Conservatives typically – and correctly – fault the regulatory state for increasing the cost of…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Paul Ryan: Regulations Hurt the Poor

Conservatives typically – and correctly – fault the regulatory state for increasing the cost of doing business and impeding job creation. But what about the argument that businesses don’t pay taxes (or regulatory fees), people do?

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is making a powerful case that the two go together in a way that could reduce the government’s footprint and decrease poverty.

“The regulatory part of Ryan’s anti-poverty plan goes after ‘regressive’ federal rules – those that have an outsize economic impact on low-income households,” reports The Hill. “Supporters of his plan say regulations are ultimately borne by ordinary consumers and households who pay extra when new restrictions are piled on to the products and services they use. The poor end up spending a greater…[more]

August 20, 2014 • 12:26 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Holder’s Endless Affirmative (Discrimin)Action Print
By Quin Hillyer
Wednesday, March 07 2012
To have an attorney general of the United States say that the force of government must be used, forever, to enshrine into law what used to be called 'reverse discrimination' is for him to say that American law will always put skin color above other considerations – and pick winners accordingly.

At National Review Online on Tuesday, columnist John Fund blasted Attorney General Eric Holder for advocating permanent racial discrimination in favor of black Americans. His column is “must” reading. Holder’s position is mind-boggling. It pushes the extreme edges of racialism. Anything approaching those far edges is immoral. It must never be accepted.

Here is the “money” quote from Fund’s column:

Last month, in an appearance at Columbia University, his alma mater, Holder made a jarring statement in support of racial preferences, saying he “can’t actually imagine a time in which the need for more diversity would ever cease.” “Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices,” he declared. “The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin. . . . When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?”

This is rubbish. First, “affirmative action” (henceforth “AA”) and “diversity” are not the same thing. Diversity, a reasonable goal in a diverse country, can be promoted without deliberately giving preferences to one group by virtue of its skin color.

Second, even when hiding AA’s implicit quota system behind fig-leaf disguises, as the University of Michigan famously did in the Grutter v. Bollinger case, AA by its very nature denies “benefits” that otherwise would accrue to members of other ethnic groups, in order to assist blacks. This is hardly a new observation, of course, but it bears repeating because Holder’s use of the word “entitled” amounts to an insistence that some people are less entitled than others.

At Red State, “Repair Man Jack” notes the horrible injustices done against Asian Americans in the name of affirmative action for blacks:

Asian-American teenagers applying to elite colleges and universities suffer a far worse discriminatory barrier from affirmative action policies than most other minority groups suffer despite these policies. Princeton Sociologist Thomas Espenshade collected the following statistics:

If all other credentials are equal, Asian-Americans need to score 140 points more than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics, and 450 points above African-Americans out of a maximum 1600 on the math and reading SAT to have the same chance of admission to a private college,…

This is not just a matter of college admissions. The Holder/Obama Justice Department is going to the mat to discriminate against white applicants to the heroic Fire Department of New York in favor of black applicants who missed as many as 70 percent of the questions on a simple fire-academy entrance exam. It has deliberately chosen to ignore laws against vote fraud in order to help boost the supposed interests of black voters. Indeed, as I have written numerous times here, whistle-blowing former Justice Department lawyer J. Christian Adams has detailed in his book Injustice manifold examples of jaw-dropping, racialist bias in Holder’s domain.

But Holder can’t win his way on all these things unless nobody fights back. In an outrageous case in which his minions in effect argued that a North Carolina town’s black citizens don’t even recognize their own best interests – interests which the Justice Department literally equated with Democratic Party identification – the Holder team finally was forced to back down after being faced with ignominious defeat. As Adams has pointed out in numerous columns and blog posts, this is starting to be a pattern: When challenged in court, the Holder team often suffers setbacks or is otherwise flummoxed.

Not only that, but Holder already has had to accept resignations from some of the key people responsible for his racialist agenda within Justice. When the light is shined on their shenanigans, the heat apparently becomes nearly unbearable.

This is as it should be. Racial discrimination is a horrible thing. Black Americans suffered from such discrimination to an extent hard to imagine today. Racial bias no doubt still exists – in many directions, from many directions – and it ought always to be fought.

But to have an attorney general of the United States say that the force of government must be used, forever, to enshrine into law what used to be called “reverse discrimination” is for him to say that American law will always put skin color above other considerations – and pick winners accordingly.

This is not the rule of law as most Americans understand the very concept, and it certainly violates every reasonable notion of equal justice under the law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has now accepted a new challenge to affirmative action. It will test whether Holder’s reactionary view still holds sway. By verbally pushing the envelope so far, Holder may actually have hurt his own case by demonstrating that no reason or evidence will ever suffice to end reverse discrimination. Let us hope the high court thinks so.

Related Articles :
Question of the Week   
On which one of the following dates during the War of 1812 did British troops march into our nation’s capital and set fire to the city?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"The most poisonous '-ism' now infecting Ferguson, Missouri, is not virulent racism. It's viral narcissism.  Over the past two weeks, the impoverished St. Louis County suburb has become a magnet for self-absorbed publicity seekers of all colors and agendas.  Perhaps the most repulsive species on display in Ferguson is the Journalisto Vanitatis. This breed of egotistical East-Coast reporters can…[more]
 
 
—Michelle Malkin, Syndicated Columnist
— Michelle Malkin, Syndicated Columnist
 
Liberty Poll   

Should local police departments be forced to “de-militarize?”