Racialist Justice
Attorney General Holder's lawyers won't protect whites
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/15/racialist-justice/By now, the default judgment about the Barack Obama-Eric H. Holder Jr. Justice Department is that it discriminates intentionally on the basis of race. By the precise definition used in the American Heritage dictionary, the department is racialist.
The Justice Department hasn't seriously contested the accusation of racialism. Recently resigned whistleblowing attorney J. Christian Adams has made credible charges, backed by at least five former colleagues, that the department's Civil Rights Division has adopted a policy of refusing to enforce civil rights laws on behalf of whites victimized by minority perpetrators. Mr. Adams cited an incident from November in which Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes openly stated it was departmental policy not to enforce parts of the federal motor-voter law that involve cleaning up dead and ineligible voters from poll registries. Another former department attorney, Nicole S. Marrone, has written that Ms. Fernandes previously discussed that law in explicitly racial terms.
To such a specific allegation of lawlessness, the Justice Department's response has been dead silence. No specific denial of the accusation. No statement that the department would not tolerate such lawlessness. No investigation. And when The Washington Times asked directly on Monday about the Fernandes statement, Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler responded with boilerplate that neither affirmed nor denied the statement.
As in the voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party - a case developed by Mr. Adams but dropped by the Obama-Holder crew - a failure to contest a charge is to be taken as an admission of the charge. It leads to a default judgment.
Now Mr. Adams says the Justice Department failed Monday to take a simple step that would have disallowed a proposed voting change that was intended to disenfranchise white voters in Noxubee County, Miss. Instead, the department made a flurry of court filings Mr. Adams characterizes as "a strategic feint that allows it to avoid the core issue of equal enforcement" and that is "the most contorted, most expensive way possible to [protect voters.] ... [T]he real motive is to avoid expanding Section 5 to protect a white or Asian victimized minority."
The controversy originated from a case in which Noxubee County Democratic leader Ike Brown canceled ballots cast by white voters. "He stuffed the ballot box with illegal ballots supporting his preferred black candidates," Mr. Adams explained. "He deployed teams of notaries to roam the countryside and mark absentee ballots instead of voters. He allowed forced assistance in the voting booth, to the detriment of white voters. He threatened 174 white voters."
Mr. Brown spearheaded a request for a voting-practice change to approve the same practices - under cover of law - that he previously had done illegally. The Justice Department did not object. Instead, it issued a "no determination" letter that, according to Mr. Adams, effectively leaves the issue open for another day.
The Black Panther and Mississippi cases are hardly isolated instances. In North Carolina (voting), Texas (race-based admissions) and Connecticut (race-based promotions of firefighters), the Obama-Holder Justice Department advocated racial preferences or results predicated by race. Department officials reportedly have espoused biases in favor of minorities in open meetings.
Mr. Holder called America a "nation of cowards" on racial issues and has said black solidarity should bind black prosecutors and criminals together. These are not signs of equal justice. They are signs of a racial spoils system that's lawless and dangerous.
‘Downgrading’ Voter Intimidation
Hans A. von Spakovsky
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTA4M2NmNzY5N2FkZGEyMGI4ODkwNjYyNzgxYTAzMDQ=I was on vacation with my family in Yellowstone National Park when the New Black Panther voter intimidation case exploded into the headlines with the testimony of former Department of Justice career lawyer J. Christian Adams before the Civil Rights Commission. This story has been in the public domain for a year, but the reaction to Adams’s testimony was eerily similar to the many geysers I saw venting steam into the atmosphere in Yellowstone.
Adams confirmed many of the details that I have reported for National Review over the past year, and Megyn Kelly of FOX News has done an outstanding job further exposing the sordid and frankly infuriating particulars of the politically biased and pernicious actions taken by the political leadership at the DOJ, as well as the hateful, racist, and anti-Semitic views of the members of the New Black Panther Party. I will have more comments on Adams’s testimony, but first I wanted to comment on the latest excuse (and tired old refrain) that has been conjured up over the past two days: It was the fault of the Bush administration. (I kid you not.)
Yes, the latest claim, according to Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution and others, is that the “charges against the New Black Panthers were downgraded by the Bush Department of Justice [inasmuch as] the decision not to file a criminal case occurred before Obama was even in office.” This “downgrade” talking point is apparently supposed to excuse the Obama administration’s decision to dismiss virtually the entire civil voter intimidation case and to neuter the injunction sought against the one remaining defendant so substantially that what was left was little more than a minor annoyance.
These claims by a nonlawyer betray a fundamental ignorance of the difference between civil and criminal prosecutions and a total misunderstanding of how things work at the Justice Department and the Civil Rights Division. First of all, although the Civil Rights Division has a Criminal Section, the vast majority of its voting-rights prosecutions are civil cases conducted by the division’s Voting Section. Whenever someone violates the Voting Rights Act and does so in a way that is potentially both a civil and a criminal violation, the division must decide whether to proceed first with a civil or a criminal case. With most voting cases, the decision is usually to go with a civil case, particularly if there are elections coming up in the near future. That is because civil cases have a lower burden of proof and give the government the opportunity to obtain almost immediately a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in the same wrongful behavior as the case winds its way through the federal courts.
Criminal cases can take longer to develop, particularly since the government usually has to convene a federal grand jury to return an indictment. Also, criminal cases focus like a laser beam on individual defendants, whereas civil cases can include an organizational defendant (like the NBPP).
The focus for the Civil Rights Division is always on the best way to get the remedy that is needed to stop and prevent the recurrence of the voter intimidation or other wrongful behavior as soon as possible. In this particular case, when the decision was being made in January of 2009, the division knew there was going to be another election in May in Philadelphia. The fastest to way to make sure there would be no thugs in paramilitary uniforms and jackboots smacking batons into their fists at polling places in the upcoming election was to file a civil complaint and obtain a restraining order against the individual defendants and the New Black Panther Party. In fact, one of the defendants dismissed from the case was once again credentialed as a Democratic poll watcher in the May election.
Once the division obtained a judgment and an injunction in the civil case, they could have decided to further pursue a criminal prosecution against the individual New Black Panthers, but the number one priority had to be getting a civil injunction as expeditiously as possible before the next election.
On the other hand, Adams also testified that some radical career lawyers shared the apparent view of the Obama political appointees that no civil-rights cases of any kind should be brought against blacks. If that factored into any decision the career lawyers made not to initiate a criminal investigation of the NBPP actions (it looks criminal to me — just watch the video and judge for yourself), that supports Adams’s most significant testimony. It would be damning regardless of which administration it occurred under. So, this left-wing excuse (that criminal charges weren’t also brought) may strongly support what the Civil Rights Commission is now trying to focus on — and what the DOJ is desperately trying to cover up.
Indeed, the person who would have been responsible for making a recommendation on whether to file a subsequent criminal charge against the individual New Black Panther defendants was Mark Kappelhoff, the “career” chief of the Criminal Section and a former ACLU lawyer. Besides being a big contributor to Democratic candidates like Barack Obama and John Kerry, as well as the DNC, Kappelhoff was considered such a liberal loyalist that he was moved into the political position of chief of staff to the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights by the Obama transition team almost as soon as they came in the door.
Sources tell me that Kappelhoff never recommended a criminal case against the baton-yielding thugs, so the claim that the Bush administration is somehow responsible for “downgrading” this case is complete nonsense. This is no surprise, given Kappelhoff’s very liberal ideology, and given his associations: In this photo, taken at a dinner of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in May of 2009, he can be seen to the right of Julie Fernandes, the deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights who is now at the center of controversy. Christian Adams testified under oath last week that Fernandes said that no voting-rights cases of any kind would be brought against minorities during this administration by the Civil Rights Division and that Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, which requires states to delete ineligible voters who have died or moved away from their voter registration list, will not be enforced. Given the action of the career criminal section in CRD, it is unreasonable to expect the Bush political appointees to initiate a criminal investigation of their own in the waning days of the administration when the civil suit was being filed.
Yet Kappelhoff and the Obama administration could make the decision today to indict the members of the New Black Panther Party, since they are still well within the applicable criminal statute of limitation. But you can rest assured that they will not do so. It is more important to them to block the investigation of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and to creatively excuse what they have done in this case, which was throw away the opportunity to obtain an exhaustive and wide-ranging permanent injunction against the NBPP in the civil case, which would have ensured that what happened in Philadelphia in November of 2008 never happened again at any polling place anywhere in the country.
Another point: These same liberals are making the false claim that the Bush administration failed to file similar charges against members of the Minutemen, “one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006.” “Allegedly” is the correct term to use: While I was not at the Justice Department in 2006, I have talked to sources inside the Civil Rights Division who were and who have first-hand knowledge of the facts of this matter. The Voting Section sent lawyers to Arizona to investigate these allegations. They were told that the people in question (who were apparently there with some sort of English-only petition) did not enter the polling place and stayed outside the state-imposed limit around polling places where campaigning is forbidden. No one (including Democratic poll watchers) saw them talking to any voters while they were there — nor could the lawyers find any evidence that they prevented or discouraged anyone from entering the polling place (which is directly contrary to the witnesses in the NBPP case, who testified that they saw voters approaching the polls turn around and leave when they saw the Panthers blocking the entrance to the polling place).
The Voting Section was not able to make any recommendations to move forward with a lawsuit because the career lawyers assigned to the case could not find any evidence to support the claims being made. In fact, the Voting Section even referred the case to the criminal section (headed up by Mr. Kappelhoff, the trusted Obama confidant), who also declined to do anything about it. There was no viable case to be “dismissed” by the Bush administration. Some of the individuals pressing this preposterous comparison are the same militant partisans who masqueraded as career civil servants for many years in the Civil Rights Division but whose true political colors were always on full display. These individuals are as unworthy of credibility as their absurd allegations.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, at its last hearing, Civil Rights Commissioner Todd Gaziano (who is also my colleague at the Heritage Foundation) expressed particular interest in securing testimony from the individual who would know the most about the Arizona case the liberals keep mentioning: Chris Coates, the former Voting Section chief, whom the Commission has subpoenaed. The department has ordered Mr. Coates not to comply with the lawful subpoena because he would tell too many inconvenient truths the Holder DOJ would prefer to keep bottled up. Here’s hoping that Congress may finally be able to help and apply more pressure on DOJ to stop stonewalling the commission’s investigation.
Hans A. von Spakovsky is a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and a former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department.
Why the Left Shouldn’t Defend The New Black Panther Dismissal
Judging by the reflexive personal attacks and amateurish legal arguments, they fail to see they undermine their — and our — shared goals: the dismissal will be used by the defense in future civil rights law cases.
By J. Christian Adams
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/j-christian-adams-why-the-left-shouldn%e2%80%99t-defend-the-new-black-panther-dismissal/?singlepage=trueSince my testimony before the Civil Rights Commission under oath on July 6 about various corrupt policies relating to enforcement of election law at the Department of Justice, the left-wing soldiers on the internet have marched into action. They have made personal attacks and made multiple factual errors in defending the dismissal. This is unfortunate, because they are harming a cause they profess to support — the right to vote. In their reflexive personal attacks and amateurish legal arguments, they fail to see they are undermining their own long-term goals, namely vigorous enforcement of voter intimidation and civil rights laws. Perhaps it is not too late for the more reasonable among them to understand their approach to the New Black Panther dismissal is suicidal.
My testimony has since been corroborated by at least four individuals with firsthand knowledge of the open hostility to race-neutral enforcement of the law inside the DOJ, and to enforcement of Section 8 of Motor Voter. Two of these witnesses did so under oath, and more will be coming forward to corroborate my testimony in the days and weeks ahead. (PJM has published some of the corroboration here, here, and here.)
Of course, the outstanding subpoena of former voting section chief Christopher Coates hangs over the DOJ like the Sword of Damocles, and over the head of those making personal attacks. Anyone who has spoken with Coates over the last few years knows exactly what his testimony will be. Anyone who has read his going-away speech to the entire voting section knows exactly what his testimony would be. And anyone familiar with the unimpeachable reputation of Coates knows his testimony will silence the phony personal attacks and move the discussion to where it belongs — how to fix things. Additional corroboration to my testimony, which Coates would provide, cannot be concealed forever.
No wonder the DOJ is so desperate to block his compliance with lawful subpoenas. We had expected so much more from this Justice Department sworn to restore integrity and transparency.
There are two important reasons why those defending the dismissal of the case through personal attacks should stand down.
Firstly, not only will the attacks prove absurd as more and more truth emerges about the matter, but the dismissal creates an unwelcome and dangerous factual floor in defining future voter intimidation. It is a floor we should fear, because it makes future cases harder to bring. Secondly, the dismissal undermines broad support for important voting rights protections as the nation becomes more racially diverse.
Neither outcome is what the defenders of the dismissal want, and they should reconsider their rabid attacks.
Think about this — even taking the facts in the most favorable light for the defenders of the dismissal, ponder how it restrains future enforcement activity against intimidation. There may come a day when two skinheads are in front of a poll, say, in suburban Atlanta. The precinct is 90 percent white, but about 10 percent African-American. One has a baseball bat, but the other does not. They are dressed identically in skinhead uniforms with swastika insignia. They work together and shout racial slurs we all know and hate. Worse, the week before, the national skinhead party had announced a nationwide deployment of skinheads, and these clowns show up on cue. NAACP poll monitors there to aid voters see voters turn away upon seeing the skinheads. The skinheads try to block the NAACP staff from entering the polls, and brandish the bat. The NAACP staff swear this all happened under oath. Then days later the national skinhead leader admits they were indeed deployed as part of the party activities and the use of the weapon was an “emergency response.”
Worse, after claiming to banish these two skinheads, video emerges with the national leader standing on stage with the two at a rally, praising them and welcoming them back into the skinhead nation.
Every American knows what should happen on these facts. Sadly, these facts are precisely identical to what happened in Philadelphia, except the races are reversed.
Someone with some intellectual honesty please explain to all of us something. In the future, how can the DOJ stop the behavior I described above? The dismissal of the case against the New Black Panthers harms future efforts to stop voter intimidation, especially on any fact pattern less egregious than what happened in Philadelphia.
It would be foolish to imagine that the dismissal hasn’t already affected DOJ policy and altered their approach to other matters. It certainly will make them gun shy going forward in future elections. Cases which could have been brought in the future won’t be. They know that the public, and lawyers for defendants, will use the dismissal of the New Black Panther case against them.
It is a genuine tragedy that should concern those on the left.
You can see why the corrupt dismissal is a blow to the rule of law and the sanctity of the ballot box. Defenders on the left who agree with me that the right to vote is sacred should have the foresight to see past partisan instincts, and look a few steps down the road to where the dismissal takes this nation. What a colossal strategic error to revert to personal attacks when something so precious is at stake.
What happens when more and more come forward to corroborate my account? Perhaps then, they will see we share the same goal — to protect the ballot box from all thuggery — and start talking about solutions.
The second reason that the left should care about the dismissal is because it undermines support for a broad civil rights agenda. I have been doing dozens of radio and television shows across this nation, and will do more. And I can tell you that Americans are furious that some in Washington don’t think they are protected by civil rights laws, particularly voting laws, because their skin color disqualifies them.
Do not underestimate the damage the dismissal is doing to broad support for civil rights laws, particularly in voting.
If Christopher Coates were allowed to comply with the lawful subpoena served upon him by the Civil Rights Commission, I’m pretty sure he would tell the Commission what he told the entire voting section at his going away party. He said it better than I could:
"America is increasingly a multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural society. For such a diverse group of people to be able to live and function together in a democratic society, there have to be certain common standards that we are bound by and that protect us all. In fact, as we become more diverse, it is even more important that our national standards of non-discrimination are enforced by the federal government. One of these most basic standards is equal protection under the law. When that is violated, America does not live up to the true meaning of its creed. When it is followed, the country functions the way it was intended to."
"For the Department of Justice to enforce the Voting Rights Act only to protect members of certain minority groups breaches the fundamental guarantee of equal protection, and could substantially erode public support for the Voting Rights Act itself. My fourth reason for this kind of law enforcement is very simple: Selective enforcement of the law, including the Voting Rights Act, on the basis of race is just not fair and does not achieve justice."
“Substantially erode public support,” indeed.
Why should a group of people support a vigorous civil rights agenda when evidence mounts that they are not intended by many to be protected? The extraordinary moral authority wielded by the civil rights movement came from a vision of genuine equality. All men are created equal by God, and therefore all are entitled to be treated equally by law. The authors of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments had a radical and noble purpose — to level the law so that for the first time on earth, all races were treated with equality and dignity by a sovereign. The authors knew firsthand the sacrifice in blood and treasure given to achieve this radical agenda, for towns across the South remained in ruins, and bodies were still left unburied in places like the Wilderness and Chickamauga when these three Amendments were ratified.
As evidenced by his speech, Coates also understands the importance of equal enforcement of the law to the broad support for the Voting Rights Act and civil rights laws. Those on the left defending the dismissal should recognize the damage they do to our shared agenda of vigorous enforcement of equality. Many Americans will rightfully become hostile toward enforcement of civil rights laws if they believe the laws do not protect them also. Is that the America you on the left want?
If history shows us anything, once one group of people feel they are excluded from the guarantees of equal protection, they wield enormous moral authority in their grievance. The “arc of history” inevitably “bends toward justice” in their direction. Hopefully, the rabid defenders of the New Black Panther dismissal will eventually recognize they are hurting their own cause. It will be more difficult to stop future voter intimidation, and fewer people will support the Voting Rights Act if they feel excluded from its protections.
Let us get past the personal attacks and move onto a substantive discussion of how to fix things inside the DOJ.
J. Christian Adams is an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice.
Obama wins! And Journolisters Rejoice
By Jonathan Strong
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/obama-wins-and-journolisters-rejoice/Nov. 3:
DAVID ROBERTS, GRIST: It’s all I can do not to start bawling.
LUKE MITCHELL, HARPER’S: I’m picturing something like VJ Day in Times Square. Seriously!
JOHN BLEVINS, SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGE OF LAW: It’s all I can do to hold it together.
Nov. 4:
MOIRA WHELAN, NATIONAL SECURITY NETWORK: I’m looking across the street at my polling place, and the line is wrapped around the block. I nearly burst into tears when I saw it. I’m feeling like today is closing the door on a terrible era, and opening another. I’m glad you started this thread because I was feeling kind of like I was the only one who is deeply emotional today.
HENRY FARRELL, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: I had to close my office door yesterday because I was watching YouTube videos of elderly African Americans saying what this meant to them and tearing up.
JOSH BEARMAN, LA WEEKLY: 11 months ago I burst into tears by myself on a plane while watching Hardball when my mind wandered to the image of President Obama being sworn in. I’ve been fighting it ever since.
EZRA KLEIN, AMERICAN PROSPECT: OHIO!
ALEC MCGILLIS, WASHINGTON POST: If you need further proof that VA is looking to go blue, check out what’s going on in VA-5 in deepest Southside Virginia, where Tom Perriello, my college roommate and a very good guy, is now up .06 percentage points — 2,000 votes — against Virgil Goode with 88 percent reporting.
GREG ANRIG, THE CENTURY FOUNDATION: This is really happening.
ADELE STAN, THE MEDIA CONSORTIUM: At last I can breathe.
SPENCER ACKERMAN, WASHINGTON INDEPENDENT: YES WE DID!
STEVEN TELES, YALE UNIVERSITY: I’m not sure why, but this part of the Battle Hymn of the Republic came to me . . . . Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Since God is marching on.
SPENCER ACKERMAN: [quoting Obama] “…we may not get there in one year or in one term, but America I promise you, we as a people will get there.”
HOLY. FUCKING. SHIT.
MICHAEL TOMASKY, THE GUARDIAN: I’m just jelly. Lord!
HAROLD POLLACK, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: I am awed by the responsibility we have taken on. Tomorrow a desperately ill African-American woman will present at my university hospital for care, and she will be turned away. She will expect us to live up to what we feel tonight. So we’ve got a lot to live up to.
ADAM SERWER, AMERICAN PROSPECT: My take.
SPENCER ACKERMAN: Goddamn, did an Obama speechwriter ghost that post? That’s pitch-perfect, Adam. Take a bow.
RYAN DONMOYER, BLOOMBERG NEWS: Best quip I heard today, courtesy of a Facebook friend: “I wonder if Sarah Palin is still unclear about what a community organizer does.”
Nov. 5
SETH MICHAELS, MYDD.COM: there are flag-waving whooping crowds around the white house. afl-cio hq is insane here.
KATE STEADMAN, KAISER HEALTH NEWS: i can’t imagine anything like it except a world series/superbowl win, and several of my co-walkers told me it never gets the entire city so riled. i think what makes it even more amazing is the incredible diversity in this city and how we all came together for this, especially in victory.
MOIRA WHELAN, NATIONAL SECURITY NETWORK: I’ve never felt anything like U Street tonight. Huging, kissing strangers…everything.
ALYSSA ROSENBERG, GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE: I’ve gotta be all non-partisan on GovExec, so I hope you’ll all indulge me a minute here. On Monday night in Manassas, the band warming up the crowd before Obama arrived played “I Need You To Survive.” I think the core lyrics are pretty good statement of principles for progressives, especially going forward from a victory like this one:
It is his will, that every need be supplied.
You are important to me, I need you to survive.
You are important to me, I need you to survive.
I pray for you, You pray for me.
I love you, I need you to survive.
I won’t harm you with words from my mouth.
I love you, I need you to survive.
It is his will, that every need be supplied.
You are important to me, I need you to survive.
A lot of horribly ugly stuff got repudiated tonight. But it doesn’t end here. We need to keep making the case to the folks who disagreed with us, the folks who booed McCain during his concession speech tonight.
MATT DUSS, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: [Mccain aide] Randy Scheunemann Fired [last week]
LAURA ROZEN, MOTHER JONES (NOW POLITICO): Can you imagine if these bozos had won?
Nov. 7
LAURA ROZEN: People we no longer have to listen to: would it be unwise to start a thread of people we are grateful we no longer have to listen to? If not, I’ll start off: Michael Rubin.
MICHAEL COHEN, NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: Mark Penn and Bob Shrum. Anyone who uses the expression “Real America.” We should send there ass to Gitmo!
JESSE TAYLOR, PANDAGON.NET: Michael Barone? Please?
LAURA ROZEN: Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich (afraid it’s not true), Drill Here Drill Now, And David Addington, John Yoo, we’ll see you in court?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, THE NEW YORKER: As a side note, does anyone know what prompted Michael Barone to go insane?
MATT DUSS: LEDEEN.
SPENCER ACKERMAN: Let’s just throw Ledeen against a wall. Or, pace Dr. Alterman, throw him through a plate glass window. I’ll bet a little spot of violence would shut him right the fuck up, as with most bullies.
JOE KLEIN, TIME: Pete Wehner…these sort of things always end badly.
ERIC ALTERMAN, AUTHOR, WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA: Fucking Nascar retards…
Nov. 12
MICHAEL HIRSH, NEWSWEEK: so many of you still seem tied down to your old ideological moorings. on the early evidence obama is not similarly tied down on any level, whether diplomatically or economically (or politically: note his big-tent approach to joe lieberman). a post-ideological presidency — what a novelty, and what a relief! but this new obamian world view, i fear, also puts many of you who are part of this group in danger of imminent irrelevance. cheers, mike hirsh
Ed. Note: Affiliations are from the period in which the above statements were made.
Feds Haven't Treated Spill Like National Disaster
By James Carafano
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Stop-devaluing-our-relationship-with-Britain-1001459-98709714.htmlAug. 29, 2005. It was the worst of times.
At 6:10 a.m., Katrina made landfall near Buras-Triumph, La., winds howling at 125 miles an hour. Within hours, it destroyed or degraded most of infrastructure in a 90,000-square-mile area and disrupted the lives of millions.
Emergency responders faced a logistical nightmare. Everything essential to speeding aid -- transportation networks, power and communications -- was wiped out. A veteran responder likened the challenge to "landing an army at Normandy, with a little less shooting."
When catastrophes occur, rescue, relief and remediation resources must respond immediately. Moreover, the people must have confidence that their leaders, at all levels of government, are on top of the situation and doing the right things to make matters better.
In the wake of Katrina, the national effort fell short. Washington was slow to respond. But once the feds got their act together, they turned in a pretty impressive performance.
The Coast Guard performed magnificently, rescuing more than 33,000 victims under harrowing conditions. Tens of thousands more, including those at the Superdome and Convention Center, were evacuated before dehydration, hunger, exposure or disease could exact a toll.
Hundreds of thousands were sheltered around the country. And billions in recovery assistance poured in.
The leadership of New Orleans and Louisiana state officials, on the other hand, proved completely ineffectual.
What a difference a half of a decade makes. The response of state and local leaders to the Gulf oil spill would make the Founding Fathers proud. (Federalism works!)
This should come as no surprise. After all, the locals are the people closest to the problem. They have the most at stake. They care.
And this time, they were prepared.
After Katrina, Louisiana transformed its disaster response system from one of the nation's worst into one of the best. The Louisiana National Guard has been particularly impressive. A few weeks ago, it had more than 1,000 soldiers deployed and working on oil containment and cleanup.
After Katrina, Louisiana transformed its disaster response system from one of the nation's worst into one of the best. The Louisiana National Guard has been particularly impressive. A few weeks ago, it had more than 1,000 soldiers deployed and working on oil containment and cleanup.
This time, it's the federal leadership that has been pathetic. Indeed, the White House's lethargic and pettifogging response to the situation has exacerbated the disaster.
The trick to fighting the spill is to keep oil from getting ashore and into the marshlands and estuaries. That means moving fast.
Instead, the federal government opted for a centralized response that requires multiple layers of approval before a slick can be sucked up.
After weeks of pleading and cajoling by state officials, the feds finally allowed them to set up Forward Operating Branches -- teams of state and local experts in each parish that can provide a quick assessment and response. That has helped some.
But state and local officials are still pulling their hair at what seems to them like Washington's peacetime attitude to wartime conditions.
The poster child of federal ineptness has been the multilayered and time-consuming permit process that state and local officials are forced to go through before they can erect oil barriers or start cleanup operations in newly contaminated locations. Locals who know what to do and want only to "get on with the job" must first run a gauntlet of review-and-approval by numerous federal agencies who seem more concerned with preserving the sanctity of their regulations than containing and capturing the oil before it kills more wildlife and poisons the ground.
Today, after three months of leaks, the wellhead appears to be capped. But unless Washington starts treating the 180 million-gallon spill like the disaster it is, it may yet succeed in turning it into a catastrophe that will cripple the entire Gulf region's economy and way of life for years to come.
Senate Probes Any BP Ties To Lockerbie Case Release
By Paul Sonne
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704682604575369713145538870.html?mod=WSJ_World_MIDDLENewsThe Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing on Scotland's decision last year to release convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the latest example of how the Gulf of Mexico oil spill has dredged up old problems for oil giant BP PLC.
The widespread anger toward BP has rekindled year-old allegations that it might have helped secure the release of the bomber, who comes from Libya, a country where BP has oil interests. Scotland, which released Mr. al-Megrahi, and BP both deny that allegation.
The committee said Thursday that a July 29 public hearing would investigate the circumstances surrounding last summer's release of Mr. al-Megrahi, the Libyan who was sentenced to a minimum of 27 years in jail for his involvement in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed all 259 people on board and 11 on the ground. BP is to be called as a witness.
The move comes almost 11 months after Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill authorized Mr. al-Megrahi's release last August on grounds that he was suffering from prostate cancer and had less than three months to live. Almost a year after his release, Mr. al-Megrahi is still alive.
"In recent days, questions have been raised about the release and whether Megrahi, who is still alive, was suffering as seriously as described by doctors at the time," the Senate panel said.
The Senate hearing is expected to look at BP's admitted lobbying of the U.K. government to sign a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, which passed in 2007. Mr. al-Megrahi's release, however, was unrelated to that agreement.
Instead, Scotland, which had sole authority to make the decision despite being part of the U.K., gave Mr. al-Megrahi a compassionate release. There is no established link between BP's lobbying efforts and Mr. MacAskill's decision to approve Mr. al-Megrahi's release.
"The Scottish government had no contact from BP in relation to Mr. al-Megrahi," the Scottish government said Thursday, before the Senate hearing was announced. "The issues being raised in the United States at present regarding BP refer to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiated by the governments of the U.K. and Libya, and therefore have nothing to do with the decision on compassionate release, which is a totally different process, based on entirely different criteria," the government said.
A spokesman for British Prime Minister David Cameron said Thursday there was no connection between BP's contracts in Libya and Scotland's decision to release Mr. al-Megrahi.
The denials haven't been enough to quell the firestorm in Washington. Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), the designated chair of the public hearing, suggested Thursday the decision to release Mr. al-Megrahi might have been "rigged."
Both Mr. Menendez and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D., Mass.) said the Senate would be looking for answers. "I opposed Megrahi's release on medical grounds last year as a travesty, and the details that have emerged in recent days in the press have raised new concerns," Mr. Kerry said. "On behalf of those victims and their families, we must get to the bottom of what led to the mistaken release of the only person ever convicted for that terrible crime," Mr. Kerry said.
The decision to hold a hearing comes almost a year after Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) called for a Senate investigation into the matter in September 2009. Mr. Lautenberg, who has been a major advocate for the families of the 189 U.S. Lockerbie victims, renewed his call for a hearing earlier this week.
Man Who Threatened South Park Creators Over Muhammad Episode Arrested By FBI
Suspect Had Intended to Join Somali Group Responsible for World Cup Attacks in Uganda
By Jason Ryan And Pierre Thomas
http://abcnews.go.com/News/man-threatened-south-park-creators-muhammad-episode-arrested/story?id=11221667A 20-year-old Virginia man who allegedly threatened the creators of "South Park" after the show mocked the Prophet Muhammad was arrested Wednesday for his attempts to join the Al Qaeda-linked terrorist group Al-Shabab.
The man, Zachary Chesser from Fairfax, was monitored by the FBI for over a year and was barred on July 10, 2010 from boarding a flight from New York to Uganda as he attempted to make his way to Somalia. Chesser was on the no-fly list and was traveling with his infant son to look less suspicious, according to an FBI affidavit in the case.
Al-Shabab recently claimed credit for coordinated bombing in Uganda which killed 76 people watching the World Cup Championship match on July 11, including 1 American citizen.
Chesser is just the latest individual radicalized in the United States who had contact with radical Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who has been linked to numerous terrorism plots in the United States including the November 2009 shooting at Ft. Hood, Texas, and the attempted car bombing of New York's Times Square on May 1.
Chesser first came to the attention of FBI counterterrorism officials for several online posts he had made to a website called revolutionmuslim.com. After the controversial April 2010 "South Park" episode aired insulting the prophet, he posted a note under the pseudonym Abu Talhah Al-Amerikee threatening the show's creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone.
"What they are doing is stupid, and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show," Chesser wrote, referring to the Dutch filmmaker assassinated in 2004 after he made a controversial film about women living in Islamic countries. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."
Chesser's radicalization appears to have taken place very quickly according to the FBI affidavit in the case. FBI agents initially spoke to Chesser in May 2009 about some of his previous online activity.
After converting to Islam in July 2008, Chesser "became very 'extremist' in his beliefs. He explained that he was watching online videos, discussions and debates and over-the-counter CDs almost obsessively," FBI Special Agent Mary Kinder wrote in the affidavit.
In his 2009 meetings with the FBI, Chesser told an FBI agent that "he sent Awlaki several email messages and that Awlaki replied to two of them." The FBI's affidavit alleges that in April and June 2010 Chesser posted online articles about leaving for jihad and a call for individuals to go fight in Somalia.
The FBI's affidavit alleges that Chesser and his wife had initially attempted to travel to Kenya in November 2009 but they were not allowed because his wife did not have access to her passport. His second attempt to travel to Somalia was first reported to the FBI by US Customs and Border Protection agents who noted that he had bought a ticket to travel to Uganda from New York's JFK airport via Dubai.
The FBI has also corroborated Chesser's intention to travel to Somalia to fight with Al-Shabab through its own surveillance.
According to the affidavit, "On June 8, 2010 Chesser told his wife that he would not be in Uganda for more than 24 hours. Further on May 28, 2010 Chesser told his wife that he was taking their son with him to Uganda as part of his 'cover'. Indeed, on July 10, 2010, Chesser had his son with him as he attempted to fly to Uganda."
On July 14, 2010, following the attacks in Uganda , Chesser contacted the FBI agent who had previously interviewed him, saying that he wanted to share information about his attempted travel and that he had had a change of heart about joining Al-Shabab after the attack in Uganda. Chesser allegedly told the FBI that it would be easy for him to join the group, which would be starting its training camps in two months.
According to Justice Department officials, in the past two years nearly 35 U.S. citizens and people living in the U.S. have been arrested and charged for terrorist activity. A recently disclosed FBI Directorate of Intelligence document noted that there were an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 websites, blogs and Internet forums supportive of terrorist related activities and propaganda.
An attorney for Chesser, is expected to have an initial appearance at the Federal Court in Alexandria Thursday morning, was not identified in the court docket.
"This case exposes the disturbing reality that extreme radicalization can happen anywhere, including Northern Virginia," US Attorney Neil MacBride said in a statement released Wednesday. "This young man is accused of seeking to join al-Shabab, a brutal terrorist organization with ties to Al-Qaida. These allegations underscore the need for continued vigilance against homegrown terror threats."
One-fourth Of Democrats Think Jesus Will ‘Definitely Return’ In 40 Years
By Matthew Sheffield
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/one-fourth-of-democrats-think-jesus-will-definitely-return-in-40-years-98931644.htmlThanks to the Pew Research Center, we now may have an idea who is buying up all those “Left Behind” books. Many of them appear to be … Democrats?
Yes, that’s right. As part of a larger survey about Americans’ predictions for the next 40 years, just over 1,500 people were asked whether they thought that Jesus Christ would return to the earth during that timeframe. Interestingly enough, it is self-identified Democrats who appear to have more certitude that this will happen than Republicans.
According to the poll, 26% of Democrats believe that the Second Coming “will definitely” happen within the next four decades. In comparison 19% of Republicans believe this.
Among those who think Jesus will probably return to earth in 40 years, there are more GOPers than Democrats. Just under a quarter (24%) of Republicans believe this will happen compared to 18% of Democrats who predict this. Independents are least likely compared to members of both parties to believe in Jesus’ imminent return.
By the way, the partisan breakdown on this question was not in the general report on the Center’s website. The info above was emailed to me in response to a question I had after spotting an item by New York Times columnist Charles Blow on a group that is rarely mentioned in by America’s journalists, the religious left:
"According to a Gallup report issued last Friday, church attendance among blacks is exactly the same as among conservatives and among Republicans. Hispanics closely follow. Furthermore, a February Gallup report found that blacks and Hispanics, respectively, were the most likely to say that religion was an important part of their daily lives. In fact, on the Jesus question, nonwhite Democrats were roughly twice as likely as white Democrats to believe that He would return to earth by 2050."
"Add to this the fact that, according to the 2009 Gallup report, 20 percent of the Democratic Party is composed of highly religious whites who attend church once a week or more, and you quickly stop second-guessing the Second Coming numbers."
"Welcome to the Religious Left, which will continue to grow as the percentage of minorities in the country and in the party grows."
"People often ask whether the Republican Party will have to move to the left to remain viable. However, the question rarely asked is whether the growing religiosity on the left will push the Democrats toward the right."
Kudos to Blow for looking beyond the press release and pondering a question that no doubt is uncomfortable for many a secular Democrat. There is bound to be a significant amount of tension between the more secular white Democrats and the more religious non-white Democrats in the years to come, especially as minority Democratic politicians emerge as political powerhouses of their own without help from the mostly white union and current Democratic leadership structures.
A tip of the hat also to the must-read blog Secular Right for bringing the Blow column to my attention.
Obama’s Overdue AIDS Bill
By Desmond Tutu
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/opinion/21tutu.html?_r=2&ref=opinionHaving met President Obama, I’m confident that he’s a man of conscience who shares my commitment to bringing hope and care to the world’s poor. But I am saddened by his decision to spend less than he promised to treat AIDS patients in Africa.
George W. Bush made an impressive commitment to the international fight against AIDS when he formed the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief program. Since 2004, Pepfar has spent $19 billion to help distribute anti-viral treatments to about 2.5 million Africans infected with H.I.V.
Thanks to these efforts — and similar initiatives, like those spearheaded by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria — the number of African patients with access to AIDS drugs jumped tenfold from 2003 to 2008. Since 2004, the AIDS-related mortality rate in sub-Saharan Africa has dropped 18 percent.
Yet President Obama added only $366 million to the program this year — well below the $1 billion per year he promised to add when he was on the campaign trail. (Pepfar’s total budget now stands at $7 billion.) Most of the countries in Pepfar will see no increase in aid.
Under the Bush administration, about 400,000 more African patients received treatment every year. President Obama’s Pepfar strategy would reduce the number of new patients receiving treatment to 320,000 — resulting in 1.2 million avoidable deaths over the next five years, according to calculations by two Harvard researchers, Rochelle Walensky and Daniel Kuritzkes. Doctors would have to decide which of the 22 million Africans afflicted with H.I.V. should receive treatment and which should not.
President Obama has also proposed to cut America’s contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (which had been increasing each year since 2006) to $1 billion in 2011, down from $1.05 billion this year. The fund, less than a decade old, has spent nearly $20 billion helping treat the worst diseases of the developing world. And it has become the premier model for results-driven aid; financing for projects is supplied incrementally, as programs show tangible progress — for example, in the number of AIDS-treating drugs dispensed. President Obama’s plan to decrease support is deeply distressing; American financing for the fund should be increasing.
During my life, I’ve witnessed amazing advances in medical science. New treatments turn H.I.V. infection from a death sentence to a manageable illness. The cost of treating it is a small fraction of what it was 10 years ago. Meanwhile, more and more African nations have invested in the public health infrastructure needed to distribute AIDS drugs.
I appreciate that tough financial times require the United States government to cut spending. But scaling back America’s financial commitments to AIDS programs could wipe away decades of progress in Africa.
As the 18th International AIDS Conference is held this week in Vienna, President Obama should reconsider his commitment to fighting the disease. Surely the richest country on the planet can find the means to fight this scourge.
Desmond Tutu is the archbishop emeritus of Cape Town and honorary chairman of the Global AIDS Alliance.
Black Racism: A Real Problem, Or Pure Politics?
By JESSE WASHINGTON
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BLACK_RACISM?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=USIs black racism a real problem? Or is it pure politics?
Shirley Sherrod was dismissed from her Agriculture Department job because remarks she made about her dealings with a white farmer almost a quarter century ago were perceived as racist. She was offered her job back Wednesday because a full viewing of that speech showed it to be a tale of racial reconciliation.
But put aside the furor and confusion over the employment of the black woman who headed the USDA's rural development office in Georgia. The Sherrod affair brings to the fore a simmering debate over whether black racism is cause for concern in America under its first black president.
During the campaign, Barack Obama was forced to address the blistering racial remarks of his former pastor. Since then, there have been complaints that Barack Obama presides over an administration that is racial, not post-racial - when he supported a black Harvard professor who was arrested by a white police officer, or when the Justice Department dismissed most charges against a group of black militants accused of intimidating voters.
"If the Justice Department is really not interested in pursuing cases against blacks who violate whites' civil rights and only go after whites who violate blacks' rights, that is a major problem," says William Stogner, a 46-year-old telecommunications technician who lives in St. Louis.
Growing up in the 1970s, Stogner was often called "cracker" by black kids in his grandparents' East St. Louis neighborhood. Last April, while walking to his car after a tea party rally, he says he heard the same epithet from a group of young black men. To Stogner, black and white racism are equivalent: "To me it's bad no matter where it originates."
But to some conservatives, there is something special about black racism: It is invisible in the liberal media, and perpetrated by the Obama administration. While white racism is highly publicized, they say, black racism gets a pass.
"The sheer hypocrisy is maddening to me, and is a terrible, terrible double standard," said conservative radio host Mike Gallagher.
Andrew Breitbart clearly sees black racism as an issue. He's the conservative blogger who posted the clip from Sherrod's 1986 speech to an NAACP meeting that set off the contretemps. He said the NAACP, in accusing the tea party movement of racism, was glossing over its own bigotry.
In the video, he wrote, "Sherrod's racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another group's racial tolerance."
To Sherrod, Breitbart was just playing his own racist card: He created "a racist thing that could unite even more the racist people out there," she told the liberal website Media Matters.
Imani Perry, a professor at Princeton's Center for African American Studies, said some conservatives are manipulating white fears for political advantage.
"I think many white Americans are fearful that with Obama in the White House, and the diversity in his appointments, that the racial balance of power is shifting. And that's frightening both because people always are afraid to give up privilege, and because of the prospect of a black-and-brown backlash against a very ugly history," Perry said.
Some liberals have long maintained that racism requires power, and so black people can't be racist. Obama's election undercut the first argument and made the specter of black racism appear more threatening.
Of course, the black power movement of the 1960s and 1970s - "We must wage guerrilla warfare on the honky white man," said H. Rap Brown - was plenty threatening.
Joe Hicks was a black nationalist and proudly demonized whites back then. Now a conservative Republican and vice president of Community Advocates Inc. in Los Angeles, which works to improve race relations, Hicks says today that black racism is not widespread: "The average black person doesn't dislike white people."
But he does believe it has become more prevalent than white racism. "Bigotry among white Americans has been driven to the margins of society. White people fear being called a racist more than anything else. But as white people have slowly moved away from viewing themselves in a racialized way, black people have maintained their sense of racial consciousness," which sometimes leads to bias, he said.
Gallagher, the radio host, says the appearance of anti-white bias at the Agriculture or Justice Department "creates white racists."
"White people sit around, and they get angry and they think this is the world they live in, and it's not fair. I hear it in the frustration of my callers," he said.
"White America understands by now, you'd better be very careful in the way you treat people of color. In this history of this country that's great advice. That's as it should be. We've had a shameful past," he said. "Now the fear is that the pendulum has swung so far the other way, that white people mind their P's and Q's and don't say anything that can be perceived as racist, but blacks can talk about hurting people."
Perry, the Princeton professor, pointed out that blacks have 10 cents of wealth for every dollar possessed by whites.
"We can hardly say whites as a group are suffering under the weight of racial discrimination. That said, we do have to find ways of talking about race with more openness but also with greater sensitivity," she said.
"There is a lot of work for everyone to do in this regard, and people of color are no exception."
Author
Logged
