Michigan's Tarnow, 6th Circuit voters have final say

I have long held, as have the majority of others, that vindictive, liberal, activist judges and courts, have no place in our system of jurisprudence. Notwithstanding, while Michigan District Judge Arthur Tarnow and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals did not reach the level of Kwame Kilpatrick and the group "By Any Means Necessary", or BAMN – they made it clear that their idea of true racial equity is not something to be had unless same is defined by preference, victimhood and elitist liberals dictating to the poor little "colored" people the permissible parameters of their inclusiveness.

By now, nearly everyone is familiar with the landslide victory of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative in November, 2006. The Initiative, which won by a 58 percent to 42 percent margin, stated in Article I, Section 26: Civil Rights:

TRENDING: Ben Carson tells off Maxine Waters for lack of 'basic manners'

(2) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

Predictably, BAMN, with absolute disregard for the will of the 58 percent who voted in favor of said "initiative," – and with complete contempt for a voting process that allows for any outcome save the one they dictate – filed a lawsuit alleging that "MCRI used racially-targeted voter fraud to obtain signatures in support of an initiative petition to place an anti-affirmative action proposal on the November, 2006 general election ballot."

District Court judge Tarnow held that, "because the Voting Rights Act is not a general anti-voter fraud statute, but rather prohibits practices which result in unequal access to the political process because of race, the court must conclude that the defendant's [MCRI's] conduct, though [in his mind] unprincipled, did not violate the Act."

In other words, Tarnow found that MCRI did nothing wrong, but could spin what took place in such a way as to taint them, the state agencies and the voters who supported the ballot proposal, presumptively forever. But I get ahead of myself.

Herein is the rub – first of all, how many more times must we endure having racist anarchists try to convince us that blacks are less intelligent and less capable of understanding than any other population group? This mantra is as outdated and offensive as a pea-green leisure suit with white shoes. The fall-back for any segregationist group that seeks to stall and abrogate the substantial gains all people enjoy today, is to claim that blacks were/are too stupid to understand. The problem is that most blacks buy into same without stopping to think exactly how incapable said assertions make them look.

The most objectionable act of judicial impropriety is District Judge Tarnow himself. He was offended that he had no choice but to uphold settled law. But same notwithstanding, he took it upon himself to, not only inject his flagrant disgust for the will of the people and the state agencies, et al, but he also provided a gisarme for the glaikit to advance with.

To my point, Tarnow claims to have found that MCRI engaged in "systematic voter fraud" by telling voters that they were signing a petition supporting affirmative action. But in his opinion, MCRI "appeared to have targeted all Michigan voters for deception without regard to race." This is a scurrilous charge on its face, and even more opprobrious coming from the judge rendering a ruling.

I ask you, when has a liberal court found a group they condemn – even remotely responsible for a violation – and not made examples of them? Anti-abortion protesters have been arrested and falsely charged – only to be let go. Laws have been changed to restrict the right to assemble. Children have been expelled from public schools for daring to say grace over their bag lunch in a dining area – and I could go on. But now we are to believe that Tarnow finds MCRI guilty of defrauding voters, but has no choice but to let them go. Maybe his water glass contained another liquid, which while clear and odorless, is best served with tonic.

He concluded that "the people of Michigan had been subject to gross institutional indifference" by every state agency – with the exception of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission. He attacked the Michigan Courts, the Board of Canvassers, the Secretary of State, the State Attorney General, and the Bureau of Elections as not taking the charges of voter fraud seriously. Of course, he omitted the fact that maybe same was because the alleged fraud never took place. How arrogantly elitist of him to verbally chastise all state agencies, including the secretary of state and the state attorney general, for not finding a way to keep a proposal – that places all people, regardless of color and/or sex, on an equal footing – off the ballot. Can anyone believe for an instant that if there had been any impropriety of note, that it would have slipped by all but himself and the Civil Rights Commission – a commission in Michigan that is well-known for miraculously finding rights violations in very questionable circumstances?

His willful insults against the community, whose interests and well-being he is sworn to uphold, is a transpicuous display of contempt for same. He angrily condemns the community for its interest in equality and in being truly welcoming to all people, but I would ask – how many blacks has he encouraged his children to date and/or marry? Then again, perhaps I should apologize for intimating that he is a closet bigot, whose only concern is in keeping the community divided, and subjecting blacks to victimization.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals – the Court BAMN appealed to – dismissed the appeal as moot because "it [was] too late for [them] to grant the relief [BAMN] requested in their complaint litigated in District Court … by virtue of intervening events, the Court of Appeals [therefore could not] fashion effective relief." (Pg. 8; 6th Circuit opinion NOS. 06-2144/2258; Operation King's Dream, et. al. v. Connerly, et. al.).

It took the 6th Circuit seven and one-half pages of smearing MCRI to finally sum up in one paragraph why the appeal was being dismissed. That is seven plus pages that will be in the record forever. It is clear that both Tarnow and the 6th Circuit had a plan to smear MCRI with dicta, and then give them a legal victory so that there would be little that MCRI could do about the court's actions.

Tarnow wrongfully read into the permanent record that which he knew to be a lie when he stated that MCRI made no effort to defend itself against the accusations. Here again, in so doing, the court spit in the face of the voters and state agencies, and in the process further marginalized blacks as being too stupid to read a petition before signing it. MCRI in fact, had in full and unimpeachable detail laid out a "Full Rebuttal Report" to those allegations well before the suit and appeal were heard. (See: MichiganCivilRights.org .)

By now you must be wondering what the nature of the voter fraud was. The alleged fraud was that, out of 508,000 persons who signed the petition – after all of the accusations of impropriety and misleading statements leveled by BAMN against the circulators – after all the dust cleared – 11 witnesses testified to being misled – some of whom were discredited, including Canvasser Doyle O'Connor, who was found in contempt of court for refusing to place the proposal on the ballot.

Those who testified to being tricked, not understanding, and so forth, claimed to have been told by circulators that they were signing a petition supporting affirmative action. It should be noted that Ms. Heidi Verougstraete testified that her company, National Signature Management, or NSM, had been retained by MCRI to gather petitions in support of the initiative petition, and that they had hired independent contractors to gather same. She testified under oath that the circulators were told during training sessions that the purpose of the proposed amendment "was to end race and gender preferences." She further testified that no reference to affirmative action was made during the training sessions.

So, was MCRI guilty pursuant to defrauding others? Even canvasser Doyle O'Connor, who willfully defied the court by refusing to place the proposal on the ballot – and, as mentioned, was found in contempt for same – admitted under oath that "in [his] experience with ballot proposals, there [are] always … certain circulators who are prone to using 'puffery' and exaggeration to obtain signatures." Do such actions by a few contracted employees of another wholly-separated and disassociated company, make MCRI to blame? Do said actions prove that MCRI conspired for same to take place? Do said actions by a few perhaps over-zealous contractors of another company mean that MCRI is responsible? Was MCRI supposed to provide a guardian watchdog to ensure that just the right words were used? Or does it mean that affirmative action means different things to different people, and that in the dispensation of their jobs, perhaps a few circulators found it easier to explain the nature of their work by using the verbiage "affirmative action?" Does that give Tarnow or the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals license to smear MCRI and castigate state agencies and the voters?

However, such is the way of activist liberal courts. Even when left with no recourse but to follow the law – they find ways to insert their liberal bias into the record and thus taint any victories they disapprove.

I personally use race preferences (which I am unapologetically opposed to) interchangeably with affirmative action – which when used to reference universal outreach, casting a wide net, reviewing policies and testing for discriminatory elements, I may accept.

The bottom line is that people signing petitions were responsible to read the same before signing them. It is offensive to think that these same people – alleged to have been deceived – would not buy a CD or toothbrush without first reading the labels, but they won't take the time to read a short synopsis of a petition they are signing.

The language of the petition was not in the least ambiguous – it was very straight forward. The entire text of the petition appears on page 5 of the opinion rendered by Tarnow (Operation King's Dream, et. al. v. Connerly, et. al.; case NO. 06-12773). That language can only be deemed misleading by someone who is truthfully not fit to vote in the first place. That does not absolve those college-educated persons who made said claim.

The Citizens Research Council of Michigan produced an in-depth "Analysis of Ballot Issues" that exhaustively detailed the five ballot proposals to be voted on well ahead of the election. Paragraph two of their "Proposal 2006-2: Michigan Civil Rights Initiative" reads: "If the amendment is adopted, it will not outlaw all affirmative action programs in the state. Michigan statutes contain numerous references to affirmative action and minority status or gender. Only those that grant preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of minority status [read race] or gender would be invalidated by this amendment. However, determining what constitutes preferential treatment will be left to the Michigan court system."

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (HR 7152), on page 338 of the 1964 Congressional Quarterly, reads as follows:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 … contained new provisions to help guarantee Negroes the right to vote; guarantee access to public accommodations such as hotels, motels, restaurants and places of amusement; authorized the federal government to sue to desegregate public facilities and schools; extended the life of the Civil Rights Commission for four more years and gave it new powers; provided that most companies and labor unions to grant equal employment opportunity; established a new Community Relations Service to help work out civil rights problems; required the Census Bureau to gather voting statistics by race; and authorized the Justice Department to enter into any pending civil rights case."

You will notice that nowhere in the language of that landmark ruling did it state or imply that we should have a color-coded society. Yet, that is exactly what race preferences do. It represented that doors should be opened and restrictions based on race removed.

The question that begs an answer is, why are white liberals and spineless Republicans so insistent that race be the measure of entrance and acceptance? And why are blacks and so-called minorities so eager to be so viewed? The answer, of course, is in part because it is profitable, and because it allows liberals – who for 80 years suppressed every civil rights measure introduced in Congress by Conservatives – to keep their feet on throats of blacks. Only today, they do same without hoods and robes.

Related special offers:

"Ten Things You Can't Say In America"

Who speaks for black America?