~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From LA Times

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Salahis incident again raises blacks' fears for Obama's life

'There is a sense of dread always in the African American community about this president,' a lawmaker says. The Secret Service says threats against Obama are at the same level as for Bush and Clinton.

by Kathleen Hennessey

December 6, 2009

Reporting from Washington

Last week's congressional hearing over the security mistakes that allowed a publicity-hungry Virginia couple into a White House dinner has put a spotlight on persistent fears among African Americans for President Obama's safety.

"The African American community is watching this president like a hawk," Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said after sitting through the House Homeland Security Committee hearing. "We've lost the great nonviolent heroes of the 20th century, and there is a sense of dread always in the African American community about this president."

That was a subtext at the hearing called by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the first black chairman of the committee. No one brought up directly how Obama's distinction as the nation's first black president could make him a bigger target. But Thompson acknowledged that he'd sensed a particular concern among African Americans. He warned against trivializing the action of Michaele and Tareq Salahi, reality TV hopefuls.

"This hearing is not about crashing a party at the White House. Neither is it about wannabe celebrities or reality television. On the contrary, this hearing is about real-world threats to the nation," Thompson said in his opening remarks .

Fears over Obama's safety came to the fore during the campaign, when polling showed that blacks were more likely to be concerned that someone might try to harm him. Some blacks talked openly about not voting for Obama out of fear for his life. He was put under Secret Service protection earlier than any presidential candidate in history.

At the time, Thompson issued a plea for vigilance in a letter to then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

"As an African American who was witness to some of the nation's most shameful days during the civil rights movement, I know personally that the hatred of some of our fellow citizens can lead to heinous act of violence," he wrote. "We need only to look at the assassinations of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and 1968 presidential candidate Robert Kennedy as examples."

The gate-crashing affair shows that such fears have followed Obama into the White House, even though Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan seemed to suggest last week that they were unfounded.

Reports of security lapses at the inauguration, images of armed protesters at healthcare town halls and reports of rising threats against the president have only heightened anxiety, said Joe Madison, known as the Black Eagle on his national talk-radio show.

For most of last week, Madison took calls on the White House party incident. He said callers were overwhelmingly critical of the president's security and wanted the agents who let in the Salahis to be fired.

"The fact is that people are very concerned that the Secret Service has been lax and that they've put the first African American president in harm's way," he said.

Charles Henry, a professor of African American studies at UC Berkeley, said he saw a strong "sense of ownership" toward the president in the attitudes of many blacks.

"There's a protective instinct there," he said.

At Thursday's hearing, Sullivan tried to reassure lawmakers, emphasizing that the Salahis had gone through the proper security checks, even though their names were not on the guest list.

He said that a review of the inaugural security found that reports of lapses were unfounded and that the number of threats against the president had not increased.

"The threats right now and the inappropriate interest that we are seeing," Sullivan said, "is the same level as it has been for the previous two presidents at this point in."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-gate-crashers6-2009dec06,0,3910474,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Washington Times

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Shootouts in Mexico kill 13 after raid

by Catherine E. Shoichet

ASSOCIATED PRESS

MEXICO CITY | A pair of shootouts between troops and gunmen in northern Mexico have killed 13 people, including a bystander and a suspected drug trafficker linked to the killing of a retired army officer.

Navy spokesman Adm. Jose Luis Vergara said troops were searching a villa Friday in a suburb of Monterrey named Juarez when they were ambushed by a group of heavily armed men. Eight gunmen were killed and nine more were arrested in the initial shootout, he said.

Television images showed a garden littered with bloodied corpses. Several handcuffed men sat on the ground with shirts pulled over their heads and a line of automatic rifles nearby.

Adm. Vergara said soldiers had gone to the villa to check an intelligence report that suspected drug trafficker Ricardo Almanza Morales was there. He said one soldier was wounded and is in stable condition.

Mr. Almanza Morales, killed in the attack, was accused of working for the Zetas, drug traffickers who also serve as enforcers for the Mexican Gulf cartel, and of killing army Brig. Gen. Juan Arturo Esparza and his four bodyguards in a November attack.

Gen. Esparza was killed shortly after he was named police chief in the Monterrey suburb of Garcia. Five Garcia police officers were among 10 people arrested in Gen. Esparza's killing.

Nuevo Leon state Attorney General Alejandro Garza y Garza said in Monterrey that a second shootout that left five people dead ensued when gunmen in at least 10 SUVs heading to the villa, presumably to rescue those detained, ran into a military convoy.

During that shootout, one of the gunmen's cars burst into flames. Three people inside died, Mr. Garza y Garza said. Television images showed three charred bodies, two of them with their hands tied behind their backs.

Mr. Garza y Garza said the driver was a drug trafficker and the other two apparently were drug dealers who had been kidnapped. A fourth body was found about 165 feet from the burning vehicle. A woman who was driving near the shootout was killed by a stray bullet, and two other bystanders were wounded, he said.

Seven people were arrested during the second clash, Mr. Garza y Garza said.

Hours after the shootouts, gunmen suspected of working for the Zetas attacked a detention center in the Monterrey suburb of Escobedo, killing two federal police officers guarding it and freeing 23 inmates, he said.

Confrontations between soldiers and drug traffickers have grown more frequent in Monterrey, Mexico's wealthiest city, as troops fight drug dealers and corrupt police officers helping drug cartels.

Drug-fueled violence has cost more than 14,000 lives across Mexico since President Felipe Calderon sent troops to crackdown on cartels in late 2006.

Also Friday, all eight government officials, including the mayor of the town of Tancitaro, in Michoacan state, resigned their posts, claiming they have been threatened by drug traffickers, and none of the local police officers showed up to work.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/06/shootouts-in-mexico-kill-13-after-drug-raid//print/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Could it be that President Obama's legal team is imploding due to a voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party? So many new developments regarding the Black Panther case occurred in the latter half of last week that it is hard keeping up with them all. But none of them look good for the Obama administration or for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s Justice Department.

The case involves paramilitary-garbed Panthers caught on videotape (which was backed by copious testimony) engaged in what observers say were intimidating and racially charged activities outside a Philadelphia polling booth on presidential Election Day in 2008. Even though a judge was ready to enter a default judgment against the Black Panthers, based on a case brought by career attorneys at the Justice Department, the Obama administration suddenly decided last spring to drop three of the four cases and punish the final one with an incredibly weak injunction.

Controversy, accompanied by continued administration stonewalling, has ensued ever since.

The new developments last week were as follows:

First, a Web site called "Main Justice" reported on Wednesday (and we have since confirmed) that the Justice Department has, for now, ordered two key career attorneys not to comply with a subpoena about the case issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The commission, by law, has explicit power to issue subpoenas, and the law mandates that "all federal agencies shall cooperate fully with the commission." The Justice Department, however, is citing internal regulations stemming from a 1951 case to support its order to ignore the subpoena.

One of the attorneys, J. Christian Adams, has been advised by his personal attorney, former South Carolina Secretary of State Jim Miles, that failure to comply with the subpoena could put him at risk of prosecution. "I can't imagine," Mr. Miles told The Washington Times, "that a statute that gives rise to the power of a subpoena would be subjugated to some internal procedural personnel rule being promulgated by DoJ." In short, the department is stiffing the commission and unfairly putting its own employee in a legal bind.

Second, that same day, the two Republican House members with top-ranking jurisdiction over the Justice Department, Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, issued a joint statement calling Justice Department delays "a cover-up," and "a pretense to ignore inquiries from Congress and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights." At a hearing on Thursday, Mr. Smith said that "continued silence by the Justice Department is an implied admission of guilt that the case was dropped for purely political reasons."

Third, at the same hearing, Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, accused Justice Department Civil Rights Division chief Thomas Perez of not being "truthful" while under oath, to such an extent that "there are people who have gone to jail" for such a level of purported "dishonest[y]."

The disputed statement, from what appeared to be prepared remarks by Mr. Perez that he later repeated insistently, was that "the maximum penalty was sought and obtained" against the one Black Panther for whom the charges were not entirely dropped. The bizarrely weak penalty consisted of a mere injunction for the Black Panther not to brandish a weapon near a polling place, within Philadelphia, through Nov. 15, 2012. In short, he is prohibited, only within Philadelphia and only for four years, from doing something that is illegal anyway.

Such a slap on the wrist is far from the "maximum penalty" allowable for such voter intimidation. Most directly, the injunction could be far broader, not just limited to Philadelphia for four years. Also, harsher penalties than mere injunctions could conceivably be available. If the Justice Department sought a criminal indictment, for instance, Title 18, Section 245 of the U.S. Code provides that those found guilty of voter intimidation "shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

As all of this was going on, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, the No. 2 man in the whole department, was announcing that very morning that he will resign after less than 10 months in office. Mr. Ogden - whose possible involvement in the Black Panther case had been specifically mentioned in the Civil Rights Commission's subpoena - became the third high-ranking Obama legal official to announce a resignation in the last month. He was preceded by White House counsel Gregory Craig and deputy White House counsel Cassandra Butts.

"Holder and them have done a terrible job on this," Mr. Wolf told The Washington Times. "This has just been handled so poorly.... You can't hide these things. There is something wrong here. There is something very wrong. When it all comes out, I think it will be very bad."

The congressman is probably right.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/06/justice-thwarts-black-panther-subpoenas//print/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Parade Magazine

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

December 06, 2009

Does the Government Owe You Money?

The U.S. Treasury owes Americans nearly $17 billion in unredeemed Series E savings bonds. Sold from 1941 until 1980, the bonds were marketed initially as a way to show patriotism during World War II and later as a safe way to invest. But many people have lost or forgotten about bonds purchased generations ago. Now, some lawmakers and government officials are trying to help citizens get their money back.

Shane Osborn, Nebraska state treasurer and president of the National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators, says the Treasury has done nothing to find the owners of these orphaned bonds and that states should be allowed to help citizens claim their money. “We'd like to see records digitized into a searchable database so the states' unclaimed-property offices can go in and seek people out,” he explains. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) has introduced a bill that would let states access Treasury records and provide funds to help track down bondholders.

To see whether you own a Series E bond purchased after 1973, visit treasurydirect.gov and type your Social Security number into the Treasury Hunt function.

If you think you might own a bond issued before 1974, confirmation is a lot more difficult. Records linking older bonds with their owners are maintained on microfilm, which can only be searched manually by Bureau of Public Debt personnel.

Mckayla Braden, a spokesperson for the bureau, says researchers will conduct records searches for anyone who asks. Information like names, addresses, dates of purchase, and Social Security numbers can lead to successful claims, but the process is slow and hardly foolproof.

“We want people to cash in their bonds,” Braden says. “The problem is that people die and leave the bonds in books, in holes in basement walls, in the attic. Nobody knows they exist.”

http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/091206-does-the-government-owe-you-money.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.