All Blog Posts Tagged 'thomas' - The Hutchinson Report News

Saying No to Hillary is Saying Yes to three More Thomas’s on the Supreme Court

2016-05-20T16:12:16.000Z

Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump made it almost official. He now has in his hip pocket the names of 11 hardline conservative judges and legal luminaries who he deems fit SCOTUS judges. The names supplied by the equally hardline conservative Heritage Foundation weren’t much a surprise. At a town hall in last December, the month before the South Carolina primary, Trump didn’t hesitate when asked who his favorite High Court justice was. He named Clarence Thomas. Thomas was his guy on the court because he is “very strong and consistent.” Trump’s 11 names, then, are in keeping with his Thomas swoon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-supreme-court_us_566c7597e4b0fccee16ed3bd

Naming a High Court judge is the one issue that has ignited the greatest debate, furor and public warfare. The legal bloodbath would be even messier if “President” Trump plucked any one of the 11 names from the list as his SCOTUS choice. So the repeated question then is why would anyone play with fire with Trump and bulk at backing Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee? The possibility of one, not to mention, the possibility of two or even three more Thomas clones on the High Court given the ages of the three court liberals should be more than enough incentive to insure that Trump never gets a chance to pull that list of names out of his pocket.

Yet polls repeatedly show that a troubling percentage of left-leaning Democrats and progressive leaning independents say they won’t back Clinton no matter what.

One of the two stock retorts to shunning Clinton is to spit out the by now familiar epithets at her, Wall Street shill, corporate sell-out, war hawk, and untrustworthy. The Hillary bashers convince themselves that there wouldn’t be a dime’s worth of difference between a Trump White House and a Clinton White House. The other comeback is that “President” Trump would propel legions of protesters into the streets at every Trump turn. He would be relentlessly challenged every step of the way by Congressional Democrats, civil rights, liberties, environmental, and women groups. They would stop him dead in his tracks when he tries to shove his agenda through, and that first and foremost would mean an epic war against his effort to put another Thomas on the High Court.

The first rationale is, of course, patently absurd. Trump has made it perfectly clear that he would try to repeal the Affordable Care Act, totally scrap the Dodd-Frank financial industry regulations, do nothing to stop the further evisceration of the Voting Rights Act, cheer lead the NRA and avoid comprehensive gun control like the plague, wreak new miseries on undocumented workers and their children, and give a wink and nod license to ramp up anti-Muslim hysteria in the country. Clinton is the diametric opposite of this and trying to make the case against her as a Trump policy look alike is beyond laughable.

The other problem with the assumption that Trump can be easily stopped is there is no guarantee that Senate Democrats and progressive House Democrats would not still be in the minority in Congress. If that is the case, they would be at the mercy of a White House now in the hands of a fickle reactionary, and a Congress that would giddily aid and abet his most rightwing draconian initiatives and legislation. That wouldn’t be all. Protest groups would have leverage only in the forces they could muster in the streets. But Trump and a Republican Majority Congress would be virtually immune to those protests since they did not rely on them to win or stay in office.

This makes the case for Clinton even more urgent even without Trump in the White House but with Congress in the GOP’s grip. She is the only one who could then stand deflect, derail, or at the least minimize the irreparable political carnage that the GOP would wreak if it kept the Senate and the House.

Now back to Trump and the Supreme Court. In decades past, many Democratic and Republican appointed justices scrapped party loyalties and based their legal decisions solely on the merit of the law, constitutional principles and the public good. Trump’s favorite judge, Thomas, has gone full steam in the other direction. He has blatantly rammed his strictest of strict constructionist ideology into every opinion he’s written and vote he’s cast on civil rights, police powers, corporate financial dealings, the death penalty, abortion, and voting rights. He has firmly carved out a granite like niche as one of the most reflexive, knee jerk, reactionary jurists to grace the court in decades.

Thomas punctuates that by being the court’s first openly public recluse and with rare exceptions refusing to utter a peep during any of the oral arguments before the court. But then there’s not much need since his votes are already guaranteed.

Saying no to Clinton is the most dangerous od dangerous propositions. It would say yes to the possibility of three more Thomas’s on the High Court.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His latest book is How “President” Trump will Govern (Amazon Kindle) He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on Radio One. He is the host of the weekly Hutchinson Report on KPFK 90.7 FM Los Angeles and the Pacifica Network.

The Supreme Challenge in the Alesia Thomas Slaying Case

2015-05-25T18:30:00.000Z

This will also be The Hutchinson Report Feature Column in the Los Angeles Wave, Thursday May 28.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Here we go again. Another African-American is a victim of police over use of deadly force. The police officer accused of using the deadly force against the victim is charged and winds up in a court docket. A jury that has a paucity of African-Americans on it will decide the officer’s fate. And there’s a crack defense team to defend the officer. This scenario has been played out so often that it’s become a virtual ritual. The ritual’s end is that the officer almost always is acquitted. Or, the rare times there’s a conviction, he or she gets a hand slap, kid glove sentence of which the bulk of it is never served.

This is exactly what we’re looking at again in the trial of LAPD officer Mary O’Callaghan--hopefully without the end acquittal result. The victim is Alesia Thomas. O’Callaghan technically is not charged with the slaying of Thomas in July 2012 but with assault under color of authority. That’s a technical and legal way of saying that while she didn’t directly slay her, her actions in and around her death were a major factor in her death.

At first glance, the facts are pretty straight forward. There’s a video that shows O’Callaghan pummel Thomas with a blow to the throat and a swift shove and kick in her groin as she’s being rammed into a police car. Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck and the LA Police Commission were blunt in condemning the officer’s action. Beck recommended that the DA file charges against O’Callaghan.

But as always in these kind of cases, things aren’t so simple. The defense team predictably started in on Thomas with a not so subtle assault on her character and piled on a heavy dose of lies, slander and innuendos that she was not a fit mother, a drug abuser, and an unruly, violent suspect.

That's just the start of the problem. Police defense attorneys always seek to get as many middle class people, whites and even blacks and Latinos, on the jury as possible. The presumption is that they are much more likely to believe the testimony of police and prosecution witnesses than black witnesses, defendants, or even the victims. The O’Callaghan trial is no different. A mostly non-black jury will ultimately decide her fate.

It's an uphill battle for prosecutors to overcome both pro-police attitudes and negative racial stereotypes. Stanford University researchers recently found that even when many whites are presented with evidence that the criminal justice system is loaded with racial bias toward blacks, they are more likely to support tough, draconian laws such as three strikes, tough sentencing and increased incarceration. The galling conclusion of the researchers was that informing many whites that African-Americans are significantly over-represented in the prison population "may actually bolster support for the very policies that perpetuate the inequality."

The negative perceptions of blacks, be they black males or black females, by much of the public are not the only problem in effecting effective legal measures against police violence. There is no ironclad standard of what is or isn't an acceptable use of force in police misconduct cases. It often comes down to a judgment call by the officer. In the Rodney King beating case in 1992 in which four LAPD officers stood trial, defense attorneys painted King as the aggressor and claimed that the level of force used against him was justified. This pattern has been evident in a number of celebrated cases since then. Police claim that they feared for their lives in confronting civilians and they use deadly force solely in self-defense. If brought to trial judges and juries routinely buy this line and acquit. O’Callaghan’s attorneys will work overtime to depict Thomas as the aggressor and that O’Callaghan acted properly in trying to restrain even defend herself from this supposedly violent, aggressive suspect.

The code of silence is another powerful obstacle to convicting bad cops. Officers hide behind it and refuse to testify against other officers, or tailor their testimony to put the officer's action in the best possible light.

Prosecutors often are barred from using statements made during internal investigations of officer misconduct in court proceedings on grounds of self-incrimination. This knocks out another potentially crucial prosecution weapon. Federal prosecutors who re-tried the officers that beat King learned a vital lesson from the abysmal failure of local prosecutors to convict them. They did not rely exclusively on the videotape evidence, but on expert testimony on the use of force. That proved that the officers went way over the top against King. Despite the massive time, resources, and care devoted to that case, two of the four officers were still acquitted.

The lesson that should have been learned is that a video no matter how much of a seemingly smoking gun case it makes against an abusive officer is not enough to convict. It will come down to a vigorous prosecution, non-biased instructions from the judge, and a fair minded, unbiased jury to get a conviction of O’Callaghan. This is the supreme challenge in the Alesia Thomas slaying case. Many are watching to see if the challenge is met.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the author of How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge. He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is host of the weekly Hutchinson Report Newsmaker Hour heard weekly on the nationally network broadcast Hutchinson Newsmaker Network.

Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson

Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter:

The Problem is not the Ferguson Police Chief, But Police Practices

2015-03-11T21:41:57.000Z

Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson was not the problem. The problem is Ferguson’s and other cities police practices. Those policies have been cited and recited countless times in reports, by commissions, panels and investigative reports on policing in America. They are: The overuse of deadly force by officers against in nearly case unarmed young African-Americans. The absolute failure by prosecutors to either charge, indict, and try those officers who overuse deadly force. The absolute refusal of police chiefs to suspend or dismiss those officers. The continued overt and subtle racial profiling through stop and frisk and unwarranted street and traffic stops of minorities.

The glaring lag in training of officers and command staff dealing with mentally challenged suspects. The gross failure of countless police departments to recruit and promote minority officers. The entrenched us versus them blue wall that police departments have erected between minority communities and their departments.

The Justice Department’s report on the towering failures of the Ferguson police department documented some of these problems with Ferguson and other departments. It will take much more than Jackson’s resignation to correct them.

Betty Pleasant's Weekly Soulvine Column

2014-11-07T03:40:50.000Z

11/10/14

SOULVINE

By Betty Pleasant

IT’S NOT ALL BAD --- Despite the fact that last week’s election was a bummer for the Democrats throughout the country, the outcome did provide some important and monumental results of which the best is the fact that California remains a blue state. Lead by Jerry Brown’s historic victory to a fourth term as governor, Democrats won all the races for constitutional offices, thus securing control of the state of California. So, it is in the best interests of California’s powerless Republicans to move to Utah.

But wait. Utah made history last week: It elected Mia Love, a black female Mormon, to Congress, making her the first black female Republican member of Congress. This is ironic in view of the fact that, across the nation, black people voted last week in numbers and percentages unseen since the “good ole days.” An Emory University study released today states: “The Republican party still struggles to connect with black voters, but it was the white voters who were predicted to vote for Democrats but didn’t that gave Republicans the extra push they needed to dominate the midterm elections.”

In this state, the California Legislative Black Caucus grew by three members last week for the first time in its 47 year history. The new additions are Kevin McCarty, new assemblyman for Sacramento’s district 7; Jim Cooper, assemblyman for Sacramento’s District 9 and Tony Thurmond, assemblyman for Richmond’s Assembly District 15.

And here, locally, I got my Supervisor Sheila Kuehl; my congressman, Brad Sherman; my assemblyman, Matt Dabenah; and my state senator, the wonderful Bob Hertzberg. I’m a happy voter.

I don’t even want to talk about Los Angeles County’s Assembly Districts 62 and 64, other than to provide this statement from losing candidate Prophet Walker, who was the victim of the worst campaign smearing in history: “I ran because I believe every young person deserves the opportunity for redemption. I want everyone in Sacramento to hear that message, and more importantly, I want every young person to believe that. So while I’m disappointed by the results of the election, I am proud to have delivered that message and I will continue to do so no matter what I do next. I am very grateful to those who had the courage to stand with me. I will now begin the process of helping our community heal as well as my family.”

I have one more thing to say: Walker is a fine young man with a very bright future and all he has to do is keep doing what he’s doing and he will prevail. As to the residents of ADs 62 and 64: Don’t come crying to me when things go awry in their communities. The first thing I’m going to ask you is, “who did you vote for?”

SPEAKING OF GOING AWRY --- The residents near Compton’s Magic Johnson Park are in a huge uproar over their supervisor, Mark Ridley Thomas’ plans to create an equestrian center for horses in their neighborhood. The residents are mad as hell and are fighting the county and Ridley-Thomas over this issue. The residents (none of whom own horses) say they don’t want other people boarding and riding horses near their homes. They say the park doesn’t need an equestrian center for horses, but rather a swimming pool for their children. This is a big fight and its going to get nasty. Go wherever you have to and pick up a copy of the Nov. 10 Compton Herald and read Jarrette Fellows’ front page story on this big mess.

Also in this week’s Compton Herald is my story on the sentencing of former Sen. Rod Wright and the outrageous attacks on him by Judge Kathleen Kennedy. Get it and read it and you won’t believe your eyes. This woman made me so mad that when I went to the polls, I voted “no” to every judge on the ballot. Not only did Judge Kennedy attack Wright, she attacked all politicians!! (Hey, that’s my job --- not hers!).

Racism Charge in Ebola Fight Way Overblown

2014-10-12T19:00:00.000Z

Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson was tactful and circumspect when he questioned the way health officials and medical staffers handled the care and treatment of Ebola victim Thomas Duncan. Jackson carefully avoided using the “R” word. R as in racism but others, many others, and that includes Duncan’s family, flatly charged that he was virtually left to die because he was black. To drive home the charge of a racial double standard for black victims, the case of the two white American medical workers stricken with Ebola and rushed back from Liberia and given the rare drug, ZMapp that supposedly saved their lives is repeatedly cited.

The charge of one standard of treatment for blacks and another for whites is understandable, but with Duncan and Ebola it doesn’t hold up. A bevy of medical and health officials with no connection to the hospital, as well as Liberian officials and many of those close to him, agreed that given what was known about Duncan’s condition at the time, he was given the best care and treatment available that included team of doctors and nurses, and a possible saving drug infusion. The story of the Americans who were saved made news not just because they were the first known Americans hit with the virus. But, it was because they were treated with ZMapp and lived. This instantly set off loud protests and shouts of racism, and indifference, and that American health and medical officials outright turn their back on Africans there and here who are dying from the disease. The brutal reality is there is no known cure for the virus once contracted. At best, there’s only ZMapp. The problem with this is that it’s still regarded as an experimental drug and is on the ground floor in use in the treatment of Ebola. The supplies of the drug globally are severely limited. There’s no evidence that Duncan was not given the drug because of race. The hospital’s claim that it had no supply of the drug on hand or any prospect of getting it in time to save his life rings true.

Even if the experts on the disease hadn’t uttered a peep about the way Duncan was handled versus that of the two Americans, there would be no racial investment in allowing someone who carries one of the world’s deadliest and highly transmittable diseases to wallow in the disease without pulling out all stops to treat them if for no other reason than the extreme danger it would pose to the public if they didn’t. Even before the Duncan case captured headlines and stirred the charge of racism, every major official and unofficial world health organization had rushed teams of doctors and medical staff at great risk to their personal safety to West Africa. They also flew in mountains of medical equipment, support facilities, and drugs to clinics and hospitals in the stricken West African nations. President Obama repeatedly made it clear that Ebola was not just a West African problem, but a global problem, and backed up his words by placing hundreds of American troop and medical boots on the ground in Liberia. Without that aid and the timeliness that the aid was provided, the death toll in these nations almost certainly would have soared far higher.

The charge of a racial double standard, though, can’t be separated from the very real sordid and criminal history of the colossal indifference and even malicious neglect of the health needs of African and African-Americans. There’s the infamous Tuskegee experiment in which black males suffering from syphilis were deliberately allowed to suffer and die for four decades with the knowing consent of the U.S. Public Health Service without any treatment. And there’s the still wildly racially disparate accessibility of health care and treatment between blacks and whites here. There’s cause for suspicion that when a dreaded disease such as Ebola strikes and the visible face of the victims are black then the racial double standard instantly kicks in.

Yet it’s precisely because the disease is so feared and deadly to all irrespective of their race or class that American and western health officials have little choice but to act with all available resources. It’s in part self-interest and self-protection, and in greater part the rude awakening that this is not 1940, or 1950 when the world was a much smaller place. The ease and accessibility of global travel, the non-stop mobility of travelers and immigrants, and the quantum leap in interpersonal contacts between peoples across all ethnic lines in America have radically changed the social, cultural and health picture for Americans and indeed the world.

There well may be more cases of Ebola that turn up in the U.S. If that happens, eyes will be closely watching to see just how they are treated and whether the victims are black or white won’t matter. There will be murmurs and even shouts again of a racial double standard. When it does the racism charge will still be just as overblown.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the author of How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge. He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is host of the weekly Hutchinson Report Newsmaker Hour on KTYM Radio Los Angeles streamed on ktym.com podcast on blogtalkradio.com and on thehutchinsonreportnews.com

Betty Pleasant's Weekly Soulvine Column

2014-08-14T17:54:35.000Z

SOULVINE

By Betty Pleasant

Journalist

HALLELUJAH! --- We, the people, did it! We elected George McKenna to the LAUSD school board yesterday and beat back the big monied interests which sought to buy control of our public school system, thus proving that the people --- outraged and united --- can do any damned thing we must to survive. Heretofore disparate elements of the community came together and fought against graft, greed and megalomania to elect a life-long, experienced, acclaimed educator and a true gentleman to the school board seat --- George McKenna, a man whom the Rev. Jesse Jackson proclaimed as “having more qualifications than the secretary of education in Washington D.C.”

Last night’s victory was the most exciting electoral event in which I’ve ever participated --- surpassing even the election of Obama, because we, the people, did what we had to do to reject all perceptions that we, the people, can be bought. Without batting an eye, I quit my newspaper job when the publisher chose to interfere with my support of McKenna and I’d do it again. I don’t let a job hamstring my principles. I wasn’t raised like that, me. After all, education and writing are important professions in my family: My son is a high school teacher; my late husband was a university professor; my sister-in-law was a university professor, my niece is a university professor; my nephew is a recognized published poet.

In fact, something McKenna said in his victory statement last night leads me to believe that I’m more qualified for the school board than Alex Johnson. After marveling at the size of the overflow crowd of supporters standing around him and thanking them all for their support, McKenna said,

“This was a political race for the other side, but not for me. All I tried to do was continue my commitments to serve the children and families in our community that I have had for decades. The one thing our community needs is unity,” McKenna continued. “Because now even long-held friendships don’t matter. The only thing that matters to the other side is that they elect a person to the seat whose only education experience is: ‘I attended school and my mama was a teacher!’” This remark drew gales of laughter from the crowd. Using that kind of illogic, I believe my education experience trumps Johnson’s and I ought to be on the state Board of Regents!

Congresswoman Maxine Waters said last night: “I am elated and overjoyed by the campaign. They outspent us, but we out worked them. We did not fear their money. This district will be graced by a most extraordinary man. It doesn’t get better than this. I’m happy for the children because you have stopped a so-called machine.” To the moneyed supporters of Johnson, Waters said: “You have put all that money into your campaign and we have stopped you. So you can get out of our way now.”

Congresswoman Karen Bass, another staunch McKenna supporter, said this morning: “I congratulate Dr. George McKenna’s victory and I look forward to working with him to ensure students in District 1 have access to equal resources so they can succeed. Election victories are earned --- not given. Dr. McKenna has earned the voters‘ support because of his thorough understanding of the district and a deep-rooted commitment to youth from all backgrounds.”

I was told that some Alex Johnson/Ridley-Thomas supporters were seen skulking among our victory supporters last night. Why weren’t they at their own party? I suppose they decided to come in from the dark side for a change. Step 1 - completed. Step 2 - underway.

ANOTHER ONE --- Najee Ali and them are planning a rally Sunday to protest the LAPD killing of Ezell Ford, a 24-year-old “mentally challenged” black man who was reportedly shot in the back Monday by cops while lying on the ground in the Florence neighborhood. Ford died at an area hospital. (I thought the Florence area was county territory. Why was the LAPD over there killing people? Isn’t that the sheriff deputies’ job?) The killing occurred at about 8:20 p.m. after a cop conducted one of their notorious “investigative stops” in the 200 block of West 65th Street. According to the cops, the ubiquitous “struggle ensued” during the stop and a cop shot him. The protest will be held in front of the LAPD headquarters in downtown L.A. on Sunday at 3 p.m. Does Chief Charlie Beck really want five more years of this?!

WALKING WOUNDED --- Compton School Board member Skyy Fisher came out of hiding this week and made his first public appearance since he was arrested and charged with having non-consensual sex with a sleeping man. Without saying a word to anyone, Fisher took his usual seat among the school board members. President Micah Ali immediately adjourned the open meeting to a closed session and all the members walked out.

-30-

Betty Pleasant's Weekly Soulvine Column

2014-08-08T02:00:00.000Z

SOULVINE

By Betty Pleasant

Journalist

LET’S DO THIS...AND THAT! --- As the Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas-controlled machine has rolled out a relentless smear campaign to get his employee, elected to the school board Tuesday at any cost, the people (read voters) in Ridley-Thomas‘ second district have jumped the gun on widely discussed plans to recall their supervisor.

While several groups of active residents have been dissatisfied with Ridley-Thomas‘ overall job performance and particularly with his increasing disregard for the will of the people in favor of his pursuit of creating his own personal political fiefdom, it was generally agreed that no action would be taken against him until after George McKenna --- the people’s choice --- was elected to the school board. The mantra was: “First get McKenna into his seat; then get Ridley-Thomas out of his.”

Well, the last few weeks of Alex Johnson’s school board campaign had become so vicious, so vile and so relentless that it gave credence to a disaffected Ridley-Thomas associate who declared: “There is nothing Ridley-Thomas won’t do to win!” The Johnson campaign has so angered the people that a faction of the “Recallists” jumped the gun last week and launched an early recall campaign. The group, which calls itself “The Committee to Recall 2nd District Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas,” began attaching big orange-colored posters on trees and street lights in the district detailing some of the sins of the supervisor and urging his recall. (If they wait a while, they can list more sins.) One of Ridley-Thomas’ minions was seen removing one of the posters, but the group put it back. It only takes the signatures of 65 voters to file a petition to recall Ridley-Thomas, so that ought to be a cinch as I’ve been in meetings in which anti-Ridley-Thomas folks numbered more than that.

But anyway, let’s look at the main cause of the 2nd District’s displeasure: Alex Johnson, whose campaign literature states that he was a hot-shot prosecutor in the Bronx, New York. There is a rumor circulating in the community that Johnson was disbarred in New York. One newspaper editor, one Los Angeles County prosecutor and one Los Angeles lawyer swear up and down that they read something that stated Johnson had been disbarred in NewYork. They cannot remember where they read it and they, plus a local jurist, have spent considerable time culling through the appropriate information bases looking for a reason why Johnson would give up a bustling legal career in New York to sit on the LAUSD school board. They can’t find anything. They told me that unlike California, the New York Bar keeps actions against its lawyers private and do not release such information to the public. I asked these legal experts why Johnson would choose to be a Ridley-Thomas flunky rather than practice law, a field for which he was trained and in which he says he excelled. The judge said: “If he was disbarred in New York, he cannot take the California Bar unless he clears up whatever problem he had in New York. And you can’t practice law in California without passing the California Bar.” So, Johnson, what did you do in New York? Were you disbarred, or not?

One thing we do know, and which Ridley-Thomas/Johnson have been mum about, is their involvement in the closure of Kedren Head Start --- the last black-operated Head Start program in the community. Both men were in the room when Dr. John Griffin, Kedren’s CEO and president, was ordered to give up his $20 million Head Start grant within two hours or the county agency, LACOE, would take it from him. Ridley-Thomas was in office when all the others closed, but he was joined by his “urban development/education specialist” Alex Johnson in June when Kedren closed. So, Johnson, are you an education specialist who specializes in closing down education programs? Looks like it.

Speaking of which, I heard that --- pursuant to Rep. Maxine Waters’ request --- the federal government is investigating the shady circumstances surrounding the closure of Kedren Head Start.

McKenna has had a great deal of support and assistance from some high profile and highly respected politicians and social activists, including the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Congresswomen Waters and Karen Bass, mayors, councilmembers from various cities, religious leaders, educators, etc., etc., etc. And now come exalted praise from retired Los Angeles City Councilman Nate Holden, who is still so highly regarded by the people that many 10th District residents think he’s still their councilman and treat him as such.

This is what the community’s political patriarch has to say about the school board race:

“I’m voting for George McKenna for the School Board District 1 seat . Here’s the reason why: McKenna is by far the best qualified, has the most experience, has a proven track record and he’s the best educated of the two candidates. He cares for our children and will be the most helpful for them. McKenna is not a mudslinger; he’s not running a dirty campaign. He’s in this race to do a good job and educate our children. We need him now more than ever. That’s why I’m joining the majority of the board of education in supporting him.”

"I'm proud and honored to have served the City Council for 16 years representing the 10th District. An overwhelming number of my former constituents have called and prevailed on me to take a position in this race and support George McKenna. They’re just sick and tire about the money being spent to buy this seat. Their statements are: ‘The District’s seat is not for sell and neither are we!’”

-30-

Mark Ridley-Thomas and Crony, Alex Johnson - An Insidious Virus Within the Black Community

2014-07-30T03:57:55.000Z

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Mark Ridley-Thomas, Alex Johnson

Three of the most tenaciously destructive problems endemic to the Black community is political apathy, a lack of education, and the self-serving corruption of some of our politicians and so-called "community leaders," and the race for District 1 of the Los Angeles Unified School District has revealed conclusively that County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas and his new young crony, Alex Johnson, are the resulting embodiment of all three of those problems.
.
Subsequent to the sudden and untimely passing of longtime LAUSD board member, Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte, a large coalition of parents, clergy, politicians, local activists, and groups within the education community came together to support the interim appointment of George McKenna to complete Ms. LaMotte’s term of office. That’s how such matters have been routinely handled in the past.
.
McKenna is a lifelong educator with an illustrious background, a proven track record, and is highly respected - in fact, esteemed - within the educational community. He became nationally renowned after being portrayed by Denzel Washington in the movie, "Hard Lessons," chronicling McKenna’s stunning turnaround of George Washington Preparatory High School in South Central Los Angeles. McKenna enjoys the endorsement of the Democratic Party, the United Teachers Los Angeles, the LA Times, La Opinión, LA Sentinel and over 100 leaders in the education, ecumenical, political, civic community, and now, 4 of 5 of his former June 3rd opponents.
.
Yet, in spite of all of the support that George McKenna enjoys from within the community and the fact that by forcing a special election the community was left without representation for months and it cost the district over $2.5 million that could have been going toward our young people’s education, Mark Ridley-Thomas completely ignored all of that, used all of the political influence that he could muster to force a special election. And why did he thumb his nose at the best interest of the community? - so he could promote the candidacy of a political crony, Alex Johnson, one of his deputies on educational affairs. It was a clear case of giving the political consolidation of power priority over the best interest of the people. In short, cronyism - or the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority without proper regard for their qualifications (or lack thereof), or the interest of the people.
.
Of course, Johnson/Thomas supporters might ask, how do we know that Supervisor Ridley-Thomas doesn’t simply feel that Alex Johnson is the better man? That’s a very simple question to answer - the tone of the Johnson/Thomas campaign.
.
Whenever you have a candidate whose primary concern is to better the plight and conditions of the people, that’s what their campaign will focus on. Such a politician will generally come to the people with an agenda, tell the people what he or she hopes to accomplish, and then begin to explain why they think they’re the better candidate. But that certainly doesn’t describe the Johnson/Thomas campaign. They came out slinging mud and feces everywhere.
.
Alex Johnson and Ridley-Thomas have taken a page right of the Republican play book. They’re using the EXACT same tactics against George McKenna as the GOP has been using against Obama, and that fact alone should tell us that these two individuals are bad news. They have no sense of integrity. They hope to benefit from anger, animosity, and turmoil rather than competence. That accounts for why they're slinging mud instead of an agenda, because they clearly don’t have a presentable agenda to present.
.
They don’t want that seat because they want to help the people. They couldn’t care less about the people. They want that office - or ANY office - because it helps to consolidate the PERSONAL political power of Mark Ridley-Thomas. Period.
.
Ridley-Thomas’ behavior seems to indicate that he sees himself as the big city version of "Boss Hog"(no pun intended) - and this sort of thing has been going on for quite some time with him. In the 2010 article, "L.A. County supervisor gives his side of the story," that appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Steve Lopez writes:
.
"L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas greeted me warmly Monday afternoon, even though I'd come to hear him explain why he used $25,000 in taxpayer money to buy a place in "Who's Who in Black Los Angeles." I wanted to ask him whether his decision to buy the spread had anything to do with the fact that the book's associate publisher has made campaign donations to the supervisor and is a longtime ally.
.
"But first Ridley-Thomas wanted to give me a tour of his office, which he had intended to refurbish at a cost of $707,000 — until the project made the news . . ."
.
In the same article, Lopez gives Ridley-Thomas’ explanation as to why he paid $25,000 of the taxpayer’s money to be featured in "Who’s Who in Black Los Angeles":
.
" Ridley-Thomas told me it was worth honoring those county employees because many in the African American community ‘don't know’ there are black people ‘in positions of leadership’ in the county. I thought he must be kidding, but he said he wasn't. I suggested that it might be cheaper to use his newsletter to break the news, rather than "Who's Who," especially since I don't think anybody's buying the book unless they're featured in it.
.
"I wasn't all that surprised to learn that the associate publisher of "Who's Who," Anthony Samad, happens to be a longtime friend of Ridley-Thomas. But I was a little rattled to discover when I looked up campaign contributions that Samad donated $1,250 to Ridley-Thomas' campaign in 2007 and 2008. And that's not all. I also laid my hands on a document showing that Samad had been awarded a $24,999 consulting contract in 2002 by the city of Los Angeles, at the behest of then-Councilman Ridley-Thomas."
.
Now, I suppose if one is a logical contortionist, one could say that by funneling that money to Anthony Samad, it COULD be considered funneling it back into the community. But I’m not a contortionist, so it looks to me like cronyism - especially considering the fact that Samad is one of Ridley-Thomas’ longtime friends and political contributors. But I’m not going to past judgment on whether this kind of palm-greasing is improper or not. While it looks highly suspect to me, I’m going to leave it to the reader to make that determination for themselves.
.
But it does make one thing irrefutably clear, however - Mark Ridley-Thomas feels absolutely no reluctance in using his office to promote his own interest and benefit friends, and that’s exactly what he’s doing in this race for District 1 of the LAUSD. But this time it's a little different from greasing a friend’s palm. This time around, by supporting his friend, the eminently inexperienced Alex Johnson over the renowned George McKenna, he’s clearly demonstrating that his loyalty to self, friends, and cronies is given a much higher priority than you and your children.
.
So the bottom line is this - with all the adversity that we're already forced to face in the Black community, can we afford to also have politicians in office who place their needs before our own? I don't think so, and we need to keep that thought in mind, not only for this election, but also when Mark Ridley-Thomas faces the voters again. When a politician becomes so comfortable that he begins to think HE'S runnin' things, it's time to get rid of him.

Betty Pleasant Guest Column On The Maligning of George McKenna

2014-07-20T14:00:00.000Z

THIS IS IT! --- For the past seven months, the people of Los Angeles County have been engaged in a great war against the politicians we elected to represent us. For the most part, our battles have been pity-pat encounters to make our local politicians respond to our needs --- rather than to their own obsessions to reign over us as little kings doing everything they can to create and/or perpetuate rich dynasties for themselves, their kin and their sycophants.

Well, nuclear war was declared this week when residents of LAUSD’s District 1 received two sets of campaign mailings in support of the election of Alex Johnson, King Mark Ridley-Thomas’ chosen minion, to the district’s seat on the Board of Education. These mailings are the worst pieces of campaign literature I’ve ever seen in my lengthy career. They are full of boldface lies about the people’s candidate, George McKenna, and constitute the nastiest smear campaign money can buy. I did not believe King Mark could stoop that low.

Sentinel publisher Danny Bakewell and I have not agreed on a single thing in almost 50 years --- until now. We both wholeheartedly support the election of McKenna --- who last week received the overwhelming endorsement of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, and today was endorsed by LAUSD board member Monica Ratliff, who, like everyone else, maintains that McKenna’s “years of experience as a dedicated and successful teacher, principal and administrator will continue to serve the students and parents of District 1 well.”

It’s time to fight nuclear bombs with nuclear bombs. The only people who support Johnson are preachers who tow King Mark’s line because they have charter school and preschool contracts with L.A. County which they believe would be jeopardized if they didn’t back Johnson. They told me that and told others in the community as well. It’s now common knowledge, particularly in view of what reportedly happened in one of our largest black churches a couple of Sundays ago when the pastor refused to interrupt his service to allow Johnson and King Mark to speak to his congregation. The preachers are getting bold, as they come to realize that the election of the truly qualified candidate, McKenna, would set them free.

The first batch of smear literature against McKenna sported the disclaimer that it was not sent by the candidate or his campaign committee. It did state, however, that it was sent by the African American Voter Registration, Education, Participation Project (AAVREP), which, as we all know, is King Mark’s pet organization. He founded it and he is, therefore, responsible for viciously maligning McKenna’s stellar career. The offending document lists as supporters, King Mark, Rep. Diane Watson (ret.), Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke (ret.), Congresswoman Janice Hahn, L.A. City Council President Herb Wesson and SEIU #99, Education Workers United. Now, it really upsets me when people I like do something I hate. So I called them for an explanation. I called Hahn in Washington D.C. and Watson at her house and both women were appalled that their names appeared on such a raunchy piece of campaign literature. “You know I’ve never participated in anything like that!” Watson said. “Johnson came to my house and presented himself well and asked for my support if he ran for the school board,” Watson explained. “This was early when the election was finally agreed upon and I wanted McKenna in the seat, but he said he did not want to run for it. So I agreed to support Johnson, not realizing that McKenna would change his mind,” Watson said. “Now that he’s in the race, I definitely support McKenna and I do not like having my name on campaign pieces that attack him. I’m going to get to the bottom of this,” Watson said.

Like Watson, Rep. Hahn said she made an early commitment to support Johnson when he took her to lunch, where he made a decent impression on her. “Politics can get really dirty sometimes and this looks like one of those times,” Hahn said. “I must call over there,” she added. The other supporters named are obvious, as Burke’s support of Johnson is quid pro quo for King Mark’s support of her daughter for the Assembly, and Wesson’s support may have something to do with the rumors that Wesson has been anointed to replace King Mark on the Board of Supervisors when he terms out. We will speak of this, and related matters, some more.

THE HOUSE IS OPEN --- The McKenna campaign held an open house Saturday at its Crenshaw area headquarters to which an overflow crowd attended. The people left the morning rally held in Leimert Park to protest the beating of Marlene Pinnock and headed straight to the McKenna party. In addition to good food and great camaraderie, we had the pleasure of hearing rousing speeches from Rep. Maxine Waters, former school board member Rita Waters, venerable LAUSD teacher Owen Knox and Rep. Karen Bass’ deputy chief of staff, Solomon Rivera, who exclaimed to the enthusiastic crowd: “We will not be owned by anybody!!”

-30-

Clarence Thomas Should be The Last to Whine about Race

2014-02-16T15:00:00.000Z

Earl Ofari Hutchinson

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is back at it again. The “it’ is talking, or rather as is his want, complaining about race. In his latest tirade Thomas left no doubt who he had in mind as being too racially thin skinned when he finger-pointed “liberal elites” and then reeled off the by now familiar litany of racial slights, incidents, and attacks on him over the years all by liberals, of course. Thomas further turns this on his head to claim that blacks supposedly incessantly see racial villainy aimed at them at every turn and rail at even the most innocent racial slight or remark. In his view, they use this as an excuse to justify their own alleged personal failures. To Thomas this makes no sense since America is far less color consciousness and the barrier or far less rigid than they were during the legal segregation era.

The most interesting thing about Thomas’s racial diatribe is that he again proves that for someone who lives eats, sleeps, and endlessly professes racial color blindness, he’s more obsessive about race than just about anyone. The starting point for his race obsession is affirmative action. He talked about it endlessly in his autobiography My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir when he flatly called the notion that blacks are disadvantaged by race as “nonsense.”

He has mercilessly turned the issue into a one man vendetta to wipe out affirmative action programs at colleges and universities, in the workplace and in every case that comes before the court that even remotely touches on affirmative action. But even as Thomas spoke, wrote, and hammered affirmative action and by extension any talk or action on racial redress by courts, government agencies, corporations or universities he has shamelessly and hypocritically reaped the reward of playing both the racial adversary and racial victim.

Despite his mediocre political credentials and undistinguished academic record, Thomas rose from junior Senate aide to Supreme Court justice in less than a decade. Here's the parade of plum positions that he got: assistant secretary of Education for civil rights, chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), an appointment to the federal judiciary, and of course, Supreme Court judge. His quick rise up the political and legal ladder was all preceded by his race based admission to Yale Law School.

In his memoir, Thomas protests that he never actively sought these spots and pretends that he didn't want them because of his deep fear that he would be permanently tarred as an affirmative action hire. But no one twisted Thomas's arm or put a knife to his throat and demanded that he accept any of these positions including admission to Yale Law School. He had a mouth and he could have opened it and said no every time he was offered a professional leg up. He didn't. If Thomas had just taken the plums served up to him, and quietly melted into the woodwork with his titles, it would have been harmless enough. But he had a bigger agenda in mind, and that was to be an aggressive and relentless foe of the very affirmative action measures that he milked.

In well-prepped and orchestrated talks to ultra conservative groups, such as the one he gave at Palm Beach Atlantic University, Thomas makes it clear that he's on a mission to make sure law and public policy in America mirror his take on race. The capper is his occasional swipes his swipe at President Obama who he implies is in The White House because of his race.

Thomas will continue to pick away at race even while he craftily uses it to his advantage. Race has been his proven passport to top notch universities, plum political appointments, a seat on the high court, and solidifying his spot as the darling of ultra-conservative groups. All the while he is handsomely cashing in on his racial victim routine. Race has indeed been good to him, and he should be the last to whine about it.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is a frequent MSNBC contributor. He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the host of the weekly Hutchinson Report on KTYM 1460 AM Radio Los Angeles and KPFK-Radio and the Pacifica Network. Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson

Civil Rights Leaders and Alesia Thomas’s Grandmother Call for Tough Prosecution of LAPD Officer Charged in Thomas Death

2013-10-11T22:58:37.000Z

Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson, other civil rights leaders, and Mrs. Ada Moses, Alesia Thomas's 91 year old, grandmother, at a press conference at the home of Mrs. Moses on Friday, October 11 called for the tough prosecution of Los Angeles Police Officer Mary O'Callaghan charged in the death of Thomas in July, 2012. They also called for the release of the videotape of the deadly altercation to determine what of any culpability there is of the other LAPD officers at the scene during Ms. Thomas's arrest and the physical assault on her. Hutchinson and Mrs. Moses will continue to press for full disclosure of the events surrounding her death and punishment for other officers whose actions or inaction may have contributed to her death.

“The charging of O'Callaghan is an important first step toward securing a measure of justice in the horrific and unwarranted assault on Ms. Thomas," said Hutchinson, “But justice will not be fully served until there is full public disclosure of all the events surrounding the death of Ms. Thomas and what other officers may or may not have done."

"I and my other family members want to know the entire truth of how my granddaughter died," said Mrs. Moses,"There must be consequences for any officer that acted wrongly in her death."

Clarence Thomas: Affirmative Action’s Biggest Beneficiary and Biggest Hypocrite

2013-06-10T00:31:48.000Z

Earl Ofari Hutchinson

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to hand down yet another landmark decision on an affirmative action case. The case is the lawsuit by white student Abigail Noel Fisher against the University of Texas at Austin in which she claims that race was a primary reason she was rejected for admission. The justices will rule in the coming days on the use of race in college admissions.

Many legal experts and court watchers bet that the court will once and for all scrap the last vestiges of race as a factor in school admissions and by extension in employment. There is no bet, though, on how one judge will vote. That judge is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. His certain vote to uphold Fisher’s case and dump race into the dustbin of legal and social history is so sure it can almost be mailed in. Thomas loudly told the world what he thought of affirmative action six years ago in his memoir, My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir by Clarence Thomas. Here are his words.

Affirmative action (though it wasn't yet called that) had become a fact of like at American college and universities, and before long I realized that those blacks who benefited from it were being judged by a double standard.

The problem with my "adverse impact" analysis, of course, was that it was of no help to those black students who had already finished law school and now found themselves unable to pass the bar exam.

The problems faced by blacks in America would take quite some time to solve, and the responsibility for solving them would fall largely on black people themselves.

Most of the middle-class blacks with who I discussed these policies argued that all blacks were equally disadvantaged by virtue of their race alone. I thought that was nonsense.

Affirmative action (though it wasn't yet called that) had become a fact of life at American college and universities, and before long I realized that those blacks who benefited from it were being judged by a double standard.

When Thomas casts his inevitable vote to expunge affirmative action, the one question that will and should be eternally asked of him is how and why someone who has been the biggest beneficiary of affirmative action could be the biggest hypocrite in opposing it. First, there’s the reminder of how much he’s benefited.

Despite his mediocre political credentials and undistinguished academic record, Thomas rose from junior Senate aide to Supreme Court justice in less than a decade. Here’s the parade of plum positions that he got: assistant secretary of Education for civil rights, chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), an appointment to the federal judiciary, and of course, Supreme Court judge. His quick rise up the political and legal ladder was all preceded by his race based admission to Yale Law School.

In his memoir, Thomas protests that he never actively sought these spots and pretends that he didn’t want them because of his deep fear that he would be permanently tarred as an affirmative action hire. But no one twisted Thomas’s arm or put a knife to his throat and demanded that he accept any of these positions including admission to Yale Law School. He had a mouth and he could have opened it and said no every time he was offered a professional leg up. He didn’t. If Thomas had just taken the plums served up to him, and quietly melted into the woodwork with his titles, it would have been harmless enough. But he had a bigger agenda in mind, and that was to be an aggressive and relentless foe of the very affirmative action measures that he milked.

The Supreme Court post gave him the ideal power position to advance his agenda and do real damage. The pounding he took during his High Court confirmation fight in 1991 from civil rights, civil liberties and women’s groups, and the narrow Senate vote to confirm him stung deeply. Thomas didn't forget or forgive. In fact, when asked how long he'd stay on the court, he reportedly said that he'd stay there for the next 43 years of his life. He was 43 at the time. In a more revealing aside, he supposedly quipped to friends that it would take him that long to get even. Whether this was hyperbole or an apocryphal tale, it didn’t take him 43 years to wreak his revenge. He has been a one man wrecking crew on the court to expunge race from law and public policy decisions. However, this is not simply one man's personal bitterness over his alleged mistreatment by liberals and civil rights leaders. In well-prepped and orchestrated talks to ultra conservative groups, Thomas has pretty much made it clear that he’s on a mission to make sure law and public policy in America mirror his take on race. The capper was his swipe at President Obama in of all things implying that he was an affirmative action President.

This is heady stuff for the son of a sharecropper who has been the biggest beneficiary of affirmative action. And, then makes it his sworn life’s mission to be the biggest enemy of, or more accurately, its biggest hypocrite.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new ebook is America on Trial: The Slaying of Trayvon Martin (Amazon). He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the host of the weekly Hutchinson Report on KTYM 1460 AM Radio Los Angeles and KPFK-Radio and the Pacifica Network.

Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson

Thomas’s Race Hit on Obama No Surprise

2013-05-04T21:12:19.000Z

Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did the seemingly impossible. He turned from court mute to a hit man on President Obama. In an interview at Duquesne University Law School in April, Thomas snidely rapped Obama for being the darling of the “elites.” To Thomas that means liberals, progressives, intellectuals, and the supposedly hopelessly liberal media. Thomas punctuated his slam of Obama by plopping the race card in the indictment, saying that these “elites” embraced him because he was their kind of black man, presumably in distinction to Thomas. This was a play on the tired conservative charge that liberal whites are supposedly so guilt ridden on race that they’ll latch onto a black to salve their conscience.

This stunning turnabout for a jurist who brags and takes pride that he doesn’t say a word on the bench, and not much else in public is not really a surprise. Race has always lurked just below the surface in Thomas’s calculus. When the birther issue took flight for a hot minute a few years ago, Thomas was anything but silent. He took the almost unheard of step of reopening the issue by agreeing to put the matter to a conference vote of the judges. Thomas's ridiculous lone wolf effort to arm-twist the justices to examine the birth certificate issue made no sense to most legal experts.

But it fit perfectly in with his jaundiced interpretation of law and its practice and his private vow to get revenge on his liberal and especially black tormentors. Obama was the perfect target. When Obama was asked at a joint church gathering with Republican rival John McCain during the 2008 campaign which justice he wouldn't have nominated to the Supreme Court. He didn't hesitate. He named Thomas. And he told why.

"I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time, for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution."
Even if Obama hadn't ripped Thomas publicly he still would have been in his sights. This is where his “elites” synonym comes into play to knock Obama. He is the polar opposite of Thomas. He's a moderate Democrat, a former civil rights attorney, and community organizer. He backs expanded government, affirmative action, abortion rights, a severely restricted use of the death penalty, and to the absolute horror of Thomas and hard line conservatives, he backs a broader interpretation of legal precepts.

Obama almost certainly would have joined the swollen chorus of civil rights and civil liberties groups that pounded Thomas during his High Court confirmation fight in 1991 for his anti-affirmative action, anti-abortion, and anti-prisoner rights views. The Senate confirmed him by the narrowest vote of any high court judge in recent confirmation history. The rebuke stung deeply, and Thomas didn't forget or forgive. In an American Enterprise Institute lecture in 2001, he wrapped himself in the martyr's garment and said that he expected to be treated badly for challenging liberal opinion.
When asked how long he'd stay on the court, he reportedly said that he'd stay there for next 43 years of his life. He was 43 at the time. In a more revealing aside, he supposedly quipped to friends that it would take him that long to get even. Whether this was hyperbole or an apocryphal tale, it hasn't taken him 43 years to wreak his revenge.

Thomas has been a one man wrecking crew to expunge race from law and public policy decisions. But this is not simply one man's personal bitterness over his alleged mistreatment by liberals and civil rights leaders. Nor is it a case of Thomas digging his heels in to push his retrograde view on legal matters. He wants more judges to think and act like him on the bench. Obama has made it clear not only that he would not appoint another Thomas to the High Court but that the type of judges he'd appoint will be the diametric opposite of him. There's a good chance that he will have that chance, maybe two possibly three chances.

The court's liberals, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, John Paul Stevens, and Stephen Breyer, and the moderate to conservative Anthony Kennedy are in their seventies. Obama will likely pick likeminded judicially philosophical judges to replace one or more of them. This will decisively thwart Thomas and the conservative's on the court's counter revolution. A win by failed GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney would have insured that there have been even more justices who would likely see eye to eye with Thomas on abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, prisoner rights, and Bush's war on terrorism orders.

Thomas’s sudden discovery of his voice on Obama and the tie in to race was a salvo and a warning that Thomas will play dirty whenever he can on race to thwart and hector Obama. His hit on Obama wasn’t the first and it won’t be the last.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new ebook is How the NRA Terrorizes Congress—The NRA’s Subversion of the Gun Control Debate (Amazon). He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the host of the weekly Hutchinson Report on KTYM 1460 AM Radio Los Angeles and KPFK-Radio and the Pacifica Network.

Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson

It’s Not About Thomas Perez, It’s Again About President Obama

2013-04-28T14:00:00.000Z

Earl Ofari Hutchinson

The GOP’s whiplash of President Obama’s Labor Secretary pick, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez, is not about his alleged over the top activist cheerlead of labor, civil rights, and voting rights, or any supposed improprieties in his involvement with a housing case in St. Paul, Minnesota a few years ago. It’s about Obama.

Change the name from Perez to Attorney General Eric Holder or UN Ambassador Susan Rice or Chuck Hagel, and one sees that the playbook the GOP is using again to slur Obama is identical. The GOP picks what it considers the most vulnerable Obama nominee, then pecks away at a peripheral issue to malign the nominee, and then threatens to delay or block the nomination in either hearings before a Senate Committee, or on the Senate floor. All the while, it churns out the most ridiculous and scurrilous snippets of gossip, rumor, half-baked charges to poison the air and cast public doubts about the nominee, and by extension Obama. The tactic worked with Rice and failed with Holder and Hagel. But in each case, it served its purpose namely to replant the seed that Obama’s picks are tainted, incompetent, or political cronies.

Perez is even more of an inviting target. He has impeccable civil rights, labor and progressive credentials. He has turned the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division that he heads into an efficient, watchdog agency that zealously guards and extends civil rights and labor protections. GOP conservatives detest that. In the St. Paul case that the GOP has latched on to make the most mischief, Perez’s alleged political sin is that he cut a deal with St. Paul officials behind the back of the courts to stop a civil rights lawsuit over housing discrimination from heading to the court supposedly because it would endanger the 1968 Fair Housing Act. In other words, Perez violated both ethics and the law. He did neither. The facts have been well established. The deal was cut at the urging of St. Paul officials, not Perez. And before he put the Justice Department’s stamp on it, he followed protocol to the letter and consulted with ethics enforcement officials, the Professional Advisory Office, and officials within the civil rights division that enforce the False Claims Act to determine whether the deal passed ethics muster.

This is hardly the picture of a civil rights activist run amok, and riding roughshod over the law. But the facts mean little when the issue is not an official’s competence or integrity but embarrassing a president. On this point, the GOP has even taken its flail at Perez a step further than it did at Holder or Hagel. It has threatened to bring in a whistleblower to testify who supposedly has smoking gun evidence that will prove that Perez engaged in unethical horse trading in cutting the St. Paul deal. The whistleblower is one of the litigants in a related case. This forced Democrats to delay the vote on him in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee which has held the hearings on Perez’s nomination. Barring the delay, the GOP would have tried to blow whatever the whistleblower had to say about Perez into practically a federal criminal indictment.

The assault on Obama through Perez is the primary motive for hammering Perez. But there’s more collateral benefit in the GOP calculus. And that’s to chill any aggressive action by a Perez run Labor Department on expanding labor protections and the GOP’s push to gut the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The labor attack fits in neatly with the ongoing GOP assault in states against public employee unions. Perez is clearly seen as the one Obama official that would be most likely to take the firmest line on pushing and protecting pension security, enforcement of wage and hour laws, job safety and equal opportunity in the workplace and especially and on card check legislation. This would virtually eliminate secret-ballot elections commonly used in workplace representation contests.

Perez’s staunch commitment to battling discrimination through aggressive enforcement of the voting rights laws poses a major threat to the GOP’s push to undermine the Voting Rights Act with a slew of voter ID laws and restrictions, topped by the lawsuit before the Supreme Court to scrub the Act. This is their last gasp maneuver to halt the momentum in the upsurge in black and Latino voters in what once were safe GOP leaning districts and states. In 2008 and 2012, these new voters made a huge difference in Obama’s election and reelection victories, and in insuring Democrat gains in many state elections. The full enforcement of the Voting Rights Act is the best safeguard of those gains. This is the exact thing that the GOP doesn’t want. Perez like Holder and Hagel will ultimately be confirmed. But the GOP’s aim is again to send the strong message that it is a potent force to check and sabotage Obama and his appointees. The issue again is not Perez, but Obama.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the author of How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge. He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is host of the weekly Hutchinson Report Newsmaker Hour on KTYM Radio Los Angeles streamed on ktym.com podcast on blogtalkradio.com and on thehutchinsonreportnews.com

Romney Poses Greatest Danger to the Supreme Court

2012-08-30T21:39:51.000Z

Earl Ofari Hutchinson

GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney recently publicly mused about who his likely cabinet picks would be if elected. But conveniently he was tight lipped about the one institution which his administration would have the greatest impact—and damage—on, namely the Supreme Court. There are three numbers that tell the colossal danger that a would be President Romney poses to the Supreme Court. The numbers are the ages of the three justices. Justice Anthony Kennedy is 76. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79. Justice Stephen Breyer is 74. Ginsburg and Breyer have been the most consistent and dependable justices to protect and defend civil liberties, civil rights, and economic fairness on the court.

Kennedy is conservative, but not an ideologue. He has at crucial times been the moderating swing vote during his term on the court. Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer were not appointed by President Obama. But given the ages of the justices, and the past health issues of Ginsburg, if reelected if any one or more of the three justices step down, he will pick their replacement. His picks almost certainly will be justices who will be moderates that are fully protective of civil rights, civil liberties, and economic fairness.

The justices that Romney will pick will be the exact opposite. This is not speculation. Romney flatly said that the judge that he longed to have on the current court is Robert Bork. Bork’s rabid, fringe, and at times borderline zany views and interpretation of judicial and constitutional law were so repulsive that his nomination to the court by President Reagan in 1987 was virtually DOA during the confirmation hearings.

That made Bork even more appealing to Romney. He has hired Bork to tell him who he should pick to replace Ginsburg, Breyer or Kennedy if they retire. The fine balance that Kennedy and in his pro Obama administration ruling on the health care reform law that Chief Justice John Roberts momentarily brought back to court will be instantly obliterated. While the court has gotten some applause for moderate rulings on the Affordable Care Act, and scrapping draconian sentences for juvenile offenders that did not type the court as moderate, and even handed on the crucial issues involving rights and liberties. In the first five years under the watch of Roberts, the court issued conservative decisions in nearly 60 percent of the cases. In the term that ended the year after Obama took office in 2009, the percentage of conservative decisions shot up to 65 percent. This is the largest number of overt conservative political decisions in over a half century.

The intense fire that Roberts drew from Romney and conservatives for casting the swing vote to uphold the ACA was a stern warning that justices are expected to tow a rigid, conservative line on the court. And any deviation from that will not be tolerated. This message was for Roberts. Romney punctuated it by taking a big swipe at Roberts saying that he would not nominate someone to the court that would likely rule on an issue that ran counter to Romney’s position and views.

Bork would have no fear that as a justice he would ever be out of lock step with Romney on the compelling issues. A Bork ideologically cloned judge on the High Court would believe that the assault on racial discrimination poses a “dilemma.” He or she would rail against the politics of sex, calling it a radical feminist's assault on American culture.” He or she would be apoplectic that the Supreme Court is an agent of modern liberalism. He or she would see trouble in religion in not upholding school prayer in public schools. He or she would make a strong case for censorship even to the point of loudly proclaiming that America's only hope is "perhaps in administering censorship of the vilest aspects of our popular culture. He or she would enthusiastically agree that once homosexuality is defined as a constitutional right, there is nothing the states can do about it, nothing the people can do about it. These are all direct quotes from Bork’s talks and writings.

As a GOP Massachusetts governor in a rock solid Democratic state, Romney walked a thin tightrope. He had almost no chance of packing the benches in the state with his brand of tough, strict constructionist judges. His picks were relatively moderate and diverse. But Romney gave two strong hints that that would not be the case with the Supreme Court when he had unchecked authority to appoint whom he really wanted to the bench. He bluntly said that his pick for a spot on the Massachusetts Supreme Court would be a judge who had a “strict constructionist, judicial philosophy.” The second hint was his appointment of Christopher Moore, an arch conservative, to chair his handpicked Judicial Nominating Commission. Moore’s job was to try and damp down the number of presumed liberal activist judges on Massachusetts state courts.

As President, Romney would have free rein to do just that. With Bork’s help he poses the greatest danger to the Supreme Court.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is a frequent political commentator on MSNBC and a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the author of How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge. He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is the host of the weekly Hutchinson Report on KPFK-Radio and the Pacifica Network.

Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson

If Clarence Thomas Was Not Justice Thomas He’d Likely be Behind Bars

2011-11-21T00:05:11.000Z

Earl Ofari Hutchinson

If Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was not Justice Thomas but an ordinary Thomas he’d be behind bars. He is the ultra-conservative’s equivalent of the Mafia “Made Man.” The tag confers untouchableness on the bearer. Thomas wears the tag for his rock solid ultra conservative views, his showcase value to cover GOP and Tea Party bigotry, and most importantly his knee jerk vote on the High Court against civil rights, civil liberties protections and to expand corporate power. A cursory checklist of Thomas’s financial manipulations, abuse, and duplicity, and outright illegality complete with the legal statues and codes that he’s violated confirm his made man tag, meaning hands off from investigators and prosecutors.

Thomas has received cash, gifts, and foundation donations totaling more than $2 million during the past decade. Since 2004 he has declared none of his largesse to the IRS.

The gifts are improper, could constitute or be perceived as bribes, and may violate

the honest services statute, 18 USC 1346. These gifts could also be considered taxable income and his failure to report them would constitute a clear violation of the tax code.

Thomas' wife, Ginni's big paydays from assorted right wing foundations and think tanks have been well-documented. Thomas did not disclose her earnings initially. He refused to acknowledge her involvement with Liberty Central, her political lobbying group. Thomas at fist claimed ignorance about the filing requirement, and after savage media exposure amended the forms.

Thomas was not ignorant of the requirement to disclose spousal income as he initially claimed. When he chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, he dutifully filed his financial disclosure forms and that included his wife's employment from 1987 to 1997. He continued to disclose income as a federal appeals court judge and for his first few years on the Supreme Court. Thomas also stated that his wife had no non-investment income. This was a falsehood. It was not a memory or ignorance of the law lapse. By failing to file, Thomas violated the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 that requires all federal judges to file yearly financial disclosure forms including sources of income from their spouses. Making false statements on the forms can be prosecuted as a felony under the federal false statements statute, 18 USC 1001 -- knowingly making false statements of material fact to a federal agency. In 2007, Congress increased the civil and criminal penalties for false income statement filings.

Then there’s the issue of conflict of interest. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010 that Thomas backed conferred “personhood” on corporations and allows them to ladle out any amount they want with virtually no reporting requirements directly to candidates and campaigns. Thomas did not disclose that the rightwing Citizens United Foundation, the driving force behind the case, spent as much as $100,000 on commercials that lambasted those senators that opposed his High Court nomination in 1991. Thomas ignored calls for him to recuse himself from the case.

Then there is the strong hint that Thomas perjured himself in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his court confirmation hearings in 1991 and that he compounded that by lying under oath to Congress during the hearings.

Thomas was asked directly by Utah senator Orrin Hatch during his confirmation hearings about Anita Hill's allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct and whether he used sexually suggestive language. Thomas answered: "I deny each and every single allegation against me today that suggested in any way that I had conversations of a sexual nature or about pornographic material with Anita Hill, that I ever attempted to date her, that I ever had any personal sexual interest in her, or that I in any way ever harassed her."

Thomas was emphatic, "If I used that kind of grotesque language with one person, it would seem to me that there would be traces of it throughout the employees who worked closely with me, or the other individuals who heard bits and pieces of it or various levels of it." This was stated under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thomas' sworn testimony was clearly contradicted even then in public statements by witnesses. The witnesses were not called to testify.

In 2010, Thomas' apparent perjured testimony to Congress was back on the legal table when another Thomas intimate confirmed that he engaged in sexual harassment, was addicted to pornography, and talked incessantly and graphically about it and women.

It's also clearly established that a public official -- whether the president, presidential appointees or judges -- can be punished for giving false information (and that's any false information of any nature) to the House or Senate.

A legion of House Democrats has again demanded that Thomas be investigated by variously the Justice Department and the Judicial Conference. The strong suspicion is that there may even be more dubious ethics and legal violations that Thomas may have committed in the nearly three decades that he has been a public official. That makes it even more imperative that Thomas be put on the investigative hot seat. But if Thomas weren’t Justice Thomas that would have long since been done, and he’d likely be in jail.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the author of How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge. He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is host of the weekly Hutchinson Report Newsmaker Hour on KTYM Radio Los Angeles streamed on ktym.com podcast on blogtalkradio.com and on thehutchinsonreportnews.com
Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson