rights division from October 2014 to January 2017, said that the administration’s actions have already begun to adversely affect Americans across the country.
“They can call it a course correction, but there’s little question that it’s a rollback of civil rights across the board,” said Gupta, who is now president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights….
It never seems to end in some places. It isn’t just “Morder by Cop” – it is a lot of other issues designed to harass, deny opportunity, and to drain the resources of (usually) poor black folks who can’t afford to fight back. It is an abuse of the law, an abuse of the Oath, and an abuse of human dignity.
The New Jim Crow.
A new lawsuit is alleging Mississippi sheriffs are responsible for ensuring the races and classes are segregated by using checkpoints.
A Think Progress report Monday said that Madison County is one of the most segregated places in the country and it’s allegedly kept that way by the sheriff, his deputies, and other county officials.
The class-action lawsuit claims the sheriff’s department “has implemented a coordinated top-down program of methodically targeting Black individuals for suspicionless searches and seizures.” Filed Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the suit seeks an injunction for what they say is “thousands of victims” in the county.
Think Progress explained that the roadblocks that the deputies set up aren’t like a typical DUI stop. Instead, deputies out of uniform wait in unmarked vehicles and essentially ambush motorists. Such checkpoints only take place in areas of the county with a higher concentration of African-American residents. Those stopped are then forced to submit to allegedly unconstitutional and illegal searches and seizures while simply driving home.
The suit claims it’s similar to Arizona’s “show your papers” law, except there is no law that was ever passed in Mississippi that encouraged checkpoints to search cars in black areas of the state.
“[T]he roadblocks end where the white people start,” said Bessie Thomas, a 50-year resident of the county. Her two churches are typically in the areas that the deputies are setting up their checkpoints. She’s been one of many citizens that have been subjected to the checkpoints and joined the lawsuit.
The suit doesn’t stop with complaints about roadblocks, however. It alleges the deputies frequently conduct illegal searches at homes of residents in traditionally black neighborhoods and homes and they do so without warrants. Deputies have allegedly been known to randomly harm residents while doing so.
In June 2016, resident Quinetta Manning reported half-dozen white deputies that barged into her home at 7:00 a.m. claiming they were searching for marijuana. They never found it. They then tried to get a statement from her about a neighbor. Her husband Khadafy came from the bedroom to tell his wife that she didn’t have to say anything to the police. The man walks with a cane due to a nerve condition and the deputies allegedly cuffed, choked and beat him before dragging him to a police vehicle in his underwear while calling him “Mr. Cripple.” Mrs. Manning captured some of the incident on her cell phone.
Mr. Manning encountered the deputies once again months after they reached out to the ACLU. This time they approached him in a parking and claimed he was “causing trouble” by “having people come around him asking questions.” They then handcuffed him and charged him with driving with a suspended license.
Madison County Sheriff Randall Tucker suddenly stopped tracking the complaints from residents after taking office five years ago. They also have limited statistics on “internal policy information” that they’ve submitted to attorneys, Think Progress reported.
“Although only 38 percent of Madison County residents are Black, approximately 73% of arrests in Madison County between May and September of 2016 were of Black individuals,” the suit outlines.
“We already have very good data, and there’s more detail coming in discovery. We’re going to get the internal documents of the police department and the county. Sometimes in internal documents, people say things that get right to the heart of the thing,” attorney Jonathan Youngwood told Think Progress.
“We’re confident this is a county-wide problem. The data supports that. The stories support that,” he said.
Your typical everyday racist Chump ass, shows his racist ass…And gets away with it.
“Black people didn’t serve in Germany”?????
I hope Mr. Walker and his lawyers sue the hell out of this Chili’s franchisee. Better do it before the racist Chumph gets to put in his racist judges.
U.S. Army veteran Ernest Walker says a manager took his food after a customer wearing a Trump shirt questioned his service.
U.S. Army veteran Ernest Walker started recording video when a manager at a Chili’s restaurant in Cedar Hill, Texas, questioned his military service and took away his food.
Like some other establishments around the country, Chili’s offered free meals to veterans and active military service members on Veterans Day. Walker wrote on his Facebook page that he was eating at Chili’s with his service dog, Barack, when an elderly customer wearing a Trump shirt came up to him. “He said he was in Germany, and that they did not let Blacks serve over there,” Walker wrote.
Soon after, Walker said the the restaurant’s manager approached him and said that a fellow customer said Walker was “not a real soldier because [he] had [his] hat on indoors.” He asked to see identification, and continued to question Walker. Eventually, he took his food away, even though Walker showed him his military ID and discharge paperwork.
Walker posted the video, which has been viewed more than 50,000 times, to Facebook. He wrote that the incident made him feel “grossly offended, embarrassed, dehumanized.” On Friday, protesters organized outside the Chili’s restaurant to support Walker.
Chili’s responded to critics calling for the manager to be fired on Facebook. The restaurant chain said it elevated the situation to the highest levels of the company, and “fell short” on its “goal to make every guest feel special.” The company also apologized in a prepared statement and said it was reaching out to Walker.
But Walker told the Dallas Morning News that as of Sunday, Chili’s had not apologized directly to him. He also said he felt the election has “changed the hearts” of people.
“I do believe that the election has changed the hearts and changed the motives of people so much so that he believed in his heart and mind after talking to the Trump supporter that I was stealing food,” Walker said.
One of the things Obama failed to do on taking office is to recognize the insidious nature of George W Bush’s bullshit.
The Federal Government is in the business of serving every single citizen in the United States. And that means, gay, straight, transgender, white, black, or grey. You don’t want to do that as a Government contractor – then you need to find another business…Period.
The Federal Government has no business in Religion.
The First thing that happened after the Bushit announced his “Faith Based Initiative” is that the so called “faithful” asked for permission to ignore the Constitution and Federal Laws and discriminate based on whatever religious delusion they were under.
Obama should have shut this crap down, the day he assumed office.
Why do people keep claiming “religious freedom” as a reason to discriminate?
The House passed a massive National Defense Authorization Act late Wednesday, and tucked inside of it, a provision that would allow federal contractors to fire employees for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.
The language, slipped into the bill by Rep. Steve Russell (R-Okla.), would dismantle President Barack Obama’s 2014 executive action that makes it illegal for government contractors to fire or harass employees based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. In its place, Russell’s provision applies a broad exemption that would open the door to contractors discriminating against LGBT people based on that contractor’s religious beliefs.
The government awards more than 2,000 contracts to religious organizations every year. Russell’s measure would affect every grant, contract and purchase order made by every federal agency, including contracts with hospitals, homeless shelters, colleges, schools, domestic violence shelters, and adoption agencies.
The House passed the 1,299-page bill, 277 to 147, with 142 Democrats and five Republicans opposed. At least one congressman, Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), opposed it purely because of the anti-LGBT provision. He went on a bit of a Twitter rant ahead of the vote.
Russell attached the language to the bill a few weeks ago, during a late-night House Armed Services Committee hearing. He argued that it’s needed to clarify what he said was confusion in Obama’s executive order over what kinds of legal protections are afforded to religious contractors. He also said Obama’s order violates the First Amendment because it “unduly burdens the practice of religion.” A copy of his amendment is here.
But Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the ranking Democrat on that committee, said that’s not what Obama’s executive order does at all.
“The way this amendment is written, it doesn’t matter if you’re a religious organization,” Smith responded. “Basically, you can be a private contractor, and this basically gives you the right to discriminate if you just decide that you don’t want to do business with gay people.”
Democratic leaders denounced the provision in the hours leading up to the vote. Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) said he was “outraged,” and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) called it “stunning” that Republicans would use a defense bill to “codify hatred and intolerance against Americans based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Some Republicans weren’t happy about it, either. Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) tried to strip it from the bill during a Rules Committee hearing earlier this week. But the committee chairman, Pete Sessions (R-Texas), denied his request.
The bill now heads to the Senate, which has its own ideas about what belongs — and what doesn’t — in an annual defense bill. Senators will hash out differences with the House later in a conference committee.
Obama has already threatened to veto the House bill and gave a long list of reasons why, including problems ranging from misuse of funds and operating the prison at Guantanamo Bay, to military pay raises and base closures. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Tuesday that he couldn’t single out any one item, such as the anti-LGBT provision, as grounds for a veto.
“There are a whole lot of reasons why the bill is bad,” Earnest said in his daily briefing. “It’s unfortunate that it is being larded up with a bunch of proposals … that aren’t related to our national security but are intended to be divisive.”
A lot of lies flying around about black students in “Flagship” State Universities.
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” – Republican Political Strategist Lee Atwater
The conservative attack on Affirmative Action is just one of those things Atwater mentions which hurt minorities worse than whites.
The issue in my mind, is that as a citizen of the state, we are paying our tax dollars for these institutions. In Virginia, black folks are paying 22% of the tax to support State Universities., to only have 7% of the benefit. Not any different than the Old Jim Crow, where black folks paid taxes, and couldn’t get a road built in their neighborhood. That is like going to the local convenience store to buy a bottle of water, and the bottles for black folks only being 1/3rd full even though you pay the same price as everyone else.
That is called racism and discrimination. which is exactly what the conservative 5 on the Supreme Court want to do.
And the Supreme Court could soon make it even worse.
As racial unrest sweeps across major college campuses, and African-American students demand more equitable treatment, college administrators need look no farther than their own admissions offices to find one root of the problem.
The nation’s flagship public universities — large, taxpayer-funded institutions whose declared mission is to educate residents of their states — enroll far smaller proportions of black students than other colleges, and the number appears to be declining, according to federal records and college enrollment data analyzed by The Hechinger Report and The Huffington Post.
On average, just 5 percent of students at the nation’s flagship public universities are black. As recently as a decade ago, that figure was higher, although changing methods of counting racial categories makes a precise comparison difficult.
Even here at the University of Virginia, which prides itself on the diversity of its campus, just 8 percent of students are black. Just 5 percent are black Virginians, in a state where 22 percent of public high school graduates are African-American. (Low-income students are also underrepresented at top schools).
Virginia is hardly unusual. At most flagships, the African-American percentage of the student population that is black is well below that of the state’s public high school graduates. Typical are the University of Delaware, with a student body that is 5 percent African-American in a state where 30 percent of public high school graduates are black, and the University of Georgia, where it’s 7 percent compared with 34 percent.
Flagships matter because they almost always have the highest graduation rates among public colleges in their state — especially for black students — as well as extensive career resources, well-placed alumni networks, a broad range of course selections and high-profile faculty. For state residents, these colleges also offer the most affordable top-quality college education, and usually a path toward better opportunities after college. (Low-income students are also underrepresented at top schools, according to an analysis by the Hechinger Report and HuffPost ).
Virginia says it ranks among the best flagships in graduating black students.
Black enrollment could decline even further if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Abigail Fisher, a white woman who says she was rejected from the University of Texas at Austin because of her race. The Justices seemed skeptical of the benefits of race-conscious admissions when they heard arguments in the case, on Dec. 9. Justice Antonin Scalia made comments interpreted as favoring the idea that underprepared black students would do better in “lesser colleges” rather than struggling to keep up at the University of Texas at Austin, the state’s flagship.
In the firestorm that followed Justice Scalia’s comments, advocates of affirmative action pointed to research that shows a near doubling of graduation rates for those African-American and Hispanic students who move from colleges with no academic admissions requirements to more selective ones. After the University of Texas at Austin began guaranteeing admission to the top 10 percent of students in the state’s high school classes, a move that admitted more supposedly less prepared students, graduation rates went up…
Black and Latino students who have above-average SAT scores go to college at the same rate — 90 percent — as whites. But once enrolled, white students are more likely to finish, in part because they attend more selective colleges, where the resources are better and overall graduation rates are higher.
When black and Latino students with above-average SAT scores go to those selective colleges, their graduation rate is 73 percent, compared to only 40 percent for these above-average-scoring nonwhite students at other colleges…
“One of the main reasons I wanted to come here was the diverse student body,” said Danielle Campbell, a junior at Norfolk State University, a historically black public college in Virginia. “I didn’t want to be the only one who looked like me.”
NSU has a proud history and a devoted student body, but last year struggled with a $16.7 million budget deficit causing it to cut staff by 9 percent. It is the least expensive four-year public college in the state, but its graduation rate for black students is 35 percent over six years, compared with 86 percent at UVA, according to federal data.
In Petersburg, about 90 minutes southeast of UVA’s campus, the high school is 92 percent African-American and sends more than half of its 800 students to college each year. But none have gone UVA since 2010…
“One of the things that black students have historically and continue to push for at UVA is that at the flagship the demographics be at least as representative as the demographics of the state,” said Frazier, who is a junior at UVA. “The flagship is meant to be the main force educating that state, so every group should be educated at a similar rate.”
Good old Republican racist fear mongering…Again.
National Republicans are hammering Rep. Lee Terry’s (R-Neb.) Democratic opponent, state Sen. Brad Ashford, with an ad tying him to a convicted murderer.
Within hours of its launch, national Democrats were demanding Republicans take it down and apologize for the “repellent, race-baiting” ad.
The National Republican Congressional Committee’s ad tells the story of Nikko Jenkins, who committed four murders in 11 days after getting out of prison early under the state’s “good time” law.
“Brad Ashford supported the good time law, and still defends it, allowing criminals like Nikko Jenkins to be released early,” a narrator says in the ad.
The ad has evoked comparisons to the controversial “Willie Horton ad” that ran during the 1988 presidential election. That ad hit former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee, for furloughing Horton, who was already serving a life sentence for murder.
Horton was let out for the weekend under a state furlough program, but ran away from authorities and later kidnapped and stabbed a couple.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokeswoman Ashley Lewis decried the ad, saying it “has no place in America” and demanding the NRCC take it down.
“Republicans should be ashamed that they have resorted to divisive rhetoric, playing up racial stereotypes and fear-mongering to save their sinking candidate,” she said in a statement.
The Nebraska law automatically reduces prisoners’ sentences based on how much time they have served. Critics say it effectively cuts inmates’ sentences in half.
Terry, who has emerged as one of this cycle’s most surprisingly vulnerable House incumbents, hit Ashford on the issue last week, saying he should have added restrictions to the good-time law when he served as chairman of the state legislature’s Judiciary Committee.
“I think that one of the egregious votes and efforts of my opponent is letting violent criminals out of jail through good time, which in Nebraska is just a straight half time,” he told The Hill. “My opponent prefers criminals over law abiding citizens, putting people in jeopardy.”
Ashford called the accusations “baseless and desperate attacks” from a “flailing campaign” in a statement to The Hill last week.
During a debate last week, Ashford blamed corrections officers, whom he said could have reversed Jenkins’s sentence reductions after he got into trouble behind bars.
The content of the ad underscores just how vulnerable Terry is heading into the final weeks of the election. There’s been scant polling of the race, but a survey Ashford released in August showed the two essentially tied.
The NRCC’s choice to go nuclear, by tying Ashford to a convicted murderer, is likely fueled by an urgent need to shift momentum in Terry’s favor.
NRCC spokesman Tyler Q. Houlton last week said Republicans are not worried about Terry’s campaign and insisted the strategy is to merely shine a light on Ashford’s record.
“This is why we are helping Lee Terry and helping the voters get to know who Brad Ashford is because as soon as they see all this stuff and realize what this guy stands for, there’s no way they’re going to vote for him,“ Houlton said.