Well, Mr. President, it looks like quite a few in the House are ready to “have that fight.”  Congressman Steve King from Iowa, the same state in which Obama made the above remarks, is pulling out all the stops with a plan that could potentially put repeal on the table and force another vote before November’s midterm elections.  With a majority of Americans still supporting a full repeal months after the bills passage and Congressional reelection campaigns underway, how many vulnerable Democrat politicians would be willing to cast another “aye” vote?

As of yesterday evening, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) had obtained 130 signatures in support of a discharge petition.  If he is able to reach 218 signatures, then the House would be forced to allow a vote.  While discharge petitions are rarely successful, this legislation could present the perfect storm.  If everyone who voted against the bill signed the petition, it would have 212 signatures.

King only needs to win over 6 members of the opposition.  For those six members, this could be the vote that keeps them in office.  Gibbs himself has finally confessed that the Republican Party could take back the House this fall.  Except for the most liberal districts in the nation, “Standing with Obama” is not a great campaign strategy.  Repealing ObamaCare provides a substantive way for Democrats who voted against the American people to demonstrate that they’ve “seen the light.”

Will King’s effort succeed?  I don’t know.  Discharge petitions are rare.  Successful discharge petitions are even rarer.  And it’s not like Obama is going to refrain from using the veto pen to protect his signature government takeover.  But either way, the effort will keep the Health Care debate in the national consciousness.  It will force Democrats to defend their votes, and that is definitely good for our republic.

Liberals inhabit a word where “grassroots” means having the SEIU send in a busl0ad of paid “supporters” to hold a “spontaneous” rally.  And of course, media trucks just happen to be right around the corner and notice the commotion.  This is why liberals insist the Tea Party must be a front for the GOP.  The can’t conceive of a movement that isn’t coordinated by some vast network of “grassroots” architects.  They know liberal grassroots campaigns are always a charade, so they assume the same must be true of any grassroots movement. Someone must be pulling the strings.

Liberals still don’t get it.  There is no “Tea Party” (other than the fake one in Nevada, that is).  “Tea Party” was just a theme which became a label.  Although there are some actual tea party groups now, these did not exist before the movement.  They grew out of it to provide some organization at the local level, but there is no national group directing their progress.  There aren’t chapters of the Tea Party.  There is no central command.  Each local tea party acts independently but they are all united by a common cause.  These independent Tea Parties don’t make the same arguments because they’ve circulated a list of talking points. (Most of the organizations have never communicated with any groups outside of their own state.)  Tea partiers make the same arguments because they believe in their philosophy.  They have true conviction.

The Tea Party didn’t mash together 170 existing Conservative groups.  Before the movement began, I’m not even sure there would have been 170 groups to mash together.  With “One Nation,” the Left is trying to duplicate a true grassroots movement with a centralized network.  It won’t work.  They might ultimately hold a few rallies, maybe even a press conference, but their coalition will ultimately flop because it is not built around ideas.  It is built around competing with a legitimate grassroots movement.

From Sotomayor to Kagan, Obama has nominated the most unqualified, far-Left justices in my lifetime.  Even worse, Senate Republicans have hardly feigned a struggle to prevent their confirmation.  Like our current President, Obama’s justices disdain the Constitution, and will accept any argument to subvert its clear meaning and intent.  Fortunately, Obama has only had the opportunity to refresh the liberals on the 4 side of recent 5-4 decisions.  And if the New York Post is correct, Obama may never get the chance to crack the 5.  According to the paper:

Justice Kennedy, who turns 74 this month, has told relatives and friends he plans to stay on the high court for at least three more years – through the end of Obama’s first term, sources said.

That means Kennedy will be around to provide a fifth vote for the court’s conservative bloc through the 2012 presidential election. If Obama loses, Kennedy could retire and expect a Republican President to choose a conservative justice.

Kennedy is the swing vote on the Court. Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and—until recently—Stevens are a rubber stamp for Obama’s statist agenda.  Stevens retired so that Obama could replace him with a far-left justice—in his words, “what is best for the Court.”  Obama must be denied any opportunity to replace Kennedy with another liberal justice.  Apparently, Kennedy is well aware of the implications of his retirement, and is quietly reminding Obama that he likes his odds in the waiting game.  If Obama is defeated in 2012, Kennedy can retire in the summer of 2013 knowing that the President will—as the Post noted—likely nominate a Conservative justice who rejects the Left’s notion of a “living Constitution” that “needs to be refreshed.”

Even if Obama manages to get reelected in 2012, Kennedy can wait out the second term and still retire at 80, a full decade before Stevens stepped down from the bench.  Hopefully, he will continue to do what is best for our Constitution and our nation.

“President Barack Obama on Wednesday lashed out at Republicans as out of touch with the daily problems of Americans, hoping to sharpen the contrast with the opposition party as midterm elections loom.”

Obama harped on two recent—and highly disingenuous—Democrat Party talking points.  First, Representative Joe Barton’s apology to BP, and second, House Minority Leader John Boehner’s criticism of the Democrats’ fallaciously named Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which puts the keys to the economy in the hands of the same incompetents who just wrecked the family car.

In response to Obama’s criticism of Joe Barton, as I previously stated:

“Even if his comments were politically clumsy, Rep. Joe Barton hit the philosophical nail on the head.  The United States is supposedly a nation of laws.  Seizing a crisis as an opportunity to extort $20,000,000,000 from a business has no place in such a nation. ….

While Barton’s comments might not receive such sympathy from the general population or Gulf coast residents, Obama has already worn out this card. ….  Liberal pollsters at Public Policy Polling recently found a majority of Louisiana voters give George W. Bush better marks for his response to Katrina.  The two aren’t even close.  Bush swept the question by a margin of 15 points.

[Furthermore,] How does it look when Gulf coast voters who don’t follow politics every day find out Obama has received $20,000,000,000 and still hasn’t managed anything more than photo ops and inflammatory rhetoric? ….”

Since then, the Gulf crisis has only gotten worse, and team Obama has done little but obfuscate and obstruct.  Blaming Republicans won’t clean up the spill or bring jobs back to Florida, Texas, Louisiana, or any other state.  Pointing fingers only reminds voters how inadequate Obama’s response to this crisis has been.

Criticism of Boehner faces a similar fate.  Ironically, the Minority Leader’s so-called “gaffe” has prompted Speaker Pelosi to finally open up about the non-recovery of Obama’s “recovery summer.”  As she points out on her website, the United States has lost 8,000,000 jobs and $17,500,000,000,000 (17.5 Trillion) in net worth.  All of this has taken place since the Democrats took the legislative reigns in 2006.

And of course,  after attacking a couple of Republicans who actually hold elected office, Obama couldn’t resist the chance to attack his predecessor who officially stopped working 528 days ago.  According to the AP:

“‘How do we get government spending under control?’ he asked, giving voice to public complaints. ‘That’s a legitimate question. …, all of us should be worried about the fact that we have been running the credit card in the name of future generations. And somebody’s going to have pay that back.’

Obama said the main culprit was not the costly emergency measures under his watch but a structural habit of the government spending more than it takes in. He said the answer is to reduce spending in a ‘gradual way’ that doesn’t hurt people.”

On its face, this comment sounds sensible, but it flagrantly disregards the facts.  Yes, we are overspending.  In the most recent decade of Republican Congresses, our nation averaged an annual deficit of $97,720,000,000.  That is unsustainable, but it’s far better than the most recent decade of Democrat-controlled congresses during which we’ve averaged an annual deficit over 3.5 times as large at $357,950,000,000 per year.

Even worse, despite rattling off his “good intentions” in a town hall, Obama has taken no action to reduce spending, even gradually.  Instead, he has dramatically grown the government.  This is right in line with the Democrats’ record.  Over the past 40 years, the Democrats have never had a budget surplus or reduced the national debt.  Over the past 40 years, the United States has enjoyed only 4 years of government surplus and debt reduction. All four occurred during Republican Congressional control.

Even if his comments were politically clumsy, Rep. Joe Barton hit the philosophical nail on the head.  The United States is supposedly a nation of laws.  Seizing a crisis as an opportunity to extort $20,000,000,000 from a business has no place in such a nation.  Democrats retort that BP’s actions were voluntary.  They “chose” to establish this fund.  But how much of a choice is it when the Vice President leans in and tells them, “if they didn’t do the right thing and put the cash in escrow, it would be done to them.” Some choice.

While Barton’s comments might not receive such sympathy from the general population or Gulf coast residents, Obama has already worn out this card.  To be kind, the President hasn’t exactly been prompt in his response, nor has he allowed it to interrupt his personal plans or leisure time.  Americans have taken notice, particularly in Louisiana.  Liberal pollsters at Public Policy Polling recently found a majority of Louisiana voters give George W. Bush better marks for his response to Katrina.  The two aren’t even close.  Bush swept the question by a margin of 15 points.

Obama, whose approval rating has dropped to 45%, is featured prominently in the ad.  How does it look when Gulf coast voters who don’t follow politics every day find out Obama has received $20,000,000,000 and still hasn’t managed anything more than photo ops and inflammatory rhetoric?  Contrary to liberal belief, just because Obama yanked control over the purse strings from the judicial system doesn’t mean anyone has been paid.  Of course, now that Obama is the monetary gatekeeper, frustrated claimants will blame him instead of BP.  Then there’s his ridiculous moratorium on drilling.  Despite the Spill, 77% of Louisiana voters continue to support offshore drilling.  Only 12% oppose.  Killing thousands of jobs with the stroke of a pen isn’t likely to win Obama or the Democrats many supporters in this economy.

Finally, we arrive at the biggest flaw with this ad: Governor Bobby Jindal, a Republican, appears to be the only politician taking any action to stop the flow of oil and prevent further damage.  He’d be making more progress if the current administration would stay out of his way.  Where Obama refused to allow foreign assistance to help clean up, Jindal has ordered the National Guard to begin building a giant wall of sand to protect the marshes.  He ordered the oil skimmers to get out of the port and start skimming, but the administration stymied that plan because they needed to be sure the vessels had enough life jackets.

In the end, this ad is just more words from Democrats while Republicans act to contain the crisis in the Gulf.  So go ahead, attack Joe Barton.  At best, this ad does nothing for the Democrats’ cause.  At worst, Joe Barton becomes a political casualty for defending the rule of law.

In cases where large companies are controlled by more than one individual, there are four possible outcomes.  One member takes a controlling share by buying out the others, one member of the group takes the position of the CEO and the rest step into the background, the partners hire an outside individual to step in and lead the company, or the company fails.  It cannot continue to exist without a single leader.

Need examples?  Google Inc. founders Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page hired Eric Schmidt to serve as the company’s Chairman and CEO to manage everyday operations.  Microsoft would not have existed with Paul Allen, but it was Bill Gates who became the active leader once the company got off the ground.  Allen eventually stepped away from the company management and sold a significant portion of his stock holdings.  Even academia recognizes the importance of a single leader.  Most, if not all, academic institutions are governed by a Board of Trustees, but it is the Chancellor, Principal, Headmaster, etc. who controls the school’s daily operations.

Now, enter Obama’s disastrous oil spill response.  It’s been almost sixty (60) days since the spill started, and all we’ve got to show for it is a website for the “Unified Command,” and a webcam-quality stream of the oil pouring into the ocean.  Politics aside, a committee of fifteen organizations, thirteen of which are federal bureaucracies—including: the Coast Guard, Minerals Management Service, NOAA, EPA, Department of Homeland Security, Department of the Interior, Department of Defense, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Department of State, USGS, CDC, and OSHA—cannot work together long enough to fix the leak or cleanup the oil.  We’d have better results if these organizations were all working independently instead of grappling with each other over which organization’s idea gets tried next.

At this point, it really doesn’t matter who is in charge.  Let BP take the reigns and direct the other organizations; actually put one of those thirteen federal bureaucracies in charge of the “Unified Command” so they won’t keep vetoing each other; throw a complete curve-ball and cede command to Shell or Chevron.  It doesn’t matter.  As long as fifteen organizations are all “in-charge” the response will be inefficient and ineffective.

On another note, Kudos to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal for finally taking matters into his own hands and ordering the National Guard to begin building a barrier wall to protect the marshes.  While Obama talks, Jindal acts.  And even though he’s blown off the chain of command, it’s not like the “Unified Command” is going to do anything to stop him.

Pelosi said Congress had “to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”  And we’re learning fast.  Verizon Wireless was forced to take a $970,000,000 charge to offset new costs created by the law.  AT&T fared even worse with a $1,000,000,000 charge.  More recently, White Castle has announced that a single provision in monstrous legislation will effectively slice their net revenue in half.  So much for opening new stores and taking a slice out of 9.9% unemployment.  White Castle has shelved planned expansion.

Sadly, health care was only the beginning of a trend.  Obama recently attacked Arizona Governor Jan Brewer for doing the federal government’s job.  And his liberal colleagues have already begun the fight for amnesty.  Meanwhile, 70% of Massachusetts residents favor a law banning “public benefits” for illegal aliens, and 55% of Americans favor bringing a similar law to their state.  That’s more people than voted for Obama in 2008.

But the President couldn’t stop there.  He doubled down on job-killing “energy reform,” and has used the Gulf oil spill to advance his anti-oil agenda.  Of course, he is yet again in opposition to the American people.  Despite the spill, 60% still favor offshore drilling.  Obama and the Democrats have yet to win a single, major policy debate.  But instead of revising their plans, instead of reaching some compromise, they have resorted the Chicago thuggery.  Emboldened by their majorities, the left has taken off its mask, and Americans don’t like what their witnessing.  November can’t come too soon.

At least this time, OfA’s chief lackeys don’t appear to be encouraging nationwide plagiarism as they did in their previous spam campaign.  But the relentless pounding of the administration’s agenda is a lesson straight from Obama’s former career as a community agitator.  We’ve seen this tactic paralleled in the Senate.  After failing to achieve cloture on the Senate’s financial takeover bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid essentially declared that the Senate would remain in session and continue voting until he got his way.  Obama and his minions just keep relentlessly pounding the message, wearing down the will of the country.

Also notable about OfA Spam campaign is it’s entirely negative attitude.  The Democrats are running a whopping six candidates against Senator Burr in the November Election.  The primary is just a few days away, but rather than trying to generate Democrat votes, OfA is focused on an attack campaign.  Just like Obama, the Democrats continue to offer only blame, never any solutions.  Instead of trying to vote a Democrat in, OfA is focusing all its effort’s of voting a Republican out.  In the end, this is a recipe for failure.  Voter resentment is what got Obama elected in 2008, and two years later we’re saddled with record unemployment, government-owned car companies, and a nationalized Health Care system.

Finally, there’s the talking points themselves:

Never mind that Obama has jetted all around the country on the taxpayer’s dime to support failing democrats.  Never mind that Obama’s recent fundraiser for embattled “Call Me Senator!” Barbara Boxer charged $17,600 per plate—over $35,000 per couple. Never mind that Obama received $1,000,000 from Goldmann Sachs for his Presidential campaign, or that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saturated Democrat campaign coffers.  Never mind that Democrats have been holding closed meetings since Obama took office.  On top of all that, the most ridiculous charge is that Senator Burr has stood in opposition to the American people.

Democrats lost all credibility on “standing with the American people” when they forced a Health Care bill through Congress that 58% now want to repeal.  When it comes to spending, the Obama administration is a fiscal nightmare.  While most Americans understand our current debt is unsustainable, our President is keeping the pedal to the metal, driving the debt car at over 170 mph down the freeway.  We should elect representatives who will stand with their constituents, but it’s clear from their actions over the past year that electing Democrats will undermine that goal.

Andrew Breitbart is the king of online, political media.  He helped build the Drudge Report, a staple of conservative commentators since at least the Clinton era, and has gained personal notoriety from his ever expanding array of Big sites.  Breitbart is a major force in the Tea Party movement, and an adamant defender of its members.  Rush Limbaugh is the paradigm of success in American talk radio.  His show averages somewhere around 20,000,000 listeners, a number unparalleled in other markets.  Rush is synonymous with Conservative talk.

Both of these men are about as far away from President Obama’s ideology as one can get, so it came as a great shock that Obama—who hasn’t even had time to meet with elected Republicans—has extended an invitation to the White House for both of them.  Claiming he wants to better understand the opposition’s ideas, Obama has agreed to a televised discussion on topics said to include Health Care, the economy, and the threat of climate change.

The move represents a vast shift in Obama’s political strategy.  The President has typically relied on large Democrat majorities to push his agenda through Congress.  Though many analysts are perplexed by the timing, they are also quick to remind us that most President’s tend to moderate their ideological stances as their term progresses.  Perhaps Obama has also been swayed by the continued vigor of the Tea Party, and is seeking to win back independent voters by reaching out to the men he perceives as their leaders.  Whatever his reasons, many are relieved by the return of some semblance of congenial discourse to a government sharply divided by Democrat partisanship.

While some details remain unclear, the meeting is expected to take place towards the end of April, and the President is said to have agreed to dedicate a minimum of three hours to the event.  The latter statement has led to some speculation that the event may be broadcast live on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.  Expect more information in the weeks ahead.

Senior Obama adviser, Valerie Jarrett, recently told ABC News that “we have a strong force in the making, and Iran will back down.” It’s possible she has intelligence unavailable to the general public, but this sounds more like wishful thinking. We’ve already sailed past Obama’s “deadline” for forming this coalition, and Russia still shows no signs of cooperation. We’ve intervened against Israel’s leadership to block a preemptive strike by denying our allies access to US controlled airspace. And Ahmadinejad, the duly elected leader of Iran has demonstrated no intent to comply with UN sanctions.

Far from ending his nuclear program, Ahmadinejad has expanded it.  He continues threatening to destroy Israel, and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity.  On the home front, he has only become more brazen in repressing political dissent.  Government-ordered phone service outages are not uncommon.  To back down now would be completely against Ahmadinejad’s character and stated intentions.  Like a playground bully, he isn’t going anywhere until someone hits him back.

And why should he?  Obama has demonstrated little support for Israel, and despite his bombastic language and talk of “sanctions,” our President has been thoroughly unwilling to take any decisive action.  We’re in the middle of an arms negotiation that will vastly deplete our ability to protect our own nation under the false premise that surrendering our nukes will convince power-hungry dictators not to build their own.  In other words, Ahmadinejad hasn’t faced any real consequences for threatening to expand the Mediterranean by around 8,500 square miles.  If he’s getting everything he wants, what motivation does he have to change?

Behavioral patterns are a real phenomenon.  Refusing to acknowledge the pattern will not eliminate the risk.  I’m not entirely sure what we should do about Iran, but relying on a body that gave Ahmadinejad a pulpit to preach against Israel seems like a poor place to start.

Obama created the Tea Party, an astounding coalition of people united by one common goal: reducing the size and scope of government.  The Tea Party is the ultimate big tent.  It’s members don’t care about your political background.  The Tea Party is a diverse coalition spanning race, socioeconomic class, and political affiliation.  If you want lower taxes and less government spending, you’re in; we can work out the rest later.

In Congress, Obama succeeded again by creating a bipartisan effort to block his socialistic agenda.  While the Health Bill passed, it didn’t sail through.  Even though the Democrats had solid majorities, it took arm-twisting, threats, and a near-unconstitutional process to force this bill through.  In the end, 38 Democrats were unable to stomach this radical takeover.  While that’s not close to a majority of the “no” vote, the number represents 15% of Congressional Democrats and 18% of the bill’s opposition.  If 1 Republican vote equals bipartisanship, then this was extraordinary bipartisan opposition.  Of course, the media has chosen to incorrectly frame the skewed tally as “GOP obstructionism.”

As we head towards the midterm elections in November, it’s clear Obama has fulfilled his promise to unite our nation.  Just like my former coach, he has united us against him so that we can focus and eventually prevail.  After enduring a year of protesting and media derision, it’s clear the Tea Party isn’t going away anytime soon.  Obama will hand the nation back to fiscal conservatives even as he marches onward in the opposite direction.  If Democrats can lose in Massachusetts, they can lose anywhere.  Prepare yourself for a major shift in the political landscape.  And by the way, it couldn’t be happening at a more opportune time; 2010 is a redistricting year.

There isn’t much to say when the so-called representatives of the American people choose to openly defy the citizens they represent.  The Democrats passed the universally opposed Senate bill, a bill that even the Senate could not pass today in order to secure a legislative “victory” over the Republicans.  They have constructed a monument to Obama at the expense of the American people, and we will not forget it.

Unlike other nations, the American government recognizes that the power comes from the sovereign people, not the “sovereign state.”  The government operates with the consent of the people, and they have lost our consent.  Americans are not suddenly going to accept this legislation because a corrupt, Liberal Democrat leadership was able to bribe enough legislators to force it through the House.  Several states have already passed laws nullifying the unconstitutional provisions it contains. More will follow.

Furthermore, I remind you that whatever the Democrats may claim: they have passed the Senate bill, and only the Senate bill.  There have been no amendments.  These Liberal Democrats voted for the “Corn-husker Kickback.” They voted for the “Second Louisiana Purchase.”  They voted for “Gator-Aide” and countless other deals that greased the skids for this “historic” moment.

They may have voted to pass a package of “fixes.”  But not only do their “fixes” not fix anything, it is highly unlikely they will make it through the Senate unscathed.  Even if the reconciliation bill does pass unaltered, the package creates a plethora of new bribes to replace those it removes.  And it only exists because of the incredible public opposition to the bribes we discovered.

Democrats have further continued to violate their own promise of “transparency.”  They have accepted the premise that Washington knows better than the American people on decisions about our own health.  Confident in their majorities, they have revealed their true ideology.  Democrats are the embodiment of the radical left.  There are no moderates in their party, save perhaps the few Democrats who voted against the legislation.

In response to Obama, the American people did not take any part of this.  We wanted nothing to do with this bill.  You’ve gotten your monument, but just because you were able to force this legislation through doesn’t suddenly mean that we support it.  You’ve made a bold statement claiming this legislation will bring down premiums and reduce taxes.  What will you say when that doesn’t happen.  Far from ending partisanship Washington, you have divided our nation.

There is only one benefit to the passage of this legislation.  The complete and total destruction of your party.  This fight is far from over.

If the Democrats use the Slaughter rule, and actually have the 216 votes they need, then the Senate bill, and only the Senate bill will become law.  Nothing will have been changed.  There is no future guarantee anything will be changed.  A vote under Slaughter is a vote for the “Corn-husker Kickback;” it is a vote for the “Second Louisiana Purchase;” it’s a vote for “Gator-Aide.”  Every Congressman who chooses to support this bill on Sunday will be giving his personal endorsement to each and every one of the bribes and backroom deals in that legislation.

These Congressmen may claim that they supported “fixes” that would have made the legislation better.  That is nonsense.  They know exactly what the results of their vote this weekend will be.  They know that their “fixes” mean nothing.  The reconciliation package isn’t going to sail through the Senate.  And even if it is debated, what incentives do the unethical Senators who sold their votes have to simply give up their hard-earned payout?  What incentive does the Senate have not to strip out the deals that Pelosi secured for critical votes?  I wouldn’t be surprised if Reid simply chose not to play ball. He got what he wanted, and the public is ready for that magical buzzword, “jobs.”

Meanwhile, the rest of us will be stuck with an unconstitutional bill “passed” through an unconstitutional process.  We’ll have higher premiums while the country is damned to bloating deficits that will hasten our current rush towards national insolvency.  Standards of care will quickly fall.  Businesses will opt for the fine over insuring their employees sending millions to the “exchanges.”  In short order, this bill will destroy health care in the United States.  But hey, at least Obama gets his monument.

/********** Update 1: 3.20.2010 4:51 PM **********\

Democrats Steer Clear of Demon Pass

As several news organizations have reported, the Democrat-controlled rules committee has decided not to use the controversial, and unconstitutional, “Slaughter Solution,” also known as “deem and pass.”  However, even with direct votes, the members of the House must still pass the Senate bill as it currently stands.  There is still no guarantee their amendment package will survive the Senate. Any Congressman who votes for this “reform” is voicing his support for, and approval of, each and every payoff in the Senate legislation.

There’s a major problem with this system: in most cases, discrepancies in this raw statistic do not indicate racial discrimination.  Kids don’t pay attention to their class’ racial breakdown when they’re breaking school rules.  There’s not a “bully quota.”  And if—as is often the case—the discrepancy is based on a behavior gap, then “correcting it” results in true racism where punishments are doled out according to the color of a student’s skin.

Here’s a fictional example.  The racial breakdown of PC High is equally divided between purple and yellow students.  At PC high, fighting is an offense that warrants a suspension.  Even though the population is equally divided, 80% of students who fight are purple, and only 20% are yellow.  Thus 80% of suspensions for fighting are given to purple students even though they account for only 50% of the population, a 30% discrepancy according to Obama.  The school would be investigated for racial discrimination, and could possibly lose federal funding simply because its administrators had the audacity to grant equal punishments for an equal crime.

The school now faces a difficult choice.  It can waste valuable resources defending a constant wave of senseless investigations, or it can comply with the Obama policy and make the discrepancy disappear on paper.  If PC has ten students involved in fights in an average year, then eight are purple and two are yellow.  To make the statistics appear non-biased, the school must either not suspend six of the eight purple students, or find six yellow students to suspend arbitrarily.  Most schools would probably see reducing the sentence of six purple students as the lesser evil.

Now purple students are punished for fighting only 25% of the time.  Meanwhile 100% of yellow students caught fighting are suspended.  In an effort to clean their books and escape the Obama justice probe, the school has gone from a policy of equal enforcement to one where yellow students are punished four times more harshly simply because they’re yellow.  Far from eliminating racial discrimination, the Obama policy has given birth to it.

Think PC High could never play out in reality?  It already has.  When the Tucson Unified School District in Arizona discovered disparities in the suspension and expulsion rates among various ethnic groups, they were quick to act.  They dedicated “special attention” “to data regarding African-American and Hispanic students” because those students were being suspended more frequently.  When disparities were found, the schools had to take steps to eliminate them.  Of course, this doesn’t solve the underlying problem of which groups are committing the offenses.  Much like PC High, the Tucson schools now have a two-tiered justice system, and the groups committing the most offenses receive the most lenient treatment.