President Bush and Civil Rights. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW! (Super long)

Uff da. I’ve read the whole report by the US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) titled “Redefining Rights in America: The Civil Rights Record of the George W. Bush administration, 2001-2004”. (PDF File) The USCCR is an “independent, bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957”. The report, released in September, 2004, is jam packed with information that every voter should know about the current administration. I’m going to outline a lot of the worthwhile points and events and just put a page number after them for reference. I’m going to avoid quote boxes for simplicity’s sake and just put any personal comments in italics to differentiate from them. Please for the love all mankind, vote this fucker and his cronies out!

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report finds that President Bush has neither exhibited leadership on pressing civil rights issues, nor taken actions that matched his words. Pvii

This report finds that President Bush has not defined a clear agenda nor made civil rights a priority. Pvii

…President Bush seldom speaks about civil rights, and when he does, it is to carry out official duties, not to promote initiatives or plans for improving opportunity. Even when he publicly discusses existing barriers to equality and efforts to overcome them, the administrations words and deeds often conflict. Pvii

…many of his nominees and appointees do not support civil rights protections. Pvii

In his first three years in office, the net increase in President Bush’s requests for civil rights enforcements agencies was less than those of the previous two administrations. Pvii

He did not provide leadership to ensure timely passage and swift implementation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. The administration seated the federal election reform oversight board 11 months behind schedule. As a result of the President’s inaction, little will change before the 2004 elections and the problems that linger, unless resolved, will most likely disenfranchise some eligible voters Pviii

The No Child Left Behind Act…has flaws that will inhibit equal educational opportunity and limit its ability to close the achievement gap. (The) NCLB does not sufficiently address unequal education. The lowest performing schools are also the porrest, amplifying the need for sufficient resources. However, President Bush has not aggressively pushed for increased funding, leaving NCLB underfunded every year except its first.pviii

The President’s stance on affirmative action is equivocal at best. President Bush has tried to please both supporters and opponents, a tactic that has resulted in a misleading and vague position. Pviii

The administration later filed briefs with the Supreme Court challenging programs that allow race to be considered as one factor among many in college admission decision, discrediting existing case law and arguing erroneously that this practice amounted to a quota. Pix

Policies instituted under the Bush administration have diminished housing opportunities for the poor, disproportionately minority families…. Although a worthwhile effort, the President’s A Home of Your Own program is hampered by insufficient funding to relieve the chronic affordable housing crisis. PIX
(The) EPA has taken few actions to ensure that minority and low-income persons are not disparately affected by environmental contamination and has failed to develop a standard for assessing how exposure to hazards affects public health. EPA has de-emphasized the significance of minority and low-income population in its environmental justice efforts. Pix

Racial profiling
President Bush took other actions, however that had negative effects. The administration responded to the September 11,2001, terrorist attacks by instituting regulations that facilitate profiling rather than prevent it. Pix

The administration paid little attention to hate crimes until after September 11. Immediately after the attacks, the administration declared that acts of violence and discrimination against Arab Americans, Muslims, and those perceived to be of Middle Eastern descent would not be tolerated. The administration did not sustain its strong rhetoric after September 11. Neither did President Bush support passage of the Local Law Enforcement Act, a proposal that would protect gay men and lesbians, and persons with disabilities from hate crimes. President Bush has further stated that “all violent crimes are crimes of hate,” a view which does not acknowledge the bias associated with such acts.

Immigration: This report examines three administration immigration proposals or policies. All lack strong civil rights protections for immigrants. For example, he initially considered granting amnesty to approximately 3 million undocumented Mexican immigrants in 2001, but subsequently terminated his efforts. In January 2004, the President again proposed a temporary worker program for undocumented immigrants but has not pushed for its passage. President Bush has endorsed policies that allow discrimination against certain groups in the processing of asylum requests. For instance, on the unproven claim that Haitian refugees may threaten national security, President Bush granted authority to federal agents to hold them in detention indefinitely without bond until their cases are heard by an asylum court. The US does not apply such policy to any other immigration group. Px

Following the terrorist attacks, the administration instituted policies that singled out immigrants, from Middle Eastern and Muslim countries. The DOJ allowed local law enforcement to contact and question visitors citizens and other residents. Pxi

Women: President Bush’s record on women’s issues is mixed. Economic gains for which he has paved the way are overshadowed by other actions that have set back women’s rights. The Bush administration White House Office for Women’s Initiatives and Outreach and attempted to close the Women’s Bureau at the Department of Labor. It retreated amid objections from women’s groups. The administration withdrew Department of Education guidance on sexual harassment in schools from the Internet and ended distribution of information on workplace rights of women. President Bush attempted to redirect Title IX enforcement, but ceased his effort after overwhelming public expressions of support for the law. The administration…abolished DOL’s Equal Pay Initiative. Pxii

Gay men and Lesbians: President Bush opposes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA), both of which include protections for gay individuals. In 2004, the Office of Special Counsel removed documents pertaining to sexual orientation discrimination in the federal government from its website. Only after the action was publicized did the administration direct that the materials be re-posted. President Bush has stated unequivocal support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. If passed, the amendment would be the first in US history to limit rather than preserve and expand the rights of a group. Pxii

Funding for religious groups: When President Bush took office, he expanded the ability of religious groups to receive federal funds through the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Although the initiative constitutes a retreat from civil rights, President Bush has consistently presented it as an extension of civil rights to religious groups. He has presented the initiative as an end to discrimination against religious organizations using terms such as “remove barriers:”, “equal access”, and “equal treatment”, which convey that such programs have civil rights relevance. In reality, the program does not remove barriers to discrimination. On the contrary, it allows religious organizations that receive public funds to discriminate against individuals based on religion in employment. Pxiv
*So those are some of the main points that needed addressing. Here are some sad points that need to be shouted from the rooftops for all to hear. *

On January 7, 2003, President Bush renominated Charles Pickering Sr. for a US Appeals Court post, after the Senate Judiciary Committee voted him down the previous year. Of particular concern to civil rights advocates was a 1994 case in which Pickering actively sought a reduced sentence for a man convicted of a cross burning, a widely used hate group intimidation tactic. At one point Pickering referred to the act as a “youthful prank”, diminishing its symbolic representation of race baiting and hatred. Pickering took the further step of contacting a friend at the DOJ during the trial to try to get the offender’s sentence reduced, a move considered unethical by several legal experts. Pickering has also argued for a more narrow application of the Voting Rights Act and suggested that , generally, discrimination cases have no bases. He has also been criticized for his vites in the Mississippi legislature, early in his career, to support funding for an organization established to resist court-ordered desegregation after the 1954 Brown v Board of Education decision. P 17

…President Bush nominated Alabama Attorney General William Pryor for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 9, 2003. During his tenure as Alabama’s attorney general, Pryor used litigation, amicus curiae briefs, and public speeches as tools to advocate limiting protections against discrimination. Civil rights advocates note that, in the past, Pryor advocated the repeal or modification of a provision of the Voting Rights Act, urged the Supreme Court to bar state employees from suing for damages under the ADA, filed a brief opposing the Violence Against Women Act, and described the Court’s decision to order the Virginia Military Institution to cease discrimination against women as “political correctness for decision making”. Religious organizations argues that Pryor has a troubling record on issues of religious freedom, supports prayer in school, and has used his public office to advance the concept of America as a Christian nation, excluding those of other faiths. In February 2004, President Bush sidestepped the nomination process again and placed Pryor on the bench using a recess appointment. P19-20

President Bush first nominated Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Own during the 107th Congress. White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, a former state supreme court associate, once describe Owen’s attempt to legislate from the bench in a case involving reproductive rights as “an unconscionable act of judicial activism”. P 20

Under Attorney General Ashcroft, the DOJ’s enforcement of civil rights has become less vigorous, indeed almost passive, and the pursuit of civil rights cases has waned significantly. P28

The nomination and subsequent appointment of Daniel Pipes to the board of the US Institute for Peace also drew attention from the civil rights community. The Council on American-Islamic Relations called on Bush to rescind Pipes’ nomination because he had once claimed that 10 to 15 percent of Muslims are “potential killers”. P28

In its reports, the Commission (USCCR) has repeatedly found that inadequate resources have weakened enforcement of civil rights laws. P32

In 2002, poll watchers in midterm Senate race in Arkansas photographed black voters as an intimidation tactic. A Texas prosecutor in this, an election year, threatened to arrest students at historically black Prairie View A&M if they tried to vote using campus addresses. P43

Holding the Administration Accountable for NCLB Implementation. In 2003, funding fell $8 billion short, and in 2003 the President’s request was $11 billion below target. The National Education Association estimates that because of funding shortages, only 40 percent of students eligible for Title I funds, which are earmarked for disadvantaged students, are being fully served. P50 The federal government may have trouble demanding 100 percent accountability from schools while only providing 7 percent of the total funding for public elementary and secondary education. P51.

At the end of the Bush term, what is to be made of his legacy on housing? His housing initiative is inadequately funded because of a failure to grasp the magnitude of the affordable housing crisis for minorities, especially African Americans and Native Americans. The initiative is imbalanced as it ignored affordable rental housing for low income minority families, among others. Further, the administration’s attempts to dismantle Section 8 and HOPE VI programs will disproportionately hurt minority families since they are among the main beneficiaries. P71

…The Bush administration has supported the proposed Clean Skies Act despite that the proposal does not provide environmental justice safeguards. The Clean Skies Act would repeal the Clean Air Act’s requirement that facilities install updated pollution control equipment when expanding their capacities. The Clean Skies Act also expands emissions allowances within geographic regions to include nitrogen oxides and mercury, in addition to sulfur dioxide. Under the Clean Skies Act, power plants must have one allowance for every one every ton of pollution they emit. A power plant that reduces emissions can sell unused allowances on the open market to another power plant. Consequently, the proposed act permits power plants to emit unlimited amounts of nitrogen oxides and mercury provided they purchase allowances from environmentally sound plants. P78.

Validating the seriousness of racial profiling in the United States, President Bush promise to end the practice during his 2000 campaign and again immediately after taking office. However, just one month later, after the terrorist attacks, the administration retreated from its promise and implemented selective policies that amounted to profiling. In the weeks and months that followed, complaints from victims prompted a federal response. P82.

On June 15 2004. the Senate passed LLEEA (Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act) by a vote of 65-33, as a provision attached to the 2005 Department of Defense Authorization bill. Despite bipartisan congressional support, however, President Bush has not supported the bill and has stated that “all violent crimes are crimes of hate”. P95

There’s so much more to include here. But my fingers are about to come off. Please read the whole thing. Put more of the stuff in this thread and share this with your friends, family, neighbors, and enemies.

Yawn. Liberal.

BA

I thought they weren’t going to release it until after the election. Maybe I’m thinking of something else.

I will get to reading it.

Fact alert! Fact alert! Enabling mental filter.

Fuck you, Blackacre. If you missed the first part of my thread where I said that this was an independent bipartisan committee, maybe you should try reading the OP again.

Wait, you think he actually read your post?

This guy has black marks all over him. He’s whinging about political threads, poking fun at everyone he takes for a “librul”, and generally making himself a nuisance. Oh, and he’s openly admitted that he’s an attorney!

I’m not sure you’re fitting in here, BlackAcre :stuck_out_tongue:

Sam

P.S.- St. Pauler, nice find with this report. I’m reeaaaaaly shocked GW didn’t parade this report around on the campaign trail. Of course, he only campaigns to older, white straight crowds, so they’d probably laud him for his civil rights shortcomings rather than puke.

Wow, a bipartisan committee that sure seems to love affirmative action.

Well, I hate affirmative action, so Bush is doing just fine by me.

I’d like to believe that what you hate is some of the lengths to which AA has been distorted, because I hate to think that anyone would oppose voluntary and temporary actions taken by private companies to redress past discrimination within the company.

I oppose any criteria that is other than race-neutral. I have no problem with companies that aggresively advertise and recruit in areas that may attract minority candidates, or universities that do the same. But when the admission offers and the job offers are made, they should be utterly race neutral.

One day, some of you morons will take the time to actually read. Who knows, maybe an attempt at comprehension will come next?

From the first page of the linked .PDF

Draft Report for Commissioner’s Review

What’s this? A ‘draft report’, not an officially sanctioned report, approved of by all commission members?

A minute of googling reveals this: (By one By Michael Janofsky of the NYT)

Bipartisan report my ass. What stpauler is blabbering about is basically an editorial peice, not a product of the USCCR.

Bricker, the report may not have been adopted yet, but it seems pretty damned accurate. Whether or not they water down the content or its language is another matter completely.

Sam

On the one had, we have Bricker, who is reasoned and polite. On the other, we have Brutus, who comes in as an aggresive and offensive jerkoff. Hmmmm . . .

Well, I’ve always liked Rick anyway, so I guess I’ll go with him.

Then you count yourself as a proud supporter of affirmative action! Welcome!

Increasing the pool of minority applicants by such things as “aggressively advertis[ing] and recruit[ing] in areas that may attract minority candidates” is the cornerstone of a successful affirmative action campaign. Dressing up objections to illegal employment practices (making admission and job offers that are allegedly not “race-neutral”) that are not affirmative action and then objecting to affirmative action because of them is ludicrous.

Oy…first off, look at the republican opinion of this release: (from your link)

The funny thing is, none of the Republicans was saying that any of the facts or opinions were in error. They’re just pissed about the timing. Poor, poor babies. I know how facts scare ya. You’re more than welcome to complain about the facts, but complaining about the timing, well that’s just fucking pathetic.

Oh, and that “editorial piece”, as you called it, you know the one backed up with sites, facts, and historical relevence, could still be approved by the committee as official. Considering your quote, I’ll bold a word even further “It does not **necessarily **represent the commission’s view.”

So why did you feel the need to claim that this was supposedly a ‘bipartisan’ committee, when in fact the editorial peice you (hilariously) felt the need to type out has not undergone any ‘bipartisan’ review?

Besides, the editorial peice very well might not be a product of the commission proper, but of their staff. Cite.

And another example of the USCCR acting in a dorktastic manner: (bolding mine)

Regarding your harping that ‘none of the Republicans was saying that any of the facts or opinions were in error’, they probably didn’t even know this was being released. And it sure as fuck isn’t the job of the USCCR to play ‘report/counter-report’. You talk about ‘bipartisan’, but you apparently don’t know what it means, do you?

Because it was a draft report written by the staff of a bipartisan commission, and released prior to finalization by the commission according to the process which that commission approved.

“Bipartisan” does not mean “politically neutral unless it inconveniences a Republican candidate” nor “we’ll play token-Democrat on a group loaded with Republicans” as many Republican leaders seem to think.

ToysRUs have Clue games on sale. Get one, willya? :rolleyes:

If you were in charge of affirmative action policy in this country, Otto, I would probably rest easy.

Unfortunately, in Grutter v Bollinger, just last year, the Supreme Court approved a law school affirmative action admissions program that gave actual admission preference based on race. The Bush Administration argued against this odious policy. Based on this, I’m not sure I agree that I’m a proud supporter of affirmative action as it is actively being practiced today.

Bipartisan:

So by that convoluted logic, every single document that makes it out of congress is ‘bipartisan’, because congress is made up of 2 parties? Fucking ridiculous. This most certainly did not involve members of two parties, other than members of one party weaseling the rules to slam on the other party. There was no input from members of the other party, so this ‘report’ is no way, shape, or form ‘bipartisan’.

Damn it, are you guys trying to dilute another word to the point of meaninglessness?

Wow, you must have some facts that aren’t available in your link. Or online. Or in the realworld. Please do share those facts with us that the draft report wasn’t bipartisan. Ya know, besides the republican’s hatred for civil rights.