Tyranny Behind The Mask

I think that when most people hear the term “disadvantaged”, they immediately think of someone or some group that has less of an advantage than a comparative person or group but that isn’t the case in government and the creation, prosecution and defense of policies. I had not seen this when I wrote the post this morning but it is a prima facie illustration of what I meant by the power of definition and how the left uses it.

J. Christian Adams writes that:

The left has been apoplectic about Scalia’s observation. But yesterday’s DOJ inspector general’s report makes plain: many staff inside the Justice Department define Section 5 exactly as Scalia does: as a “racial entitlement.”

In the report, Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez — a possible Obama nominee to head the Department of Labor — makes clear that he doesn’t think Section 5 should ever be used to protect a white minority in covered jurisdictions.

Perez feels it should only be used to prop up the political position of “people of color.” If the victims of discrimination happen to be white, too bad — they are not protected.

Put aside for a moment that this is precisely the sort of attitude and exactly the type of policy about which Itestified under oath in 2010. Even some wayward conservatives joined the howls on the Left when I exposed this deplorable law-enforcement philosophy. Thanks to Tom Perez’s unapologetic leftist candor, we now know with absolute clarity the truth about the current DOJ — and the truth is ugly.

From the report (pp. 90-91):

Perez also told the OIG that he believed interpreting the retrogressive-effect prong of the analysis to cover White citizens would be inconsistent with the history of and intent behind Section 5, which he stated was enacted to remedy the specific problem of discrimination against racial minorities. In his February 2011 letter, Perez noted that the Division has always understood the term “minority” to mean not numerical minority, but rather “an identifiable and specially disadvantaged group.”

Pay close attention to Perez’s use of “disadvantaged group.” This qualifier is familiar language to critical-race theorists. It evidences a view that even a small white minority is never worthy of protection, even if discriminated against, because ultimately whites are members of a privileged group. Also, people of color are always part of a “disadvantaged group.”

Privilege and disadvantage are not prerequisites to equal protection of the law.

Yet DOJ Voting Section lawyers employed Perez’s logic to argue against helping white victims of discrimination in Macon, Mississippi, saying:

Until blacks were socio-economically equal to whites in Mississippi (read: statistically) then whites should not be protected under the Voting Rights Act.

What should trouble the justices on the Supreme Court deciding Shelby is that Scalia’s fears reflect the plain enforcement policy of the Justice Department unit which enforces Section 5. To Tom Perez, it is axiomatic that Section 5 is a racial entitlement only to people of color. The protections of the law, to him, are not for whites. Section 5 is only to be used to preserve the political power of blacks, Hispanic, and native Americans.

If that isn’t a racial entitlement, I don’t know what is.

See how things are turned on their heads in the pursuit of “equality” in a liberal world? We have a DOJ official that is actually arguing that if there are two groups that are equally “disadvantaged” and one is white and the other is black, the white group is not actually disadvantaged simply because of their skin color and the fact that other whites are not disadvantaged. The DOJ is arguing that they do not have the same rights as blacks until all blacks have the same advantages all whites – and not just the same as the disadvantaged whites – all whites in society – which is a functional impossibility. Therefore, the official, government sanctioned discrimination against whites will never end.

This illustrates both the power of the language and the use of the very arbitrary authority (that we have been talking about) that socialist/collectivist systems must use to hold power over a population. The government has decided that regardless of your circumstances and just because you are white, you do not have the protection guaranteed to you under the Constitution.

Tyranny wears many different disguises.

One thought on “Tyranny Behind The Mask

  1. From the same report…..
    We also found that in 2009, then-Section Chief Coates placed a career
    Section manager on the Honors Program Hiring Committee in order to
    “balance” the political views of a different committee member who Coates
    considered to be liberal. Almost immediately thereafter, DAAG Fernandes
    explored removing the manager from the committee due at least in part to his
    perceived conservative ideology, although she abandoned this effort. We found
    that considering the political or ideological leanings of employees in
    determining the composition of a hiring committee was inappropriate.

    During the course of our investigation, we received additional allegations
    about the unfair treatment of perceived liberals by Section or Division
    management from 2003 to 2008, and additional allegations about the unfair
    treatment of perceived conservatives by Section or Division management from
    2009 to the present. These included allegations that career attorneys received
    undesirable assignments or unfavorable performance reviews and that Division
    leadership refused to approve cases that the attorneys proposed because of
    political or ideological bias. We could not investigate many of these allegations,
    but we were struck by the perception within the Voting Section that this sort of
    conduct has continued across administrations. Again, we believe that the
    perception that some career employees are disfavored by management due to
    their political views is unusual in the Department, and that it hampers Section
    operations and undermines the perception of impartial law enforcement.

    I agree with you, Utah, that Perez is wrong, and his tenure at DOJ should be terminated. Scalia is right, that the Voting Rights Act should be color-blind. I just wonder why the outrage is only directed towards allegations of discrimination against whites when, after reading this report, it is obvious that the Bush administration was clearly staffing the department with lawyers who were just as biased as Perez.

    Anything racial or ethnically oriented that impinges on a citizen’s right to vote should be fair game for legal remediation, either within or without the DOJ

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s