Obama Makes “Environmental Justice” a Defense and Homeland Security Issue

Judicial Watch

Van Jones is gone, but Obama is still carrying out his agenda

Though it is unrelated to their mission, the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Housing are among the federal agencies that will focus on helping minorities get green under an Obama administration plan that aims to bring “environmental justice” to poor and underserved communities nationwide.

The effort was launched by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last fall and the agency has doled out millions of dollars in “environmental justice grants” to dozens of left-wing groups, including some dedicated to helping illegal immigrants. Earlier this year the administration dedicated an additional $7 million to study how pollution, stress and social factors affect “poor and underserved communities”…

As if it weren’t bad enough that millions of dollars have already gone to this initiative, the president is further wasting valuable taxpayer resources by forcing other federal agencies, most with unrelated duties, to participate. Besides the previously mentioned, the Department of Education, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Transportation, Justice, Health and Labor have all been forced to develop “environmental justice strategies to protect the health of people living in communities overburdened by population.”

This week the agencies signed an official Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Justice outlining some of their new duties. Under the agreement the agencies will make environmental justice part of their mission and they will provide the public with annual progress reports on their efforts. In a written statement, the Obama Administration proclaims that it’s the latest effort to address the inequities that may be present in some communities.

Obama’s EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, has promised to bring minorities environmental justice since getting appointed, saying that all too often they live in the shadows of our society’s worst pollution and, as a result, face disproportionate health impacts and greater obstacles to economic growth.

Read more.

Eric Holder’s New Witch Hunt

Bob Beauprez, Townhall.com

Eric Holder with crazy eyes

The Department of Justice is executing a “Witch Hunt” against banks. Through the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, Attorney General Eric Holder is forcing banks to “relax their mortgage underwriting standards and approve loans for minorities with poor credit as part of a new crackdown on alleged discrimination,” according to a published report by Investor’s Business Daily after reviewing court documents.

The DOJ has already extorted $20 million for weak and poor credit loans from banks that “settled out of court rather than battle the federal government and risk being branded racist.” The DOJ admits another 60 banks are already under “investigation.” Holder’s demanding the banks sign “non-disclosure” settlement agreements barring them from talking while allowing the DOJ to operate behind a curtain of secrecy.

The settlements already extracted from banks force them to make “prime-rate mortgages to low income blacks and Hispanics” with credit problems, even if they are living on welfare. According to IBD, the DOJ has ordered banks to advertise that minorities cannot be turned down for a loan “because they receive public aid, such as unemployment benefits, welfare payments or food stamps.” No job; no problem!

In other words, the DOJ is forcing banks to make loans to people that they know don’t qualify for them and likely won’t be able to afford to repay them, which is precisely the kind of failed public policy that precipitated the financial collapse and recession in 2008.

The DOJ ordered Midwest BankCentre to provide “special financing” in the predominantly black areas of St. Louis for fixed prime rate conventional home loan financing for borrowers “who would ordinarily not qualify for such rates for reasons including the lack of required credit quality, income or down payment.”

Eric Holder and the head of his Civil Rights Division, Tom Perez were both protégés of Janet Reno who launched a similar attack on banks in the early years of the Clinton Administration. That led to an expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act, CRA, and an explosion of forced lending to low-income, poor credit risk borrowers and the sub-prime mortgage industry that collapsed in 2008. Under the weight of massive guarantees of poor quality and defaulted mortgages, the federal government was forced to seize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. To date about $150 billion has been required to bailout the two agencies to keep them solvent.

Read more.

Obama’s Cop-Killer Rapper Invitation Makes No “Common” Sense

Susan Stamper Brown, FloydReports.com

The first motion picture to be shown in the White House was D.W. Griffith’s “A Birth of a Nation.” Progressive Democrat (yes, I wrote Democrat) president Woodrow Wilson showed the highly controversial silent film that was later used as a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) recruiting tool portraying KKK Klansmen as superheroes rescuing white women from uneducated sexually aggressive African-American men. This Democrat president used the valuable tool of entertainment to communicate an extraordinarily bad message.

Times have changed, but the method has not.

Americans love to be entertained. More times than not, we choose style over substance, charisma over character and compromise over conviction – if it makes us feel good, we do it. That’s why I call mint-filled dark chocolates “vitamins.” That is also why Barack Obama became president and why the first lady invited hip hop rapper, Common, to appear at a recent White House poetry event.

While many conservatives are aghast that someone who spews anti-white, anti-cop, anti-Bush, misogynistic lyrics would be welcome in the White House, I say why not? Is it not any elected president’s prerogative to invite whomever he or she wishes to poetry events? Common’s invitation should come as no surprise to anyone considering his hometown is Chicago, his pastor is Jeremiah Wright and Obama was elected to reflect his voter’s values.

During a particularly telling interview with Touch magazine, Common allowed readers to get a better feel for who he undoubtedly is as a person. To his credit, Common told journalist Elle J. Small that because he is an entertainer he felt it was his “responsibility to let people know what he means” when he says certain things. He admits to a history of sleeping with white women but strongly disagrees with mixed-race relationships because….

Read more.

Video: Democrat’s Ad, “We Minorities Should Stick Together”

Obama/Holder Set to Force Minority Democratic Redistricting Plan on “Racist” States

Hans A. von Spakovsky, National Review

The redistricting process for congressional and state-legislative seats will soon begin in earnest. All redistricting plans must meet the “one person, one vote” equal-protection standard established by the Supreme Court, which means that districts are supposed to be as even in population as possible.

But redistricting also must comply with the Voting Rights Act, and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division just released its new “Guidance Concerning Redistricting Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.” This guidance, which affects redistricting in all or parts of 16 states, is almost guaranteed to cause problems for Republicans.

When the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, Section 5 was supposed to be a temporary, emergency provision. It prohibits certain jurisdictions from implementing any change in their voting laws unless those changes are pre-cleared by the Justice Department or approved by a three-judge panel in federal court in Washington. This 45-year-old “emergency” provision has been renewed four separate times, most recently in 2006. That renewal gave the section 25 years of new life, despite a complete lack of evidence that the type of systematic discrimination that led to its initial passage still exists. Indeed, Congress even changed the Section 5 legal standardto make it easier for the Justice Department to cause mischief.

And as we see in the new guidance memo, DOJ seems intent on doing just that. Jurisdictions covered under Section 5 — all of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota — now have the burden of proving that their redistricting plans were adopted “free of any discriminatory purpose” and will not have any “discriminatory effect.”

Historically in U.S. jurisprudence, the government has the burden of proving guilt. But Section 5 has always had a different requirement…

How will this play out in the real world? Here’s my prediction. Democratic-drawn redistricting plans will nearly always be rubber stamped by this Justice Department, unless local black or Hispanic Democrats don’t like how their white Democratic colleagues have sliced the pie. Republican-drawn plans, meanwhile, will run into a buzz saw of Voting Section opposition based not on the legal standards set forth under Section 5, but on whether the Section’s lawyers think the plan will hurt or help Democratic candidates. As the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports, “Democrats are looking toward the Justice Department in President Barack Obama’s administration to serve as a counterweight” to Republican control of the redistricting process in Texas. Doubt this will happen? Just look at how Justice blocked Kinston, N.C., from switching from partisan to nonpartisan city-council elections. Justice’s rationale? Minorities wouldn’t know whom to vote for if candidates’ Democratic-party affiliation didn’t appear next to their names on the ballot…

Even worse is the fact that the guidance memo says that Justice will develop its own “illustrative alternative plans for use in its analysis.” In other words, the Democratic political appointees who run the Justice Department will draw up their own redistricting plans. They’re certainly prepared to do that. Sam Hirsch, who was once the Democratic party’s main redistricting lawyer, is now a deputy associate attorney general.

The guidance says that if a state submits a plan that’s not (in the opinion of Justice lawyers) as good as the plan concocted internally at Justice, then “the Attorney General will interpose an objection.” In other words, the Justice Department will use its law-enforcement power under the Voting Rights Act to force states to implement the redistricting plans drawn up by the Obama administration, despite the fact that nothing in the law allows them to do this…

The bottom line is this: The Holder Justice Department’s opposition to race-neutral enforcement of the law over the last two years suggests that redistricting may touch off contentious court battles over the rule of law. Unless states opt to bypass DOJ and go straight to federal court, the Left’s effort to exploit the Voting Rights Act for crass political purposes may reach a degree of success once thought unimaginable.

Read more.