By Jack Leonard and Richard Winton
July 1, 2013, 8:31 p.m.
U.S. Department of Justice officials have demanded that Los Angeles County, Lancaster and Palmdale pay a total of $12.5 million to residents who the federal government found were victims of harassment and intimidation in the Antelope Valley.
The demand coincides with last week’s accusation by the Justice Department that Antelope Valley authorities conducted a systematic effort to discriminate against African Americans who received low-income subsidized housing and that sheriff’s deputies engaged in widespread unlawful searches of homes, improper detentions and unreasonable force….
Last month, Food Network chef Paula Deen gave a videotaped deposition as part of a discrimination suit she’s facing in which she discussed her desire to have a “very southern style wedding” for her brother modeled after a restaurant where the “whole entire wait staff was middle-aged black men” clad in white jackets and black bow ties, according to a transcript of the deposition filed in federal court in Georgia. Deen also admitted to having used the N word and discussed the ways the word could be “not said in a mean way.”
Deen’s deposition in the lawsuit was first reported by the National Enquirer.
A copy of the deposition transcript is published below.
Deen, her brother Earl “Bubba” Hiers, her company, and the corporations that operate a pair of restaurants she owns in Savannah, Ga., are being sued by former employee Lisa Jackson. A complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia by Jackson’s attorney, Matthew Billips, last November alleged she was subjected to “violent, sexist, and racist behavior” during five years working for Deen’s various businesses.
According to the complaint, Jackson began working for Uncle Bubba’s Oyster House, a restaurant run by Hiers, in early 2005 and left in August 2010 due to the inappropriate behavior she said she was subjected to in her time there. In the deposition, Deen said she owns half of the corporation that operates Uncle Bubba’s Oyster House. Jackson also said she did some other work for Deen’s company and a restaurant she runs. The complaint alleged “racially discriminatory attitudes pervade” Uncle Bubba’s Oyster House where Jackson claimed African-American employees were required to use separate bathrooms and entrances from white staffers. Jackson also said African-Americans were held to “different, more stringent, standards” than whites at the restaurant and that Hiers regularly made offensive racial remarks. In the complaint, Jackson is described as a “white female.” However the complaint noted she has biracial nieces, so “derogatory remarks regarding African Americans are even more personally offensive to Ms. Jackson than they would be to another white citizen.”
Ann Coulter lays it all out - if you, and by extension Republicans in Congress don’t agree with her point of view, particularly on immigration, then the GOP deserves to die.
Democrats terrify Hispanics into thinking they’ll be lynched if they vote for Republicans, and then turn around and taunt Republicans for not winning a majority of the Hispanic vote.
This line of attack has real resonance with our stupidest Republicans. (Proposed Republican primary targets: Sens. Kelly Ayotte, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio.) Which explains why Republicans are devoting all their energy to slightly increasing their share of the Hispanic vote while alienating everyone else in America.
It must be fun for liberals to manipulate Republicans into focusing on hopeless causes. Why don’t Democrats waste their time trying to win the votes of gun owners?
As journalist Steve Sailer recently pointed out, the Hispanic vote terrifying Republicans isn’t that big. It actually declined in 2012. The Census Bureau finally released the real voter turnout numbers from the last election, and the Hispanic vote came in at only 8.4 percent of the electorate — not the 10 percent claimed by the pro-amnesty crowd.
The sleeping giant of the last election wasn’t Hispanics; it was elderly black women, terrified of media claims that Republicans were trying to suppress the black vote and determined to keep the first African-American president in the White House.
She, of course, has it completely backwards and ignores evidence that undermines her premise.
Even many Republicans realize that changing demographics threaten Republican strongholds, including Texas and could turn those states into battlegrounds, further limiting the party’s reach beyond a regional party.
Republicans have repeatedly engaged in a war on women, looking to undermine their right to choose. They have voted innumerable times to restrict the right to abortions, engaging in more votes at the state and federal level than any number of jobs bills that would help improve the economy.
Republicans have repeatedly engaged in efforts to restrict access to the polls, including various efforts to require identification to vote. Now, while I tend to agree with efforts to show some form of identification to prevent fraud or abuse, Republicans take this further and are looking to depress turnout in minority areas.
As for why there might be a decline in Hispanic voting in the past national election could be that those voter depressing techniques are starting to hit home - the size of the Hispanic population isn’t declining. In other words, ignoring the Hispanic community is done at your own peril.
The reason that the GOP would deserve to die is because its current composition in Congress has steadfastly refused to compromise on pretty much everything. Negotiations and compromise are verbotten. Cutting deals is sufficient to demand calls for excommunication from the rank and file.
And this brings me back to Coulter’s reasoning that the party deserves to die. She thinks that those who are willing to compromise and work out an immigration deal are the reason that the GOP should die out. Instead of those obstructionists who refuse to do any manner of governance unless they get their own way and have in the past allowed the debt ceiling to be exceeded resulting in a credit rating loss for the US Government, Coulter takes her ire out on Republicans who realize that compromise and governing go hand in hand.
Coulter’s approach is to marginalize a fast-growing population and instead claim that the amnesty approach is nothing more than a sop to big business and that the GOP wouldn’t benefit from reaching out to the Hispanic community. Moreover, Coulter’s approach will pretty much alienate everyone who isn’t solidly social conservative or a Tea Partier.
In other words, she’s preaching to the same tired old party that keeps talking about outreach with one hand, but holding up Not Wanted sign with the other.
The Not Wanted sign is the one that Coulter keeps waving around wildly. She just doesn’t realize it.
As an aside, when I quoted Coulter’s quip she relies on quotes/research done by Steve Sailer, who happens to be from the VDare crowd - not exactly the most reliable of sources when it comes to, well, anything. See here, and here for a sampling.
He was due to stand trial next month, but has asked to enter a guilty plea in federal court on Friday, court records show. Eight children had to move because of his alleged arson.
The ex-con has previously served time for hate crimes against African Americans, and has also claimed to be the leader of the Illinois branch of a far-right white hate group led by Matt Hale, who’s serving a 40-year prison sentence after being convicted of asking a follower in 2002 to murder U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow.
Moudry’s face, neck and arms are covered in racist tattoos.
But in a poetic irony, an African-American federal defender — MiAngel Cody — was last summer appointed to represent Moudry, who could not afford to pay an attorney.
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would hear two cases challenging state and federal laws which prevent the legal union between same-sex couples.
But it’s not the only significant civil rights case the Court has decided to take up this term.
Last month, the Supreme Court said it will consider the constitutionality of a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the hallmark legislation from the Civil Rights era that has come under increased challenge.
The cornerstone provision is known as Section 5, which holds some states accountable to get federal clearance before making any changes to their voting laws.
Many think the Court’s decision to hear the case, announced just three days after the election, spells doom for the cornerstone provision. But whatever the justices’ decision, the case may end up, as the influential SCOTUSBlog put it, “as one of the most significant rulings of the current Term.”
Oral arguments in the case, Shelby County v. Holder, are set for next year, with a decision expected by June. Let’s take a step back and see why this case is so consequential:
What’s Section 5 again?
As we’ve explained before, Section 5 requires nine mostly Southern states — Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alaska, Virginia, Texas and Arizona — and areas of seven others to preclear any change to a voting law or procedure with the federal government.
This review is conducted by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice or a panel of federal judges on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. If a voting change hasn’t been submitted for review, the change can be legally unenforceable.
Section 5, which was enacted by the original Voting Rights Act, was meant to address the systemic disenfranchisement of African Americans by state lawmakers in the South since the end of Reconstruction.
Under the provision, covered jurisdictions must prove that any proposed voting change doesn’t have a discriminatory purpose or effect or would diminish minorities’ ability to elect a favored candidate.
The zealots and demagogues are beginning to have an effect, it’s past time to reverse this ugly trend.
More than 6,000 hate crimes were reported to U.S. law enforcement agencies in 2011 — a 6% decrease from 2010, the FBI said Monday. But crimes based on the victim’s sexual orientation increased slightly.
Nearly half of the 6,222 hate crimes reported in 2011 were racially motivated, the FBI said, with nearly three-fourths directed at African Americans. More than 16% were motivated by anti-white bias.
About 59% of the known offenders for all reported hate crimes were white, and 21% were black, the agency said.
The Anti-Defamation League, which monitors and seeks to combat bigotry, welcomed the overall decrease in hate crimes but highlighted those motivated by sexual orientation.
“The increase in the number of reported hate crimes directed against gays and lesbians, now the second most frequent category of crime, is especially disturbing,” the ADL said in a statement.
The last straw for the African American police officer living in an upscale Orange County community was the acid pellets someone shot into his garage in October, the corrosive capsules damaging his car.
It had been an ugly, racially tinged pattern since the Inglewood police officer, his wife — a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy — and their two children had moved into the Yorba Linda neighborhood in 2011.
Rocks were thrown through their windows, car tires were slashed, and racial taunts were shouted by passing motorists. One day, their 6-year-old son came home from school asking why his classmates said they couldn’t play with him because he was black.
“It just illustrates that even amid our really wonderful community, life is different for some people,” said Rusty Kennedy, the executive director of the [Orange County Human Relations] commission.
Though African Americans account for a small fraction of the county’s population — no more than 2% — they are the most frequently targeted group for hate crimes, Kennedy said. [Emphasis added.]
Gee, Rusty, do you think there might be some relation between those two facts?
Bill O’Reilly knows that for the hard right, “traditional” is a key buzzword, whether it’s associated with marriage, ethnicity, or far right nationalist alliances, it’s just another way to to say “White European Christians.” At the end of the day Bill’s saying there aren’t enough paranoid white people who are afraid of people who are different for his candidates to win anymore. I guess you just didn’t sow enough fear at Fox this election Bill, so I guess this means you’ll just ramp it up more for the midterms.
On his show last night, O’Reilly responded to comedian Jon Stewart’s criticism that mourning ‘traditional voters’ is latent racism. But in his rebuttal, O’Reilly explained that the mass turnout of voters of color signaled an end to ‘traditional American voters.’ The new voters, he argued, don’t understand ‘traditional American values’:
If you look at the exit polling, you’ll see that a coalition of voters put the President back into the oval office. That coalition was non-tradition, which means it veered away from things like traditional marriage, robust capitalism, and self reliance. Instead, each constituency that voted for the President — whether it be single women, Hispanic Americans, African Americans, whatever — had very specific reasons for doing so. […]
Traditional American voters generally want a smaller government in Washington, more local control, some oversight on abortion, and believe in American exceptionalism.
Four years ago, there were doubts, then hope, then worry, work and elation. Today, as African American voters look at electing the first black president to a second term, there is support tinged with disappointment and defensiveness.
There are worries about President Obama’s support for gay marriage, worries about the economy and worries about life under a Mitt Romney administration. There are fewer thoughts about making historic strides and quieter worries about history slipping away.
“Some people may see it as subdued, but I think the difference is there’s more of a serious tone to it,” Matrice Brown Johnson, a 53-year-old Obama supporter from Richmond, said of African American backing for the president. “People are taking it more seriously.”
On the surface, Obama’s support among blacks appears solid. In a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 92% of registered African American voters surveyed said they backed Obama, and 5% supported Republican nominee Mitt Romney. No other constituency offers the president such consistent and solid support in polls.
But the shift in mood and energy from four years ago could have an effect in an election expected to be decided by thin margins.
With the Obama campaign desperately trying to turn support into votes, even subtle shifts may change the result. In important battlegrounds Obama won four years ago — Ohio, Virginia, Nevada and Florida — the campaign is preparing to lean more heavily on support from African Americans as it braces to lose white voters.
Within the public policy arena, the contemporary use of the term wealth stripping has generally referred to financial products and services like payday lenders, rent-to-own stores, and the like that exploit the lack of financial sophistication among economically disadvantaged populations. Awareness of the problem among policy-makers and advocates arguably originated with Michael Sherraden’s 1991 book, Assets and the Poor. Sherraden’s landmark work spawned a virtual avalanche of research, proposals, and innovative initiatives on asset building. Out of that body of research grew significant attention toward wealth stripping. John Caskey’s seminal 1996 book, Fringe Banking: Check-Cashing Outlets, Pawnshops, and the Poor, was the subject’s foundational text, highlighting how the high cost of alternative or fringe lenders strips away the financial resources of the poor. Many other scholars have since followed with different perspectives on both saving opportunities and the wealth-stripping challenges confronting the poor.
Even today, writings on the subject of wealth stripping tend to focus principally on the high cost of alternative financial services. But the Great Recession—driven by the foreclosures that hit minority communities especially hard—demands a broader examination of the issue to include ways in which the failure to impose or enforce consumer protection and anti-discrimination laws can lead to even greater harms. This broader perspective is essential if we are to understand and address the unique hurdles faced by low- and moderate-income households and people of color, who are disproportionately affected by these problems.
Wealth stripping has only increased during the economic crisis. Since the onset of the Great Recession, Americans have lost $7 trillion in equity in their homes. The Federal Reserve estimates the median American family has lost nearly two decades of wealth, or almost 40 percent of their assets. In a separate report, the Pew Research Center estimates that Latinos, Asians, and African Americans have experienced wealth losses of 66 percent, 54 percent, and 53 percent respectively, compared to 13 percent for whites. These losses are largely due to home foreclosures and lost equity