By Maura Dolan and Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times

August 4, 2010

Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles

A federal judge declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional Wednesday, saying that no legitimate state interest justified treating gay and lesbian couples differently from others and that "moral disapproval" was not enough to save the voter-passed Proposition 8.

California "has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions," U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said in his 136-page ruling .

The ruling was the first in the country to strike down a marriage ban on federal constitutional grounds . Previous cases have cited state constitutions.

Lawyers on both sides expect the ruling to be appealed and ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court during the next few years.

It is unclear whether California will conduct any same-sex weddings during that time. Walker stayed his ruling at least until Friday, when he will hold another hearing.

In striking down Proposition 8, Walker said the ban violated the federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and of due process.

Previous court decisions have established that the ability to marry is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to people without a compelling rationale, Walker said. Proposition 8 violated that right and discriminated on the basis of both sex and sexual orientation in violation of the equal protection clause, he ruled.

The jurist, a Republican appointee who is gay, cited extensive evidence from the trial to support his finding that there was not a rational basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage. In particular, he rejected the argument advanced by supporters of Proposition 8 that children of opposite-sex couples fare better than children of same-sex couples, saying that expert testimony in the trial provided no support for that argument.

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote.

Andy Pugno, a lawyer for the backers of the ballot measure, said he believed Walker would be overturned on appeal.

Walker's "invalidation of the votes of over 7 million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process," Pugno said.

He called it "disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop. 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop. 8."

At least some legal experts said his lengthy recitation of the testimony could bolster his ruling during the appeals to come. Higher courts generally defer to trial judges' rulings on factual questions that stem from a trial, although they still could determine that he was wrong on the law.

John Eastman, a conservative scholar who supported Proposition 8, said Walker's analysis and detailed references to trial evidence were likely to persuade U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a swing vote on the high court, to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.

"I think Justice Kennedy is going to side with Judge Walker," said the former dean of Chapman University law school.

Barry McDonald, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, said Walker's findings that homosexuality is a biological status instead of a voluntary choice, that children don't suffer harm when raised by same-sex couples and that Proposition 8 was based primarily on irrational fear of homosexuality "are going to make it more difficult for appellate courts to overturn this court's ruling."

Edward E. (Ned) Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, said he believed the judge's ruling was both legally and morally wrong.

"All public law and public policy is developed from some moral perspective, the morality that society judges is important," he said. To say that society shouldn't base its laws on moral views is "hard to even comprehend," he said.

In his decision, Walker said the evidence showed that "domestic partnerships exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from marriage" and that marriage is "culturally superior."

He called the exclusion of same-couples from marriage "an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and marriage."

"That time has passed," he wrote.

Although sexual orientation deserves the constitutional protection given to race and gender, Proposition 8 would be unconstitutional even if gays and lesbians were afforded a lesser status, Walker said. His ruling stressed that there was no rational justification for banning gays from marriage.

To win a permanent stay pending appeal, Proposition 8 proponents must show that they are likely to prevail in the long run and that there would be irreparable harm if the ban is not enforced.

Lawyers for the two couples who challenged Proposition 8 said they were confident that higher courts would uphold Walker's ruling.

"We will fight hard so that the constitutional rights vindicated by the 138-page, very careful, thoughtful, analytical opinion by this judge will be brought into fruition as soon as possible," pledged Ted Olson, one of the lawyers in the case.

Other gay rights lawyers predicted that the ruling would change the tenor of the legal debate in the courts.

"This is a tour de force — a grand slam on every count," said Shannon Price Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "This is without a doubt a game-changing ruling."

Wednesday's ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed last year by two homosexual couples who argued that the marriage ban violates their federal constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.

The suit was the brainchild of a gay political strategist in Los Angeles who formed a nonprofit to finance the litigation.

The group hired two legal luminaries from opposite sides of the political spectrum to try to overturn the ballot measure. Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, a conservative icon, signed on with litigator David Boies, a liberal who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gave George W. Bush the presidency in 2000.

Gay-rights groups had opposed the lawsuit, fearful that the U.S. Supreme Court might rule against marriage rights and create a precedent that could take decades to overturn.

But after the suit was filed, gay rights lawyers flocked to support it, filing friend-of-court arguments on why Proposition 8 should be overturned.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown refused to defend the marriage ban, leaving the sponsors of the initiative to fill the vacuum. They hired a team of lawyers experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

Proposition 8 passed with a 52.3% vote six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

At trial, the opponents of Prop. 8 presented witnesses who cited studies that showed children reared from birth by gay and lesbian couples do as well as children born into opposite-sex families. They also testified that the clamor for marriage in the gay community had given the institution of marriage greater esteem.

The trial appeared to be a lopsided show for the challengers, who called 16 witnesses, including researchers from the nation's top universities, and presented tearful testimony from gays and lesbians about why marriage mattered to them.

The backers of Proposition 8 called only two witnesses, and both made concessions under cross-examination that helped the other side.

The sponsors complained that Walker's pretrial rulings had been unfair and that some of their prospective witnesses decided not to testify out of fear for their safety.

When Walker ruled that he would broadcast portions of the trial on the Internet, Proposition 8 proponents fought him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won a 5-4 ruling barring cameras in the courtroom.

The trial nevertheless was widely covered, with some groups doing minute-by-minute blogging. Law professors brought their students to watch the top-notch legal theater.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage-california-20100805,0,1623650,print.story

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

The kidnapping by a drug gang of four reporters has highlighted the dangers journalists face every day in Mexico. Since the start of President Felipe Calderon's assault on drug-trafficking cartels in December 2006, at least 30 journalists in Mexico have been killed or have disappeared, and numerous offices of news organizations have been attacked with bombs and gunfire.

Self-censorship is rampant across the country and cases rarely result in arrests or prosecutions, reports the Committee to Protect Journalists . "Journalists are terrified," Carlos Lauria, a CPJ coordinator, said during a recent interview on Fox News.

Attacks against the press are steady. On July 1, the CPJ reported that two journalists, a husband and wife, were killed in Guerrero state. On July 6, a newspaper owner and editor was found dead  in the state of Michoacan.

Cartels are increasingly more brazen as they seek to control and intimidate the press in regions where they operate. The recent kidnappings, which occurred in Durango state, were said to have been carried out by a group tied to the Sinaloa cartel, led by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman.

The cartel wished to pressure the journalists' employers to transmit information damaging to a rival group, the Zetas, and local news organizations complied with the Sinaloa cartel's request. Two of the journalists were rescued  by federal police and two others released.

The issue is trickling further into the U.S. and international press. The Times' Ken Ellingwood reported  earlier this year how an upsurge of cartel violence silenced newspapers in Nuevo Laredo on Mexico's border with Texas, an outcome repeated to this day in many other parts of the country. "We can't publish anything," one newspaper executive told Ellingwood. 

Meanwhile, media advocacy organizations are calling for a demonstration Saturday at the Angel of Independence monument in Mexico City to push for more protections for news gatherers (links in Spanish).

An effort is also underway to lobby for a law that would ensure journalists' rights in Mexico as the drug war wages on, claiming at least 28,000 lives so far.

In a recent column in the daily El Universal headlined " Journalists, what are we going to do? ," veteran reporter Ricardo Aleman alludes to the historically wrought nature of his profession in Mexico (link in Spanish). For decades, the press operated under the pressure and watch of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which led Mexico as a one-party state for more than 70 years. Now, it appears, journalists are under the eye of the drug cartels.

Aleman writes: "But more than the cowardice of the crime barons and the rabid social hatred against journalists, what frightens, alarms, and outrages me most, and is most intolerable, is the apathy of journalists themselves before what is the greatest crisis that we've lived since the days of the 'single party' and the 'sold-out press.' "

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2010/08/journalists-mexico-rescued.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LaPlaza+%28La+Plaza%29

COLD COPY

August 2, 2010

A federal judge last week imposed a preliminary injunction on Arizona's SB 1070, preventing much of the immigration law from going into effect. The battle over SB 1070 echoes a similar fight in California following voter approval of Proposition 187 in 1994. Like SB 1070, the fate of Proposition 187 was handed over to federal courts, which blocked most elements of the law from taking effect. Below is a Times editorial written shortly after a U.S. district judge declared much of Proposition 187 unconstitutional.
.

Ruling on Prop. 187: Court Did What Had to Be Done Illegal immigration is wrong--but only Washington can tackle it November 22, 1995 While the decision will no doubt be unpopular with the many Californians who voted for Proposition 187 last year, U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer made the right call in ruling that most elements of the initiative are unconstitutional. She put the responsibility for immigration reform where it always has rightly belonged--with the federal government. States cannot assume the authority to regulate immigration, Pfaelzer concluded. That is a function of the federal government, according to both the Constitution and numerous judicial precedents. The ruling threw out major portions of the initiative. It also saved California the cost of a long and expensive trial on the complex legal issues raised by the measure. However, the ruling wisely left in place a few sections on which there was almost universal agreement, notably tougher penalties against criminals who counterfeit identity documents and people who use them. HEALTH AND SCHOOL ISSUES: Proposition 187 sought to deny basic health care to illegal immigrants regardless of the seriousness of their illnesses or the public danger involved. Pfaelzer ruled that the state cannot bar illegal immigrants from health care and social welfare services that are federally funded and to which they are entitled under federal law. Another provision of 187 called for throwing out of school the children of illegal immigrants. Pfaelzer correctly pointed out that public education of even illegal immigrant children is specifically protected by a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Plyler vs. Doe. Regarding what is perhaps the most morally troublesome part of 187, Pfaelzer declared it unlawful to demand that teachers and administrators snitch on immigrant families. The provision required educators to question children on their parents' immigration status and report the findings to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Even if the children had been born in the United States and thus were U.S. citizens with all the legal protections enjoyed by Americans, the teachers would have been required to deny them an education if their parents did not have legal status. It was easily the most shortsighted and mean-spirited provision in an initiative that even its supporters acknowledged was a hodgepodge. Pfaelzer's ruling in no way means the issue of illegal immigration and its impact on California has been resolved. The state attorney general's office has already indicated it will appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If the appellate court supports Pfaelzer, the state and citizen's groups backing the proposition probably will appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. This undoubtedly would delay enforcement of 187 for years. VOTERS' FRUSTRATION WAS REAL: It is easy to understand the frustration of voters who felt their lives had been adversely affected by the large number of immigrants in the state. Although immigrants have had a beneficial impact on some segments of the state's economy, there have been costs too. No one can deny that already burdened and ill-equipped public schools are facing enormous difficulties in trying to educate children who do not speak English. Likewise, public health facilities such as the Los Angeles County clinics are experiencing great strain because of the influx of newcomers. Californians who voted for 187 at least can take satisfaction from having sent a message to Washington. Even as the fate of Proposition 187 was being weighed by the court, Congress began to debate immigration reform once again. Both the House and Senate are considering legislation that could diminish the flow of illegal immigration to California and tighten the conditions even for legal immigration. A CYCLICAL PROBLEM: Let's face it: If Washington had reacted to the legitimate concerns of California, Texas, Florida and New York--the states that have had to absorb the majority of illegal immigrants--the reactionary Proposition 187 might never have taken flight. Capitol Hill is where the immigration debate should have occurred in the first place. Congress tried in 1986, but it failed to fully understand the cyclical nature of immigration. Economic opportunities in the Third World have continued to diminish, spurring an exodus from poor nations. Now that Congress has taken up this difficult issue again, perhaps the tenor of the immigration debate in California will cool and reconciliation can begin. In putting the focus of the debate where it belongs, Pfaelzer's thoughtful and courageous ruling has done California a huge favor.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-prop187-editorial-cc,0,5754925,print.htmlstory

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

From the New York Times

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

Lawyers Win Right to Aid U.S. Target

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department on Wednesday granted permission to a group of human rights lawyers who want to file a lawsuit on behalf of a radical Muslim cleric thought to be hiding in Yemen. The Obama administration has authorized killing the cleric as a terrorist despite his American citizenship.

The department approved a license to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights to challenge the targeting of the man, Anwar al-Awlaki , who was born in New Mexico and is accused of having ties to Al Qaeda .

Last month, Mr. Awlaki's father retained the two groups to bring a lawsuit seeking to stop the government from trying to kill his son without a trial. But on July 16, the Treasury Department labeled Mr. Awlaki a “specially designated global terrorist.” That made it illegal for lawyers to work on his behalf without a license.

The groups applied for a license on July 23, and on Tuesday they filed a lawsuit arguing that the licensing regulation was unconstitutional. In a statement, the groups said they appreciated the “quick response to our lawsuit” but would press forward with seeking to have the licensing requirement system struck down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/world/05terror.html?_r=1&ref=world&pagewanted=print

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

Illinois: Man Accused of Plotting to Be a Bomber

Federal prosecutors say a Chicago man was plotting to go to Somalia to become a suicide bomber with Al Qaeda . The man, Shaker Masri, 26, was charged Wednesday with trying to aid a terrorist organization and use an illicit weapon outside the United States. The authorities say he told an F.B.I. informant of his plans and asked the informant for money for guns. Mr. Masri says he is an American citizen who was born in Alabama but raised abroad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05brfs-MANACCUSEDOF_BRF.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print

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

Pledge to Give Away Half Gains Billionaire Adherents

More than three dozen billionaires, including well-known philanthropists like David Rockefeller and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York and less familiar big donors like Lorry I. Lokey, founder of Business Wire, have promised at least half of their fortunes to charity, joining a program that Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett started in June to encourage other wealthy people to give.

“During even the Depression's worst years, my parents gave money — about 8 percent of their annual income of $2,200,” Mr. Lokey wrote in a letter posted on the Web site of the program, the Giving Pledge . “I remember saying to my mother that we can't afford that. But she said we have to share with others. I learned from that to share.”

The pledge has been a matter of some debate in philanthropic and nonprofit circles, with some experts dismissing it as a publicity stunt and others predicting that it would produce a flood of new money to support nonprofit groups.

The program has predicted that it will draw $600 billion into philanthropy — or about twice the estimated total amount given by Americans last year — although in a telephone interview on Wednesday, Mr. Buffett acknowledged that some of the money would have been donated anyway.

“It's not like all or half of the money represented is added money,” he said, “but some of it is added.”

He said he thought the real value of the pledge was found in the example that it set and in the sentiments expressed in the letters posted on the Web site.

Perhaps the biggest surprise on the list was Larry Ellison, the founder of Oracle , who became the bad boy of philanthropy after he withdrew a $115 million gift from Harvard in protest over the resignation of Lawrence H. Summers as president.

In a brief note addressed “To Whom It May Concern,” Mr. Ellison disclosed that he had already assigned 95 percent of his wealth to a trust and noted that he had already given hundreds of millions of dollars away for medical research and education.

“Until now, I have done this giving quietly — because I have long believed that charitable giving is a personal and private matter,” Mr. Ellison wrote. “So why am I going public now? Warren Buffett personally asked me to write this letter because he said I would be ‘setting an example' and ‘influencing others' to give. I hope he's right.”

Mr. Buffett said that the number of people who had agreed to sign on was at the high end of his expectations. He said some people who did not agree to sign the pledge were planning to give away most of their wealth but did not want to draw attention to those plans.

Some went on “a tirade” about the government and rising taxes, Mr. Buffett said — declining, of course, to name them.

“A few got into that, and there are some that have a dynastic attitude toward wealth,” he said. “That tends to be the case where they themselves inherited this money and maybe feel some sort of intergenerational compact about it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05giving.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

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

Marriage Is a Constitutional Right

EDITORIAL

Until Wednesday, the thousands of same-sex couples who have married did so because a state judge or Legislature allowed them to. The nation's most fundamental guarantees of freedom, set out in the Constitution, were not part of the equation. That has changed with the historic decision by a federal judge in California, Vaughn Walker, that said his state's ban on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment's rights to equal protection and due process of law.

The decision , though an instant landmark in American legal history, is more than that. It also is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults.

As the case heads toward appeals at the circuit level and probably the Supreme Court, Judge Walker's opinion will provide a firm legal foundation that will be difficult for appellate judges to assail.

The case was brought by two gay couples who said California's Proposition 8, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, discriminated against them by prohibiting same-sex marriage and relegating them to domestic partnerships. The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrimination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendum's outcome was “irrelevant,” he said, quoting a 1943 case, because “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.”

He then dismantled, brick by crumbling brick, the weak case made by supporters of Proposition 8 and laid out the facts presented in testimony. The two witnesses called by the supporters (the state having bowed out of the case) had no credibility, he said, and presented no evidence that same-sex marriage harmed society or the institution of marriage.

Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and raise children, he said. Though procreation is not a necessary goal of marriage, children of same-sex couples will benefit from the stability provided by marriage, as will the state and society. Domestic partnerships confer a second-class status. The discrimination inherent in that second-class status is harmful to gay men and lesbians. These findings of fact will be highly significant as the case winds its way through years of appeals.

One of Judge Walker's strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote. “That time has passed.”

To justify the proposition's inherent discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, he wrote, there would have to be a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage. But no rational basis for discrimination was presented at the two-and-a-half-week trial in January, he said. The real reason for Proposition 8, he wrote, is a moral view “that there is something wrong with same-sex couples,” and that is not a permissible reason for legislation.

“Moral disapproval alone,” he wrote, in words that could someday help change history, “is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women.”

The ideological odd couple who led the case — Ted Olson and David Boies, who fought against each other in the Supreme Court battle over the 2000 election — were criticized by some supporters of same-sex marriage for moving too quickly to the federal courts. Certainly, there is no guarantee that the current Supreme Court would uphold Judge Walker's ruling. But there are times when legal opinions help lead public opinions.

Just as they did for racial equality in previous decades, the moment has arrived for the federal courts to bestow full equality to millions of gay men and lesbians.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/opinion/05thu1.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

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

The Senate Balks Again

OPINION

Elouise Cobell's longstanding lawsuit against the Interior Department was settled in December. The settlement brought victory — and, she thought, $3.4 billion — to half a million American Indians who had been cheated of proceeds from lands that had once been theirs.

The suit took 13 years. The injustices it sought to remedy stretched back for more than a century. The question now is: How long will it take the Senate to actually appropriate the $3.4 billion? It has failed to do so twice, once when a filibuster killed a bill it was attached to in June and again in late July when the Senate voted to strip it, along with other domestic programs, from an Afghanistan war appropriations measure.

The settlement arose out of a lawsuit in which Ms. Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Nation in northern Montana, was the lead plaintiff. The suit charged that the federal government, through mismanagement and malfeasance, had shortchanged accounts it had held in trust since 1887 when Indian lands were placed in federal hands. The lands were then leased for mining and other purposes, with the proceeds going to the trust accounts.

The cumulative shortfall over the years undoubtedly exceed $3.4 billion, which means the settlement is a bargain. The Obama administration would like to see the money paid out. Even so, the Senate balks, in part because a few Democrats aren't happy with the settlement, partly because of delaying tactics from Republicans.

One critical stumbling block has been an amendment from Senator John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, who wants to cap lawyers' fees at half the amount approved by the court.

Whatever the reasons, the delay has compounded a historic injustice. The settlement is the best deal the Indian trust holders will get and is Congress's best chance to right this wrong. The Senate must make it happen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/opinion/05thu4.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

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

From the White House

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

Washington, D.C.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you, everybody.  Thank you.  Thank you, everybody.  Please have a seat.  Thank you.

It is good to spend my birthday with some good friends.  (Laughter.)  And as I look around the room, there are very few of you who I haven't, in some form or fashion, worked directly with on an issue -- some of you dating back to when I was in the state legislature, some of you who I've worked with in the United States Senate, and all of you who I've had the opportunity to work with as President of the United States.

So I am grateful.  And I want to first of all thank Rich, not only for inviting me here, not only for I know making clear my commitment to all of you during an earlier session today, but also for your outstanding leadership of the labor movement.  And we very much appreciate everything that you do.  (Applause.)

I want to thank Liz and Arlene for bucking up Rich all the time -- (laughter) -- and making him look good.  This is a shared leadership, and we are very proud of them.  I want to thank all the members of the Executive Council, all my brothers and sisters in the AFL-CIO. 

Together, you are fighting for the hardworking men and women in this country after nearly 10 years of struggle.  The middle class has been struggling now for about a decade -- 10 years in which folks felt the sting of stagnant incomes and sluggish job growth and declining economic security, as well as at least eight years in which there was a profound animosity towards the notion of unions. 

It's going to take some time to reverse all that's been done, but we're on the right track.  We're moving forward.  And that's what I'm going to want to talk to you about briefly today. 
I hope you don't mind me interjecting, though, a topic, because it's in the news right now and I want to make sure that all of you are aware of it. 

One place in our country where people have faced particular struggles in the last few months is in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of the BP oil spill.  So it was very welcome news when we learned overnight that efforts to stop the well through what's called a “static kill” appear to be working -- and that a report out today by our scientists show that the vast majority of the spilled oil has been dispersed or removed from the water.  So the long battle to stop the leak and contain the oil is finally close to coming to an end.  And we are very pleased with that.  (Applause.)

Our recovery efforts, though, will continue.  We have to reverse the damage that's been done, we will continue to work to hold polluters accountable for the destruction they've caused, we've got to make sure that folks who were harmed are reimbursed, and we're going to stand by the people of the region however long it takes until they're back on their feet.

Now, beyond the Gulf, many of those who've been hit hardest by the economic upheaval of recent years have been the people that you represent.  For generations, manufacturing was the ticket to a better life for the American worker. 

But as the world became smaller, outsourcing, an easier way to increase profits, a lot of those jobs shifted to low-wage nations.  So, many who held those jobs went to work in the construction industry, as we had the housing boom.  But when the subprime mortgage crisis hit, when those mortgages were called up on Wall Street, that bubble burst, leaving devastation everywhere.

So now we've got millions of our fellow Americans swept up in that disaster -- hardworking people who've been left to sit idle for months and even years as their lives have been turned upside down.

And there's one last element to it, obviously.  Having been plunged into a recession, it also means that teachers and firefighters and people who are providing public services each and every day are threatened because tax revenues at the state level and at the local levels have crashed.  And so you have a perfect economic storm that's hit our middle class directly in every region, every segment of this country.

You know the stories -- I don't need to tell you.  You know what happens when a plant closes and hundreds of your members are suddenly without work and an entire community is devastated.  You know how hard it is for somebody who's worked his whole life to be unable to find a job.  And that pain goes beyond just the financial pain.  It goes to who they are as a person.  It hits them in their gut.

Having a conversation with your spouse and saying, you know, maybe we can't afford this house anymore; maybe we're going to have to give up on being able to save for our kids' college education -- that goes directly to people's identities, to their cores.  And this is something that all of you know all too well.

But I'm here to tell you, we are not giving up and we are not giving in.  We are going to keep fighting for an economy that works for everybody, not just for a privileged few.  (Applause.)  We want an economy that rewards, once again, people who work hard and fulfill their responsibilities, not just people who game the system.  And that's been at the heart of the economic plan that we put in place over the past year and a half. 

And I want to thank the AFL-CIO for all you've done to fight for jobs, to fight for tax cuts for the middle class, to fight for reforms that will rein in the special interests, and to fight for policies that aren't just going to rebuild this economy but are actually going to put us on a long-term path of sustainable growth that is good for all Americans. 

Because of you, we've been able to get a lot done over the last 20 months.  Together, we're jumpstarting a new American clean energy industry -- an industry with the potential to generate perhaps millions of jobs building wind turbines and solar panels, and manufacturing the batteries for the cars of the future, building nuclear plants, developing clean coal technology.  There are other countries that are fighting for those jobs, in China and India and in Germany and other parts of Europe.  But the United States doesn't play for second place.  As long as I'm President, I'm going to keep fighting night and day to make sure that we win those jobs, that those are jobs that are created right here in the United States of America and that your members are put to work.  (Applause.)

So the message I want to deliver to our competitors -- and to those in Washington who've tried to block our progress at every step of the way -- is that we are going to rebuild this economy stronger than before, and at the heart of it are going to be three powerful words:  Made in America.  Made in America.  (Applause.)

That's why we're finally enforcing our trade laws -- in some cases for the very first time.  That's why we're fighting for tax breaks for companies that invest here in the United States as opposed to companies that are investing overseas or that keep their profits offshore.  Because it is my belief -- and I know it's the belief of this room -- that there are no better workers than U.S. workers.  There are no better workers than your members.  (Applause.)  And they are absolutely committed to making sure that America is on the rise again.  And we are going to keep moving forward with them -- not moving backwards but moving forward with them.

As we rebuild our economy, we're going to rebuild America as well.  Over the last 20 months, bulldozers and backhoes have been whirring in communities across the country, as construction crews from local companies repair roads and bridges, railways and ports.  That was part of our plan, and it's put hundreds of thousands of folks to work.  But there's a lot more to do to rebuild our infrastructure for the 21st century, and a lot more Americans who are ready and willing to do that work.  So that, too, is an area where we've got to keep moving forward.

We're going to have to cut taxes for middle-class families, and after a tough fight, we finally extended emergency unemployment assistance for folks who had lost their jobs.  (Applause.)  We passed the Fair Pay Act to help put a stop to pay discrimination.  We've reversed the executive orders of the last administration that were designed to undermine organized labor.  I've appointed folks who actually are fulfilling their responsibilities to make sure our workplaces are safe, whether in a mine or in an office, a factory or anyplace else.  And we are going to keep on fighting to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.  (Applause.)

With your help, we passed health reform, enshrining the idea that everybody in America should be able to get decent health care and shouldn't go bankrupt when they get sick -- health reform that is preventing insurers from denying and dropping people's coverage; that's lowering the price of prescription drugs for our seniors.  It's going to make health care more affordable for everybody, including businesses, which means they can hire more workers.

Together, we passed Wall Street reform, to protect consumers in our financial system and put an end to taxpayer bailouts and stop the abuses that almost dragged our economy into another Great Depression.

Now, the steps we're taking are making a difference, but the fact is -- and Rich mentioned this -- it took us nearly a decade to dig ourselves into the hole that we're in.  It's going to take a lot longer than any of us would like to climb out of that hole.  And I'd be lying to you if I thought that all these changes are going to be happening overnight.  We've still got some tough times ahead.  And your members obviously are bearing the brunt of a lot of those tough times.

But here's what we're not going to do.  We're not going to go back to digging the hole.  We're not going to go back to the policies that took Bill Clinton's surplus and in eight years turned it into record deficits.  (Applause.)  We're not going back to policies that saw people working harder and harder but falling further and further behind.  We're not going back to policies that gave corporate special interests free rein to
write their own rules, and produced the greatest economic crisis in generations.  We are not going back to those ideas. 

Because as hard as it is out there right now for a lot of folks, as far as we've got to go, what's clear is that our nation is headed in the right direction.  Our economy is growing again instead of shrinking.  We're adding jobs in the private sector instead of losing them.  America is moving forward. 

And we're moving forward largely without any help from the opposition party -- a party that has voted no on just about every turn.  No on making college more affordable.  No on clean energy jobs.  No on broadband.  No on high-speed rail.  No on water and highway projects.  That doesn't stop them from showing up at the ribbon cuttings.  (Applause.)  It doesn't stop them from sending out press releases.  They've even said no to tax cuts for small businesses and 95 percent of working families.  They just said no to a small business tax cut again just last week. 

As we speak, they've been trying to block an emergency measure to save the jobs of police officers and firefighters and teachers and other critical public servants across the country who may be laid off because of state and local budget cuts. 

And as if that was not enough, now they're talking about repealing this and repealing that.  I guess they want to go back to hidden credit card fees and mortgage penalties buried in the fine print.  They want to go back to a system that allowed for taxpayer bailouts.  They want to go back to allowing insurance companies to discriminate against people based on preexisting conditions.  They would repeal the tax cuts for small businesses that provide health care for their employees.  They want to go backwards; we want to move America forward. 

And that's what the choice is going to be in this upcoming election, and all your members need to understand it.  I know if you're talking to a lot of your locals, I'm sure they're feeling like, boy, change is not happening fast enough; we are still hurting out here.  They're frustrated.  They've got every right to be frustrated.  And I am happy, as President of the United States, to take responsibility for making decisions now that are going to put us in a strong position down the road.  And they need to know that, that we're going to be working with you to make sure that we're putting ourselves in a position where folks are working and working for a good wage and good benefits.

But you have to remind them for the next three months, this election is a choice.  You've got these folks who drove America's economy into a ditch, and for the last 20 months, we put on our boots and we got into the mud and we've been shoving that car out of the ditch inch by inch, and they've been standing on the side the whole time watching, telling us, no, you're not pushing hard enough, you're not doing it the right way -- not lifting a finger to help.   And now we've finally got that car up on the blacktop there, about to drive, and they say they want the keys back.  (Laughter.)  Well, you can't have the keys, because you don't know how to drive.  (Laughter.)  You don't know how to drive.  (Laughter.)  You're not going to get the keys back.  (Applause.)  You're not going to get them back.

Somebody pointed out to me that when you're in a car and you want to go forward, you put it in “D.”  (Laughter.)  You want to go back in the ditch, you put it on “R.”  (Laughter.)  So I just want everybody to think about that.  (Applause.)

All right, let me close by saying this.  A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to visit -- not a few weeks ago, just a few days ago -- I had the opportunity to visit a Chrysler plant in Detroit.  This is a place obviously that's been harder hit than just about anywhere, not just during this financial crisis but for a couple of decades now.  The auto industry alone lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the year before I took office.  So we had to make a very difficult decision when I became President about whether to walk away from American automakers or help them get back on their feet. 

And I decided we couldn't walk away from what could be a million middle-class jobs.  So we told the automakers that we would give them temporary assistance if they restructured to make themselves competitive for the 21st century.  And most of the “Just Say No” crowd in Washington didn't agree with this decision.  And let's face it, it was not popular in the polls.  A lot of people weren't happy with that decision.  But today, all three U.S. automakers are operating at a profit for the first time in more than five years.  They've had the strongest job growth in more than 10 years -- 55,000 workers have been hired.  Instead of a planned shutdown, the plant that I was at is staying open this summer just to meet increased demand.  They've even added another shift.

Now, just a few weeks before I visited that auto plant, 14 of its employees won the lottery.  This is a true story.  Now you'd think they would have decided to retire, cash out, walk away.  But most of them didn't.  They're staying on their jobs.  And the guy who bought the ticket -- was a guy named William Shanteau -- took the money and he bought his wife one of the Jeep Cherokees that they make at the plant.  (Applause.)  And then he bought a bunch of American flags for his hometown, because he loves his country, just like he loves the company that he works for and the workers that he works with and the union that represents him.

And he's going to keep on showing up every day because he loves that plant, he loves his coworkers, and he loves the idea of making something right here in the United States that's worth something.  He loves the idea of being productive and creating something of value for people.

That's the true character of our people.  That's been the essence of the AFL-CIO.  That's why even in these difficult times, I remain confident about our future, because of people like that, because of the workers that I meet all across this country, members of your unions who get up every morning and put in a hard day's work to build a company, build a future, support their families. 

As Americans, they don't give up.  They don't quit.  I don't give up.  I don't quit.  The AFL-CIO does not give up.  It does not quit.  If we stand together, then I am absolutely confident that we are going to rebuild America, not just to where it was before this financial crisis, but stronger than it has ever been.  That is a commitment that I am making to you.  Thank you for the commitment that you've made to me.  God bless you.  Thank you guys.  Thank you.  (Applause.) 

MR. TRUMKA:  Mr. President, on behalf of our full Executive Council, first of all, let me thank you for sharing your special day with us, and let us wish you again a happy birthday. 

Two, let us thank you for all that you've done for every working American out there.  I know you're pressed for time.

THE PRESIDENT:  I'm a little disappointed there wasn't a cake, though.  (Laughter.)  I'm going to have to talk to Secret Service.

MR. TRUMKA:  You got to talk to those guys, because they nixed the cake.

THE PRESIDENT:  They're probably eating it right now.  (Laughter.)

MR. TRUMKA:  They are.  They got it all over them. 

THE PRESIDENT:  That's some good cake.

MR. TRUMKA:  He has a little bit on him --

THE PRESIDENT:  Had some frosting on his -- I noticed that, all right.  (Laughter.) 

MR. TRUMKA:  We know you only have time for one question.  Mr. President, when I was working coalminer, I understood from personal experience how my parents and my grandparents formed a union and changed coalmining from a life-threatening journey through poverty into reasonably safe and well-paid jobs.  Now, so many Americans now work in bad jobs -- jobs with no benefits, jobs with -- that don't pay a living wage, jobs that aren't safe, jobs where they have no voice.

Now, we're going into a congressional election three months from today, and I think it's fair to say that workers' hopes for congressional action to protect workers' rights and to create jobs have been frustrated by a Republican minority that has filibustered every matter in front of them, every single thing that's been good for us.

I just want to ask you, what advice do you have for workers as the election approaches, particularly for workers who are trying to organize to have a voice on the job?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, you guys don't need advice from me, but let me tell you what I see out there.  We were hurt by this recession, badly hurt.  This is going to take some time to recover.  Unemployment is at unacceptably high levels. 

But as I said before, we'd had challenges before the crisis hit.  A lot of your membership had been hurting long before, partly because we just live in a more competitive world.  There's nothing we can do about that, that's just the truth.  But a lot of it also had to do with the fact that we put policies in place that were not good for working families.  There's a reason why incomes, wages, were stagnant for average workers, even while the costs were going up.  And part of it had to do with the fact that we had a philosophy that said that providing help to workers, allowing them to collectively bargain, allowing them to negotiate for better benefits, that that all was something of the past instead of something we need for the future.

So on the one hand, I think everybody here understands we've got to be competitive in America.  We've got to have competitive price structures.  We've got to make the best products possible.  Workers have to be invested in trying to help the companies they work for succeed.  With respect to public employees, we've all got to work together to make sure that whatever we're doing, whether it's as firefighters or as teachers or postal workers, whatever it is, that we're providing the best possible service.  I think everybody understands that there's no operation in the United States of America that shouldn't be efficient and effective in doing what it does.

But it is my profound belief that companies are stronger when their workers are getting paid well and have decent benefits and are treated with dignity and respect.  (Applause.)  It is my profound belief that our government works best when it's not being run on behalf of special interests, but it's being run on behalf of the public interest, and that the dedication of public servants reflects that.

So FDR I think said -- he was asked once what he thought about unions.  He said, “If I was a worker in a factory and I wanted to improve my life, I would join a union.”  (Applause.)  Well, I tell you what.  I think that's true for workers generally.  I think if I was a coalminer, I'd want a union representing me to make sure that I was safe and you did not have some of the tragedies that we've been seeing in the coal industry.  If I was a teacher, I'd want a union to make sure that the teachers' perspective was represented as we think about shaping an education system for our future. 

And that's why my administration has consistently implemented not just legislative strategies but also, where we have the power through executive orders, to make sure that those basic values are reflected.

I'm not telling anybody anything you don't know.  Getting EFCA through Senate is going to be tough.  It's always been tough; it will continue to be tough.  We'll keep on pushing.  But our work doesn't stop there.  I mean, there's a reason why we nominated people to the National Mediation Board that would ensure that folks in the rail industry and in the air industry were going to end up having a better deal.  (Applause.) 

We are going to make sure that the National Labor Relations Board is restored to have some balance so that if workers want to form a union, they can at least get a fair vote in a reasonable amount of time.  And we don't want, by the way, government dollars going in to pay for union busting.  That's not something that we believe in.  That's not right.  That tilts the playing field in an unfair way.  (Applause.)

So you're going to have an administration that's working alongside you.  There are going to be times where we want to get something done and we can't get it done, at least not immediately, and we're going to just keep on at it.  I think people have started to figure out I'm a persistent son of a gun.  (Laughter.)  I just stay on things if I think they're the right thing to do.  And we should be looking for opportunities, by the way, to make sure that the labor movement is, wherever possible, finding common ground with the business community, because I want America as a whole to be competitive. 

One of the problems that we've had over the last decade is that so often the business community sees labor as the problem, and their basic attitude is, well, you know what, we'll just go to wherever we don't have any problems with labor and we can pay them the lowest wages and the fewest benefits, and then just ship the stuff back here, and our profits will be good.  But over time, that hollows out America and hollows out our middle class.  That makes us weaker, not stronger.

Now, on the other hand, when business and labor are working together, then we can compete against anybody, and we can knock down trade barriers in other countries, and we can start selling products around the world.  And we make great products in this country.  We've got the best workers in the world, the best universities in the world.  Got the most dynamic economy in the world.  We have the freest market system in the world.  And all those things give us a huge competitive advantage if we're all working together.

So my bottom line is this:  I'm going to continue to work with all of you on behalf of working families around the country, and I'm going to continue to reach out to businesses to try to make the argument that what's good for workers is going to be good for business.  They're your customers as well as your workers.  And if they've got a decent living standard, that's lifting the entire economy up.  And they're going to be buying more products and they're going to be buying more services.  And all of us are going to be growing together.  And the 21st century is going to end up being the American century just like the 20th century was.

But we're not going to be able to do it when we're pitted against each other.  And I'm actually confident that once we get through some of the political posturing and shenanigans that we've been seeing over the last several years, people are going to step back and say, you know what, the lesson we needed to learn out of hardship is, we're all in this thing together.  We are all in this thing together.

That's what the union movement's always been about.  We're stronger together than we are on our own.  That is true within individual unions.  That is true within industries.  That is true for the country as a whole.  And I hope that I will be your partner in trying to bring about that unity of purpose in the years to come.

All right?  Thank you very much, everybody.  God bless you.  God bless America.  (Applause.)   

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-afl-cio-executive-council

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

To get the correct answer, you've got to ask the right question. 

An article in USA Today mistakenly concludes that Recovery Act benefits are not reaching the communities that need the help.  Now you might reasonably ask whether the 3 million or so people working because of the Recovery Act live in places where they don't need those jobs – kind of an absurd proposition.  And it's also the case that USA Today reaches this conclusion using some incomplete data to begin with - but the article also makes two mistakes: First, USA Today fails to separate out programs directly keyed to joblessness, and second, they conflate state unemployment with need. 

Before going into the details, it's important to reflect on this second shortcoming, because it's a fundamental flaw in their analysis.  We put recovery projects where they're needed, regardless of a state's unemployment rate.  We build roads where roads are needed, we clean up superfund sites where they are located and we repair schools where schools need fixing.  

To put this point in historical context, think back to the New Deal.   One of the most memorable and lasting projects from that era was the Hoover dam.  This project was built in a region where the unemployment rate was probably around zero, because it was in the middle of the uninhabited Nevada desert!  But using USA Today's analysis, the Hoover dam would have been a mistake because it was built in an area with only “below-average” unemployment.

Delving into some details, the article claims that per capita spending is more likely to go to communities where the state unemployment rate is below the national average.   But, as we've argued before , if you look at the Recovery Act programs that are targeted toward reaching the unemployed—not just Unemployment Insurance, but food assistance, training services, aid to states, and more—it's simply not true that state Recovery spending is uncorrelated with state unemployment. 

The graph below plots this relationship, showing that when we look at the set of programs directly linked to joblessness (using complete, up-to-date data), the positive correlation is clear and strong.

The correlation is generated by obvious factors.  Some programs, like unemployment insurance benefits, are linked directly to unemployment.  Other programs, like aid to states to help offset the costs of their Medicaid programs, also give weight to state unemployment rates, so there too, we expect a significant correlation. So, contrary to the thrust of the USA Today piece, much of the Recovery Act spending is higher in places with higher unemployment, and that's no accident: it reflects the Act's design.  But that's not the whole story. As noted above, the fact that the correlation between state unemployment and total ARRA spending isn't perfect is an important and positive attribute of the Recovery Act. There are a lot of Americans who both need help and live in states with below-average unemployment.  In fact, there are incredibly hard-hit communities in low-unemployment states and communities doing better than average in higher-unemployment states.  For example, there are communities in North Dakota with high double digit unemployment (where the state unemployment rate was 3.6% in June) and communities in Florida doing better than the rest of the country (where the state unemployment rate was 11.4%).

And there are highly worthy projects—roads that really need fixing, water systems that need repairs, schools that need resources—in every state across America.   It's smart economics to fix these problems where they exist, regardless of the unemployment rate.

Bottom line, where Recovery Act components are directly keyed to job market conditions, they are clearly reaching those areas (keeping in mind that some of those communities may reside within low-unemployment states).   And where there are infrastructure and investment needs—whatever the unemployment rate is—the Recovery Act is there too, helping to upgrade our schools, our highways, our airports, while planting seeds of opportunity in sectors like clean energy, high-speed rail, and the smart grid.

Most importantly, the Recovery Act is putting Americans back to work, approximately three million people so far.  And that's not just our view.  Outside analysts from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office to independent economists, Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder, whose recent work concludes that the Recovery Act played a key role in turning this economy around . 

Remember, in the first quarter of last year, when President Obama signed the Recovery Act, over two million private sector jobs were lost.   Now, in the first six months of this year, we've added just under 600,000 private sector jobs.

That' s movement in the right direction, but it's not fast enough.   We've got to do more to build on the momentum the Recovery Act helped to generate.  But along the way, let's be sure to get the facts right about how the Recovery Act is working and who it's reaching.

Jared Bernstein is Chief Economic Advisor to the Vice President

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/04/help-where-its-needed

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

[Update: The live stream has concluded. Watch the event video here .]

Earlier this year the President invited you , the American public, to nominate candidates for the 2010 Citizens Medal. Today, President Obama will award 13 outstanding Americans the second-highest civilian honor in our nation. Watch the award ceremony live at 2:15 PM EDT on Wednesday, August 4th on WhiteHouse.gov/live.

Here is the President's announcement:

Good morning,

Later today, I will host a ceremony and reception to honor the recipients of the 2010 Citizens Medal at the White House, but I wanted you to be the first to know who will receive this prestigious award.

The Citizens Medal is the second highest civilian honor in our nation. For over 40 years, some of America's most respected heroes and public figures like Muhammad Ali, Colin Powell and Bob Dole, and everyday heroes like Oseola McCarty, a washerwoman who left her entire life savings to establish a scholarship for students in need, have received this award.

This year, we decided to try something a little bit different. We asked you, the American public, to tell us about the heroes in your community, the folks who may not always get the recognition they deserve, but whose selfless work is making a real difference.

We received over 6,000 outstanding and inspiring nominations from around the country. It was a tough choice, but we were able to narrow it down to 13 recipients of the 2010 Citizens Medal:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/citizensmedal

This year's Citizens Medal recipients should serve as an inspiration to all Americans: A widow who lost her husband on 9/11 and turned her grief into a message of hope for Afghani women whose husbands were lost to the Taliban; a school bus driver who delivers hot meals and coffee to New York City's homeless and forgotten 365 nights a year; a North Chicago nurse and childcare professional who opened a live-in resource center that has given help and hope to hundreds of pregnant teenagers. They are all powerful reminders of the impact an individual can have on their community and on the world.

Congratulations to this year's Citizens Medal recipients, and thank you to the millions of Americans who strive to make their communities better every day.

Sincerely,

President Barack Obama

P.S. If you want to make a difference in your own community, but aren't sure where to start, check out Serve.gov , your one-stop-shop for finding and creating service opportunities in your community.

On Wednesday, August 4th, 2010 the President will present the 2010 Citizens Medal to 13 winners from across the country at an event at the White House. Watch the event live at 2:00 PM EDT on Wednesday, August 4th on WhiteHouse.gov/Live.

The recipients of the 2010 Citizens Medal are:

Roberta Diaz Brinton has devoted her time and talents to improving science and technology education for Los Angeles students. As Director of the University of Southern California's Science, Technology and Research (STAR) Program, Brinton has opened the doors of opportunity for thousands of disadvantaged and minority inner-city youth. Brinton receives the Citizens Medal for encouraging America's next generations to reach for the stars.

When a pregnant teenager with no place to stay arrived at her door, Daisy Brooks welcomed the young woman in. What followed was a lifelong commitment to helping many of North Chicago's young mothers and their infants. Brooks opened Daisy's Resource and Developmental Center to serve as a dormitory, school, and catalyst for young women to improve their lives. Brooks receives the Citizens Medal for offering guidance and support to young women across Chicago.

Touched by childhood tragedy, Betty Chinn brings hope to those who have fallen on hard times. Left homeless as a child in China, Chinn became mute. When she came to America, she found both her voice and her mission: aiding those without shelter on our own shores. Today, Chinn provides meals twice a day as expressions of gratitude to a welcoming nation. Chinn receives the Citizens Medal for renewing America's promise by serving those in need.

Cynthia Church turned a personal battle with cancer into a force for progress and change. Dismayed by the lack of resources for women of color with breast cancer, Church founded Sisters on a Mission, Inc, an African-American breast cancer support network in Delaware. Church receives the Citizens Medal for confronting the scourge of this terrible disease and working to halt its spread.

Susan Retik Ger understands the importance of empowering women touched by personal tragedy. After losing her husband on September 11, 2001, she found cause in educating and training Afghan widows and their children. Her strength of spirit has healed hearts, fostering mutual understanding and brightening our common future. Retik Ger receives the Citizens Medal for advancing women's rights and demonstrating the power of America's ideals.

Physical limitations have not hindered Mary K. Hoodhood's determination to strengthen her community. Though a car accident left her paralyzed, Hoodhood began volunteering to feed the hungry through her local Meals on Wheels program. In 2001, Hoodhood founded Kids' Food Basket which provides meals to thousands of children in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area. Hoodhood receives the Citizens Medal for her remarkable efforts to nourish our nation's children.

Parent and advocate, Kimberly McGuiness has been a true champion for deaf students. Her persistent letters, phone calls, and visits to state legislators helped spur the passage of Georgia's Deaf Child's Bill of Rights. She has led workshops, counseled parents, and changed lives, raising awareness and support for deaf education. McGuiness receives the Citizens Medal for demonstrating the results one citizen can achieve for an entire community.

Jorge Muñoz recognizes that we all have a stake in one another. By giving his time, energy, and resources to feeding the hungry, he has demonstrated the enduring American values of sacrifice and kindness. Muñoz receives the Citizens Medal for his service and dedication to creating a more hopeful tomorrow for the less fortunate among us.

Beginning with a wagon full of coffee and sandwiches, Lisa Nigro's mission to aid those living on the streets of Chicago has inspired us all. Her wagon gave way to a restaurant for homeless men and women, expanding with partner organizations to provide housing, job training, and vital support to Chicagoans affected by poverty. Nigro receives the Citizens Medal for her tireless service to her fellow citizens.

Caring for America's injured service members, MaryAnn Phillips embodies strength and grace. An American citizen living in Germany, Phillips volunteers with Soldiers Angels at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center . She spends countless hours at the bedsides of our wounded warriors and their families, caring for them, encouraging them, and grieving with them. Phillips receives the Citizens Medal for putting her patriotism into action on behalf of our troops and our nation.

Devoted to preserving our nation's public lands, Elizabeth Cushman Titus Putnam has inspired thousands of America's youth to protect our natural bounty. Her vision to offer land restoration and maintenance service opportunities became a reality with the birth of the Student Conservation Association. Putnam receives the Citizens Medal for helping ensure that our nation's treasured public lands are enjoyed by future generations.

For decades, Myrtle Faye Rumph has lent her talent and compassion to impacting the lives of at-risk youth. Her commitment to reducing gun and gang violence in her community has steered countless young people away from dangerous habits, and altered the course of their futures. Rumph receives the Citizens Medal for replacing violence and despair with a beacon of hope and humanity.

George Weiss, Jr., a veteran of World War II and the United States Marine Corps, reflects our nation's generous and selfless heart. In 1979, he founded the Fort Snelling Memorial Rifle Squad, which today consists of more than 125 volunteers who have performed final military honors for more than 55,000 deceased veterans. Weiss receives the Citizens Medal for his extraordinary service to our nation's veterans and their families.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/04/announcing-recipients-citizens-medal

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

From ICE

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

In war-torn Europe, with the Nazi persecution of Jews and other groups, many people decided to literally run for their lives, abandoning hearth and home and everything in it, including family heirlooms and valuable artwork.

Senior Special Agent Bonnie Goldblatt, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) subject matter expert on cultural property, art and antiquities for the Northeast region, will also tell you of the pains European people went to in protecting their artwork while the war raged with air raids sounding and bombs blasting. She will tell you that museum owners and curators literally emptied their museums, crating the artwork and hiding it around the countryside. After the war, it wasn't unusual for U.S. servicemen to discover paintings hidden in quarries and unusual places, some of which made their way to the United States.

Today, Goldblatt says, the next generation is finding these treasures. Some are turning up in grandpa's attic. Others are being discovered in museums and in auction houses.

Such was the case with the Portrait of Wally, a masterpiece Egon Schiele oil painting that the Nazis had stolen from the painting's Jewish owner, Lea Bondi. In 1939, the night before Bondi's escape from German-occupied Austria, Nazi art collector Friedrich Welz visited her. He demanded that she give him the Portrait of Wally that was hanging on the wall of her apartment. In trepidation, Bondi complied.

Fast forward to January 1998 in New York City. Over coffee one morning, Goldblatt and her husband are reading the New York Times. An article titled, "Modern Refuses To Detain 2 Schieles," states the family of Lea Bondi Jaray (reflecting Bondi's married name) is filing a claim against the Portrait of Wally because its "provenance is clouded by Nazi wartime plundering." The painting is scheduled to be shipped back overseas. "Can't someone do something about this?" Goldblatt's husband asks. Goldblatt begins making inquiries.

At that time, Rudolph Leopold, owner of the private Leopold Museum, claimed ownership of Wally. But based on probable cause that the painting had been stolen and illegally imported into the United States, ICE's legacy agency, U.S. Customs Service, seized the painting. Thus began an investigation and a 12-year lawsuit into the rightful owner of Portrait of Wally. Lea Bondi Jaray died in 1969. But her estate was compensated on July 20, 2010, when the protracted dispute ended. The Leopold Museum agreed to pay Bondi's estate $19 million in exchange for the painting.

The landmark case may not have come to court at all had it not been for Goldblatt's proactive approach to art-related investigations. Goldblatt led the ICE investigation that spurred Wally's litigious journey that gripped art enthusiasts the world over who watched and waited in suspense over its outcome. Although Goldblatt jokes that her husband "takes full credit for the investigation, the legal actions...everything," because of his comment that fateful winter morning. "Words cannot describe how happy I am about this settlement," said Goldblatt.

"Uncovering the true ownership of this exquisite painting is very gratifying. And because of this case, museums are opening up their inventories and examining their collections for history of Nazi theft."

Goldblatt's dream job began in 1991 when she was working for the U.S. Customs Service. When she saw an opening to investigate lost and stolen treasures, Goldblatt wasted no time inquiring about it. An avid art lover since childhood, Goldblatt welcomed the opportunity to work in this position.

In 1994, Goldblatt attended a conference in which the discussion surrounded lost art during World War II. Given the go-ahead by her supervisor, Goldblatt contacted lawyers, scholars and archivists who had also attended the conference. She offered her investigative services and the rest is history, art history, that is.

 Goldblatt represents ICE in the Department of State, Office of Holocaust Art Recovery Working Group. The group is a representation of U.S. experts in the area of Holocaust looted art in the government and private sector.

Goldblatt has conducted countless investigations of artwork with a total value of nearly $60 million. Her knowledge of art history and appreciation has soared. Goldblatt's combination of innate curiosity, investigative savvy and love of art are helping to right at least some of the wrongs committed during the Holocaust as she brings truth of ownership and justice to the art world

http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/1008/100804newyorkcity.htm

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

From the FBI

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

FBI Releases Bank Crime Statistics for First Quarter of 2010

During the first quarter of 2010, there were 1,183 reported violations of the Federal Bank Robbery and Incidental Crimes Statue, a decrease from the 1,521 reported violations in the same quarter of 2009. 1 According to statistics released today by the FBI, there were 1,160 robberies, 21 burglaries, two larcenies, and three extortions of financial institutions 2 reported between January 1, 2010 and March 31, 2010.

Highlights of the report include:

• Loot was taken in 92 percent of the incidents, totaling more than $9.3 million.
• Of the loot taken, 21 percent, or more than $1.9 million, was recovered and returned to financial institutions.
• Bank crimes most frequently occurred on Friday. Regardless of the day, the time frame when bank crimes occurred most frequently was between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.
• Acts of violence were committed in 3 percent of the incidents, resulting in 18 injuries, two deaths, and 35 persons being taken hostage. 3
• Oral demands were the most common modus operandi used, closely followed by demand notes. 4
• Most violations occurred in the Southern region of the U.S., with 420 reported incidents.

These statistics were recorded as of April 19, 2010. Note that not all bank crimes are reported to the FBI, and therefore the report is not a complete statistical compilation of all bank crimes that occurred in the U.S.

View the detailed report and learn more about the FBI at www.fbi.gov .

1 In the first quarter of 2009, there were 1,498 robberies, 18 burglaries, five larcenies, and three extortions reported.
2 Financial institutions include commercial banks, mutual savings banks, savings and loan associations, and credit unions.
3 One or more acts of violence may occur during an incident.
4 More than one modus operandi may have been used during an incident .

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel10/2010q1bankcrimestats.htm

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

From the DEA

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

Gulf Cartel Member Sentenced

Former Close Associate of Osiel Cárdenas Guillén Receives 22 Years in Prison

AUG 4 -- (ATLANTA, GA) - JOSE BARRIENTOS-RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a “Pepe,” 36, of Mexico, was sentenced today in federal district court in Atlanta by Senior United States District Court Judge Clarence Cooper for participation in a conspiracy to possession with intent to distribute cocaine.  BARRIENTOS-RODRIGUEZ was sentenced to 22 years in federal prison, to be followed by 5 years of supervised release.  BARRIENTOS-RODRIGUEZ was convicted of these charges on March 17, 2010, upon his plea of guilty.

“Barrientos-Rodriguez attempted to harm law enforcement officers in his distribution of drugs in Atlanta and avoid justice by fleeing to Mexico,” said Rodney G. Benson, Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the Atlanta Field Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration.  “Today's sentencing shows the extent the DEA and United States Attorney's Office will go to bring justice to those who endanger the public.”

United States Attorney Sally Quillian Yates said of today's sentencing, “This case strikes a significant hit against the influx of cocaine to the United States from the Mexican cartels, and shows how effective our intervention can be when we cooperate closely with Mexican law enforcement to bring drug traffickers here from Mexico to be prosecuted.”

According to United States Attorney Yates, the plea agreement, indictment and information presented in court: In 2001, agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") were conducting an investigation of a drug organization operating in the Atlanta, Georgia area that was being managed by BARRIENTOS-RODRIGUEZ and associated with the multi-million dollar Mexican cocaine trafficking organization known as the "Gulf Cartel," the head of which at the time was Osiel Cárdenas Guillén.  On June 7, 2001, based upon information from a court-authorized wiretap of a telephone used by BARRIENTOS-RODRIGUEZ, DEA learned that a delivery of a large shipment of cocaine was expected from south Texas to the Atlanta, Georgia area.  DEA conducted surveillance of BARRIENTOS-RODRIGUEZ and others, following them to Montgomery Motors where DEA observed the unloading of approximately 247.5 kilograms of cocaine from a tractor-trailer into a white van.  After the unloading, the van traveled toward Interstate 20 with BARRIENTOS-RODRIGUEZ following directly behind in a green Chevy.

In concert with DEA, Georgia State Patrol officers riding in marked police cars moved into position to make a traffic stop of the white van.  As the Georgia State Patrol attempted to pull over the van, BARRIENTOS-RODRIGUEZ made a telephone call to the driver of the white van and instructed the driver to move over to the left lane so that BARRIENTOS-RODRIGUEZ could crash the police car and "send them to hell."  Thereafter, BARRIENTOS-RODRIGUEZ positioned his vehicle between the police car and the white van and began swerving, successfully causing the marked police car, which had attempted to stop the van, to crash.  Eventually, the van was stopped and approximately 247.5 kilograms of cocaine was discovered inside watermelon boxes, with an estimated wholesale street-value of approximately $3.9 million.  Officers pursued the green Chevy driven by BARRIENTOS-RODRIGUEZ, but when it was located, BARRIENTOS-RODRIGUEZ and the passenger had abandoned the vehicle and escaped.  A search of an apartment at in the vicinity of the 2700 block of Pine Tree Drive in Atlanta, a location known to be used by the organization, resulted in the seizure of approximately $3,107,686.  BARRIENTOS-RODRIGUEZ was not apprehended at the time.

In January 2002, BARRIENTOS-RODRIGUEZ was arrested in Mexico and charged with violations of Mexico's organized crime laws for which he was sentenced on February 15, 2007.  BARRIENTOS-RODRIGUEZ was later extradited from Mexico to the United States on December 31, 2008, to face charges here.

This case was investigated by Special Agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration and Assistant U.S. Attorney Bret R. Williams prosecuted the case.

DEA Atlanta's SAC Benson encourages parents, along with their children, to educate themselves about the dangers of legal and illegal drugs by visiting DEA's interactive websites at www.justhinktwice.com , www.GetSmartAboutDrugs.com and www.dea.gov .

http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/2010/atlanta080410a.html

.