IS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION GUILTY OF POLITICAL BIGOTRY IN AN EFFORT TO PANDER TO MINORITIES
Once again, we find that the Obama fish is rotting from the head down and stinking up our America.
The legal theory of “disparate impact” is relatively simple …
If a minority comprises x-percent of the population, then any outcome in which x-minority appears to receive less than x-percent of the benefits is a clear indication of discrimination and gives rise for government intervention. And, that statistics can be used as a substitute for a case-by-case analysis to bring a cause of action before the courts or similarly empowered government agencies.
One must examine the individual situation on a case-by-case basis prior to determining discrimination as issues with credit scores, property values, income, assets, living expenses, multiple borrowers, neighborhoods, and other factors could impact the credit decision. Especially since the government allowed certain types of government assistance to be included in the computation and many low-income families used multiple co-borrowers to meet financial requirements – even though the probability of a default increases with the number of co-borrowers and co-signers.
The legal flaw in the constitutionality of the theory …
In our nation, under our constitution, any party is presumed to be innocent unless otherwise proven guilty. Thus, the theory of innocence is turned upside down and places the accused in the position of proving themselves innocent, rather than the prosecutor proving them guilty.
This has lead to legal extortion by the government and groups who have exploited this theory …
Many financial institutions and others found that it was far less costly and damaging to the reputation to settle the charges quickly – accepting a fine and the role of an activist-monitor – than to fight a long expensive battle with activists who faced little or no risk for filing a losing claim. Thus, settlements were made with the allegations neither admitted nor denied. Because a corporation cannot be imprisoned, the shareholders, investors and depositors bore the brunt of this unconstitutional challenge.
The problem discovered in the Obama Administration …
“In 2011, federal officials persuaded the city of St. Paul, Minnesota.to withdraw a case accepted for review by the Supreme Court that questioned whether the principle could be applied in housing cases. "We were afraid we might lose disparate impact in the Supreme Court because there wasn't a regulation," said [Sara Pratt, HUD's chief of enforcement] Pratt, who also led fair housing enforcement during the Clinton administration. If the court strikes down disparate impact, it would largely limit civil rights lawsuits against landlords, homeowners or governments to those rare cases in which it could be proven that governments or businesses had an explicit intent to discriminate. "If the court overturns disparate impact," said Florence Roisman, a fair housing scholar at the Indiana University School of Law. "It is going to gut the statute." <Source>
Enter Perez …
According to the Justice Department, in December 2011, Perez, worried that the St. Paul's lawsuit could undermine the Fair Housing Act, reached out to attorneys for the city, who could win their case but end up undercutting this major civil rights law.
At this time, the city was facing another pending lawsuit. A St. Paul resident named Fredrick Newell had spent years doggedly compiling evidence that St. Paul had not complied with its obligation to use more than $180 million in federal money to help lower-income residents acquire jobs and city contracts. Newell sued in 2009 under the False Claims Act, alleging that St. Paul knew for years it hadn't been meet its federal obligations. Because of the particulars of Newell's case and the way the False Claims Act is written, without Justice Department intervention Newell's case would collapse.
In talks with Perez, St. Paul's attorneys proposed a trade. They would withdraw their request to the Supreme Court to hear the Fair Housing case, and in exchange the Justice Department would agree not to intervene in Newell's case.
Shortly after a December 2011 meeting with St. Paul officials, according to a response sent by the Department of Justice to Republican legislators, Perez consulted with the ethics officer in the civil rights division to ensure that the deal, if made, wouldn't violate any conflict-of-interest rules. Next, Perez asked the Professional Responsibility Advisory Office whether the deal would be kosher. Perez was told that it was okay, as long as the person at the head of the department's civil division, which has authority over False Claims Act cases, blessed the arrangement. <Source>
Bottom line …
Even more egregious than the disparate impact theory itself, is the government assumptions that even minority-neutral policies are discriminatory if the outcome does not produce x-percent of the result for minorities. Clearly a socialist viewpoint devoid of reality.
Can you imagine that if x-percent of the astronauts who have walked in outer space are not minority, then the United States Space Program must be racist? Or, if x-percent of the actors on television and in the movies are not minority, then the creators and distributors are guilty of racism. Or, in my favorite instance, can you imagine if x-percent of minorities are not NBA players, then the League must be racist?
So why is this policy being applied only to financial institutions and the housing market -- is it because the financial institutions know if they agree with the government their privileges, perks and profits are likely to continue unabated? And, explain to me why car dealers are exempt from predatory lending and discriminatory practices? -- The answer, of course, is big money and politics. Both corrupting influences on our nation.
Both the disparate impact legal theory and the self-serving government position stinks as it subverts our Constitution and provides the government with powers not granted to them by the enumerated powers of the Constitution.
People need to realize that the Constitution restricts or prohibits the power of the Federal Government and preserves power for the States and “We the People.” It does not give the government unlimited power and the right to torture legal rulings in their own favor.
Whether or not Perez committed a crime in making a “quid pro quo” deal with the State of Minnesota to save them millions of dollars in return for dropping the litigation is up to each and every reader. This is yet another example of how the Obama Administration is corrupt and is corrupting state and municipalities by special consideration that is clearly unconstitutional.
-- steve
“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS