SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California’s same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

It was unclear when gay marriages might resume in California. Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for the two couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban have repeatedly said they would consider appealing to a larger panel of the court and then the U.S. Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling from the 9th Circuit.

“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted,” the ruling states.

The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and should have disclosed before he issued his decision that he was gay and in a long-term relationship with another man.

The ruling came more than a year after the appeals court heard arguments in the case.

Proposition 8 backers had asked the 9th Circuit to set aside Walker’s ruling on both constitutional grounds and because of the thorny issue of the judge’s personal life. It was the first instance of an American jurist’s sexual orientation being cited as grounds for overturning a court decision. (more…)

Americans celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday to honor his contributions to our Republic. His struggle against racial prejudice and discrimination brought the words of the Founders–“that all men are created equal”–to true fruition.

Dr. King used non-violent protest, and an appeal to universal principles, to bring Americans together. His birthday should be a holiday that unites us.

Instead, Democrats are using it to divide Americans.

Consider the sermon offered by White House adviser Valerie Jarrett yesterday, at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta where Dr. King preached. She told the audience: “Teachers, and firefighters, and policemen, whose jobs are now in jeopardy because Congress–well let me be specific–because [of] the Republicans in Congress.”

Those in the audience laughed and applauded at Jarret’s brazen–and false–partisan attack.

Democrats have rewritten the history of the civil rights struggle to portray Republicans as the villains, when in fact most segregationists were Democrats. Republicans, in fact, voted for civil rights laws in greater proportions than Democrats. Moreover, Dr. King himself had been a Republican. Regardless, Dr. King was careful not to divide Americans along party lines in his struggle for justice–nor would he approve of it today.

Another Obama administration official who is exploiting Dr. King’s memory for political gain is Attorney General Eric Holder, who used the holiday to renew his attack on voter ID laws in South Carolina, falsely claiming they are racially discriminatory.

It is Holder, in fact, who practices racial discrimination by refusing to apply voting laws equally, notably in the New Black Panther Party case, an open-and-shut example of voter intimidation. (more…)

Attorney General Eric Holder delivered a speech in Austin, Texas Tuesday in which he invoked the history of the civil rights movement in targeting state voter identification laws. His approach mirrors that of the NAACP, which considers such laws racist, and echoes Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who recently claimed that Republicans want to “literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws.”

Holder claimed that the Department of Justice would be “fair” in reviewing such laws, but also quoted a misleading charge made by Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), who claimed there was a “systematic attempt” to prevent minority voters from exercising their rights. Holder specifically singled out “new photo identification requirements” in Texas and South Carolina, and applauded Maine’s voters for preserving same-day registration.

The fact is that requiring voters to provide photo identification is standard practice in much of the democratic world–even, and especially, in poor countries with a history of struggle against racism and colonialism.

In South Africa, for example, where black people were denied the vote until 1994, the new democratic government requires every registered voter–black or white, rich or poor–to bring official photo ID to the polls.

Indians show photo ID to vote (Photo credit: AP/Biswaranjan Rout)

India’s election commission issues a special photo identification card to voters when they register, which they must present at the polls:

The Election Commission of India has made voter identification mandatory at the time of poll. The electors have to identify themselves with either Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) issued by the Commission or any other documentary proof as prescribed by the Commission.

In Europe, the official EU Handbook for Election Observation acknowledges that voters are required to show identification in many countries, and suggests that observers verify that all voters are subject to the same ID check (166). Even the Carter Center for Human Rights, which monitors democratic elections all over the world, identifies “a requirement for identification” as a “reasonable limitation” on universal suffrage.

(Update: That’s not to say international practice should govern American practice at the federal, state, or local level, but it certainly undermines the notion that photo identification is somehow motivated by a desire to keep people from exercising their rights. The opposite is true: voter ID laws are intended to protect voters’ rights against fraud and manipulation by those who would subvert their will.)

(more…)

Americans are familiar with the favors that Eric Holder’s Justice Department extended to Jerry Jackson and the New Black Panther Party.  The voter intimidation case against Jackson and two other defendants was dismissed and the inside story is the subject of two chapters of my book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department.  What most people don’t know is that Eric Holder’s DOJ appears to be extending special favors to New Black Panther Jerry Jackson still – namely keeping him out of jail for violating federal firearms laws.

Jackson has a long violent criminal history.  He is also a Democratic Party elected official in Philadelphia, not that those two facts have anything in common, of course.  He was elected in May 2010 to a seat on the Philadelphia Democratic City Committee in the 14^th Ward.  No word if he will be in Charlotte for the 2012 DNC convention.

It is illegal under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) for any felon to possess a firearm.  As one federal prosecutor told me, “these cases are among the simplest to win.  It’s like taking candy from a baby.  Did a felon hold a gun, or not?  Period.”  It matters not if the gun was loaded, or even works.

Did New Black Panther Jerry Jackson possess a firearm?  Behold:

King Samir Shabazz (L) and Jackson (R)

(more…)

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) was recently interviewed on MSNBC after President Obama’s speech on his $447 Billion jobs plan and was asked how much the president was listening directly to the Congressional Black Caucus. Waters responded:

“We can see our handprint all over this proposal. We’re pleased about it and wish it had been even bigger, but it’s substantial and it targets the communities in need….”

The CBC’s entitlement-laced jobs plan was on full display at their shameless political pep-rally, which masqueraded as a townhall for jobs, on August 30^th in Los Angeles. Black lawmakers demanded government programs, attacked the tea party, and lavished one another with compliments in front of an audience of more than 700 people.

The South Central L.A. Tea Party attended the forum and we were able to get some revealing video footage of these lawmakers in action.

Maxine Waters got the crowd worked up and encouraged them to organize and march against the tea party. She also called for money for a “national housing trust fund” and threatened to tax the “gangsters on Wall Street” out of business.  She went on to say:

“…We have been fighting to get the banks and financial institutions to do loan modifications….They didn’t want bankruptcy, they don’t want to reduce the principle, it’s time for the bully pulpit of the White House to bring the gangsters in, put them around the table and let them know that if they don’t come up with loan modifications to keep people in their homes…we’re going to tax them out of business! [Loud audience applause] We need money….One of the things that we’re going for is a national housing trust fund to build more housing and rental units….”

(more…)

If you needed any more evidence of the level of corruption that exists inside the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) when it comes to enforcing civil rights statutes, here it is.

On March 15, 2011, civil rights activist Ted Hayes testified, by invitation, before the Judiciary Committee of the Maryland House of Delegates, against providing taxpayer dollars for in-state tuition benefits for illegal aliens. Shortly after his testimony, Mr. Hayes was subjected to vicious retribution by a radical Hispanic group known as “The Timmytop,” which posted a hate video on a YouTube channel that included racist smears and death threats.

The video begins with the message “[expletive] you ‘Mayate,’” which is reportedly a racist and derogatory term used to smear African-Americans and “dark skinned” people. The video then streams a series of racist images including: The silhouette of a man hanging from a noose; photos of Mr. Hayes adjacent to photos of monkeys and bananas; and doctored photos of Mr. Hayes pictured with a gun next to his head. The video, which runs two minutes and nine seconds, concludes with the message “Your [sic] FREE Now Mayate go back to Africa.”

The video has since been removed from its original placement on YouTube, but it is available on Judicial Watch’s website here. (If you choose to watch it, please be warned that it is extremely offensive and unfit for young eyes.)

You might think that this type of vile behavior would earn the interest of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. (That’s what we thought, too.) After all, this is the division at the DOJ that is responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations of civil rights, including, and perhaps especially, those that could have a chilling effect on the First Amendment. In this case, you have the intimidation of a witness through death threats and humiliation.

Judicial Watch filed a complaint with the DOJ regarding the matter on April 28, 2011, calling for a full investigation. And recently we received a response directly from the office of Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez (of Black Panther scandal fame). It was short and sweet:

(more…)

When Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) announced Tuesday that he will hold a hearing next week in the Senate Judiciary Committee on the civil rights of American Muslims, everyone thought it was a joke. No other group gets the extraordinary, unconstitutional special status that Muslims enjoy. The Muslim Brotherhood, an organization whose stated goal is to destroy and eliminate America from within, has accessed and secured extraordinary power at senior levels of the Executive branch, the Department of Justice, Department of Defense, State Department, Homeland Security, etc.

One can point to Alger Hiss or Benedict Arnold for like historical antecedents. The difference between then and now is that we didn’t know that Hiss et al were seditionists whose objective was to overthrow the government. We know who and what the Brotherhood is, but the political elites, the chattering classes and the media elites have taken up their considerable weapons against those who are exposing this century’s Nazis.

Dick Durbin’s hearing – with the Orwellian title “Protecting the Civil Rights of American Muslims” – is intended to serve as a counterpunch to the much more sensible and logical (although still toothless, as I explained here and here) House Homeland Security Committee hearing led by Chairman Peter King (R-NY) two weeks ago on the radicalization of Muslims in the U.S. Senator Durbin’s press release announcing the hearing said that it was being triggered by a non-existent “spike in anti-Muslim bigotry in the last year.” Apparently, the numerous acts of terrorism committed by American Muslims, and the warnings that have even come from the Obama Administration about the homegrown radicalization of Islamic jihadists, are to be deliberately ignored in deference to Islamic demands and supremacism.

In my previous oped piece on the Durbin debacle, I thought that a hearing on “Muslim rights” would be a good idea if it addressed the increasing surrender of secular law to Islamic law, and the assertion of Islamic supremacism over the rights of all others. We need hearings on the Florida circuit court judge who just ruled that a case be decided according to Sharia law. We need hearings on the special rights being afforded Muslims at the expense of everyone else. We need hearings on the Obama Justice Department’s suing a school district for not allowing a Muslim woman to take nearly three weeks off during the school year to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca.

(more…)

Attorney General Eric Holder recently made statements to the New York Times so detached from reality that they could have been written by scheming Republican operatives for fun.  In particular, Holder tells the Times that the lawless dismissal of voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panthers is “a made up controversy.”  I have written about Holder’s accelerating detachment from reality in the interview, along with Jen Rubin.

Putting aside the fact video exists of the armed uniformed thugs in Philadelphia, Holder did something even worse than flirt with kooky conspiratorial characterizations of the fallout from the Black Panther dismissal.  When Holder announced to the New York Times that there “is no there there,” he let the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) know what he believes the outcome of their ongoing investigation into the dismissal should be.   In other words, he tampered with their investigation.

Holder’s close friend Deputy Attorney General James Cole will have the power to veto any critical conclusions by OPR.

Multiple attorneys, including me, have testified under oath that the Obama Civil Rights Division will not enforce civil rights laws in a race-neutral fashion.  Numerous attorneys still at the Justice Department have confirmed the substance of our testimony to the Washington Post. Numerous other attorneys no longer at the Justice Department have also confirmed our testimony. (more…)

While we certainly hope the possibility of multi-billion dollar fraud was enough to pique your outrage, what may be the most frightening revelation from our research is that Pigford may be the proverbial tip of the farmer scam iceberg.  Fox News published this report suggesting as much:

The congressional approval of a whopping $4.6 billion settlement for black and Native American farmers who claimed they were discriminated against has cleared the way for a similar pair of costly lawsuits — drawing complaints that the government may be buckling to pressure and rewarding dubious claims.

The so-called “Pigford” case involving black farmers who allege the Agriculture Department cheated them for decades drew to a close Tuesday when the House joined the Senate in approving the second settlement in the case to date. But the lawsuits don’t end there. Though Pigford has attracted the most attention, a separate set of cases filed by Hispanic and female farmers has been working its way through the courts since shortly after Pigford was filed more than a decade ago.

Those cases are set for a hearing in federal District Court in the nation’s capital on Friday, and once again a large pot of taxpayer money is on the line. The farmers were offered a $1.3 billion settlement back in May, but the plaintiffs have since then pushed for more. Some Democratic lawmakers argue they deserve it. (more…)

I am shocked by the recent passage of legislation by the US Congress that provides a settlement for discrimination lawsuits filed by black farmers against the United States Department of Agriculture.  With today’s focus on deficit spending and unaffordable government debt, Congress has decided to double the amount of dollars spent to date to settle these claims.  Given the fact that there are more claims of discrimination than there are black farmers, I wonder if members of Congress knew the facts if they would have voted to spend another $1.2 Billion to settle claims.

After my nomination and subsequent unanimous confirmation as Secretary of USDA, I set about to learn as much about the Department as fast as I could.  One initial briefing was by the Under-Secretary for Civil Rights.

Included was a brief on several class lawsuits against the Department alleging discrimination against minority farmers.  Also, it was noted that there were allegations of the Department dragging its feet in getting claims accredited and processed for the court ordered settlement with black farmers in the Pigford class action litigation. I soon had several visits from organizations representing black farmers urging me to settle all claims quickly.

I was concerned about the Department’s handling of discrimination claims and asked that the paperwork be expedited.  It was then that I was made aware that there were possibly many claims that were fraudulent and much due diligence was warranted.  Understanding that validation and verification of the claims slowed down the process, it was felt that since taxpayers money was at stake that investigations into the propriety of claims were prudent and warranted. (more…)

The Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot shake the New Black Panther Party scandal. Every week new revelations emerge about the racism and political favoritism that are corrupting our nation’s top law enforcement agency.

Last week, Judicial Watch released to the public brand new documents from the Obama DOJ that provide further evidence that top political appointees at the DOJ were intimately involved in the decision to dismiss the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.

And just like previous documents we’ve uncovered, this new evidence directly contradicts sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership participated in the decision.

Remember this exchange between Perez and the Commission?

COMMISSIONER KIRSANOW: Was there any political leadership involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case any further than it was?

ASST. ATTY. GEN. PEREZ: No. The decisions were made by Loretta King in consultation with Steve Rosenbaum, who is the Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Perez also suggested that the dispute was merely “a case of career people disagreeing with career people.”

Not true.

(more…)

Will the NAACP be celebrating the arrival of two new black faces to the U.S. House of Representatives?

Don’t hold your breath. They certainly will not. These two new black congressmen are Republicans.

There’s a powerful message here that should and must be digested.

We have arrived in post-racial America but establishment blacks – lodged in the political left – refuse to accept it and are doing all they can to get black citizens to refuse to accept it.

The sobering reality is that the black political establishment doesn’t want Dr. King’s dream. They don’t want an America where people are judged by the content of their character. They want an America that is Democrat and left wing and this is what they promote today under the banner of civil rights.

The campaign by the NAACP and leading black journalists – all liberals – to paint the Tea Party movement, the push back against government growth and intrusiveness over the last two years, as motivated by racism is shameful.

(more…)

Remarks of President Obama at Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s Dinner, as prepared by the White House:

Hello CBC! It is wonderful to be back with all of you. I know you’ve spent a good deal of time talking about what the future holds for the African American community, and the United States of America as a whole. I’ve been spending time thinking about that, too. And at this time of great challenge, one source of inspiration is the founding of the Congressional Black Caucus.

I want us all to take a moment and remember what was happening forty years ago when 13 black members of Congress decided to come together and form this caucus. It was 1969. More than a decade had passed since the Supreme Court decided Brown vs. Board of Education. It had been several years since Selma and Montgomery, since Dr. Martin Luther King told America of his dream, all culminating in the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

The founders of this caucus could look back and feel proud of the progress that had been made. They could feel confident that America was moving in the right direction. But they…. (more…)

55 years ago, Rosa Parks helped launch the modern civil rights movement.

Today, the government is bulldozing her old neighborhood.  Here’s the real kicker:  The homeowners are forced to pay the cost of demolition.

Nobel prize-winning libertarian economist F.A. Hayek famously wrote that “the great aim of the struggle for liberty has been equality before the law.”  There is no better example of this fundamental struggle than Rosa Parks, known today as The Mother of the Freedom Movement.

She refused to be treated as a second-class citizen.  But her hometown of Montgomery, Ala., segregated blacks on public transits.  Minorities were forced to sit in the back, forced to give up their seats to whites, and sometimes were left standing on the side of the road after paying their fare.  Rosa stood up to the Big Government Bullies and said enough is enough.  Her demand for equality before the law forever transformed America.

Rosa once said:

I would like to be remembered as a person who wanted to be free . . . so other people would be also free.

Indeed, she made the world a better place.  So how despicable is it that today officials in her old hometown are forcing people to give up their homes?  The government is tearing down houses against the property owners’ will and then sticking them with the bill.

(more…)

On June 6^th, the date of D-Day, scores of patriots from across the nation poured into Zuccotti Park at the corner of Liberty and Trinity, across the street from Ground Zero to protest the 9/11 mosque being built just 600 feet from our country’s most painful wound.

Many have spoken to the horrible insensitivity of this mosque, arguing that it is an affront to American sensibilities, a planting of the victory flag as evidenced by its 9/11/11 opening date and the name of the project itself, the “Cordoba Initiative,” and a reflection of the growing stealth Sharia in the United States given the mosque’s Imam’s pro-Islamic law stance.  Indeed Muslims have been building mosques for centuries as symbols of conquest and dominance, and this one in particular will mark the first to stand on US soil.

The 9/11 mosque however has far greater implications with regard to the fundamental principles of our nation.  As reflected by the guffaws of many in the crowd when one of the speakers at the rally argued in favor of the mosque on Constitutional grounds regardless of the abhorrence of its location, many find it hard to reconcile that Islam is allowed to use our freedoms to subvert or mock our freedoms.  The religious tolerance of our culture alone deems us largely unable to prevent against mosques in which Islamic supremacism is preached, creating fertile protected grounds for jihadists both peaceful and violent.

If in fact we are unable to safeguard against such institutions, or even criticize the ideology of Islam at all, then we are going to be neutered in a war against those who use Islam to justify murdering innocents and implementing universal Sharia law both overtly and stealthily.

(more…)

Civil rights.  Inalienable rights.  Human rights.  Animal rights.  Individual rights.  Group rights.  God-given rights.  Sacred rights.  Natural rights.  Positive rights.  Negative rights.  Children’s rights.  Parent’s rights.  Patient’s rights.  Property rights.  Personal rights.  Basics rights.  Fundamental rights.

Just what is a right?  Can some rights be more basics or fundamental than others?  Which is more important, a basic right or a fundamental right?  Do the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few?  Are rights absolute?  One could assert whole new kinds of rights and then argue about where they fit in among all the other rights.  How about essential rights, or core rights, or perhaps preeminent rights?

Definitions of the nature and origin of rights vary widely – from a gift from God, to one of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison’s tenets, all the way down to “a good thing” – but these disputes can be left to theologians and historians and scatterbrains.  Let constitutional scholars debate the fine points of original intent or understanding (of each delegate?  or the drafter of a particular clause?  or the Convention as a whole?  or Congress?  or the ratifying state conventions?).  What really matters is how rights function within our constitutional system.

A person saying he has the right to XYZ, for instance, is saying that regardless of what other people want, he must have XYZ and society must give it to him.  To admit there is such a right is to accept that the opinion of the majority on his having XYZ is meaningless; it is to accept that your opinion on the issue is meaningless, too.  As anti-democratic limitations on the scope of majority rule, rights are like provisions of the Constitution.  Indeed, they are one and the same, because in a practical sense – the only sense that matters – a right is a government policy that must be so regardless of majority will.

(more…)

Pew has some new, eye-opening numbers. There are some positives — family values, civil rights, civil liberties, states’ rights all test well — and some negatives, with socialism getting high marks among 44 percent of Democrats.

The incongruity is truly striking. That people can proclaim support for civil rights and civil liberties while holding a relatively low opinion for libertarianism or while offering support for recent measures that threaten the civil rights and civil liberties of U.S. citizens suggests the power of bumper-sticker politics trumps serious introspection.

(more…)

David Weigel, at The Washington Post, asked me to comment on Michael Steele’s view of  the so-called Southern Strategy.

Speaking at DePaul University on April 20, RNC Chairman Michael Steele urged Republican leaders to work with the Tea Parties.  He has the right approach, to which I would add the fact, per my article on BigGovernment.com, that The Republican Party began as a Tea Party Movement.

Steele then went on to say:

“We have lost sight of the historic, integral link between the party and African-Americans.  This party was co-founded by blacks, among them Frederick Douglass.  The Republican Party had a hand in forming the NAACP, and yet we have mistreated that relationship.  People don’t walk away from parties.  Their parties walk away from them.  For the last 40-plus years we had a ‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.  Well, guess what happened in 1992, folks, ‘Bubba’ went back home to the Democratic Party and voted for Bill Clinton.”

Chairman Steele makes an interesting point, but he is accepting as true the Democrat version of events.  The theme of Back to Basics for the Republican Party is that celebrating our party’s heritage is not just for minority outreach but for all Republicans to appreciate that the GOP has been a great force for good ever since being founded in 1854 to oppose the Democrats’ pro-slavery, anti-freedom agenda.  I drew on that record of achievement in writing the historical information on the RNC website, also posted as Heroes and Heroics.

(more…)

At a speech at Claremont McKenna to honor Martin Luther King Jr. in mid-January, the subject of Jesse Jackson Sr.’s new ire was the “banksters” — Wall Street fat cats, who are causing all of our problems.

Naturally, Jackson ignored his own role in housing crisis. That he made his argument against banks at one of the schools that produces the most investment bankers in the country did not go unnoticed – however. Those hoping to listen to watch his entire speech can watch it here.

Jackson decried the “biggest shift of wealth in American history in the last 9 months.” He assailed Obama’s so-called spending freeze. “We’ll freeze the rich in their wealth and the poor in their poverty. . . . Freeze? They have already frozen modifications of home foreclosures.” And he applauded Roosevelt’s “direct investment in the poor” and for “breaking up their ability to be indifferent to the poor.” “Banks serve at the privilege of the state and their mission is to lend and invest,” he said, not presumably to get paid back.

Of course much of the speech sounded like the usual socialist rhetoric, which he claimed Martin Luther King Jr. was trying to “take us there” – wherever there is.

(more…)

Pollsters like to say their surveys are like a snapshot, limited to the time and the picture frame in which they are taken. What we are seeing in polling on the takeover of health care by the federal government is a consistent opposition by the American people. No major poll shows the people supporting the House or Senate bill.

The poll most often cited by conservative talk show hosts is that of CNN/Opinion Research. This is the poll that shows the widest gap between those in favor and those opposed—25 points. Rasmussen reports a milder ratio of 16% between those opposed and those in favor. Gallup shows it a near-tossup: 46% in favor, 48% opposed.

What all these polls fail to show, however, is intensity. Intensity in politics is everything.

Those who know the most, who tell pollsters they are following the debate most closely—especially seniors—tend to be most opposed.

(more…)