“Many of the cases the commission deals with are complaints not of racism against minorities, but against white Americans.”

It goes on to provide several examples that do not in any way prove this allegation.

First, let’s look at the Youngstown Ohio case. The city council was warned by the Mayor and by the city attorney that the practice of two separate lists should not be maintained because of a federal appeals court ruling in Louisiana that declared separate lists to be unconstitutional. God forbid a city actually you know….follows the constitution when engaging in hiring practices. The commission suggested the city maintain one list and then provide scholarships and additional training to civil service applicants. The horror.

Second, with regard to the Shepard hate crime bill, all it takes is a little bit of searching to see that the opposition to the bill by 4 members of the commission is due to issues they have with how the legislation would circumvent constitutional double-jeopardy protections.

On the sub-prime mortgage issue, TPM attempts to conflate “discriminatory” with “disproportionately.” The NCRC report TPM cites itself states (on page 16):

While persistent racial/ethnic disparities across all income levels do not prove discrimination, it would appear that policymakers and stakeholders could take action to narrow particularly large disparities between middle- and upper-income minorities and whites. Large disparities at all income levels, particularly middle- and upper-income levels, suggest a lack of competition among lenders and other market barriers that can be reduced through concerted action.

The bottom line is, TPM is attempting to create this grand controversy, when nothing of the sort exists (at least according to the flimsy “evidence” they have provided). That is why the article is poorly written.

Pretending things aren’t there doesn’t cause something to be poorly written it just causes you to be looked at as a partisan liar who refuses to at least engage on the issue. You could agree with the commissions stances, you could disagree but to claim they weren’t there when anybody who can read can easily see them is just being disingenuous

Let’s examine shall we?

It says, “Many of the cases the commission deals with are complaints not of racism against minorities, but against white Americans.”

Ok, which ones? It doesn’t say at all.

The article then goes on to say the commission “wrote letters.”

That’s it. From that, you and the hacks at TPM come to the conclusion that the Commission on Civil Rights “has now prioritized racism against whites at the expensive of racism vs. minorities.”

What a joke.