From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton: May 8, 2009
Obama and the Supreme Court – Conservatives Should Be on the Alert
Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced he was retiring week, providing Barack Obama his first opportunity to make his mark on the High Court. Souter will leave the bench at the completion of the Supreme Court term on June 30th.
According to The Washington Post:
U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter plans to retire, giving President Barack Obama his first chance to make an appointment to the nation’s highest court…An appointment by Obama…would not likely shift the court’s ideological balance of power. But Obama could name a younger justice who could serve for decades — beyond his own presidency even if that turned into two terms, or eight years.
So what type of justice will Barack Obama nominate? Of course, we have our clues. During the presidential campaign Obama said he would appoint judges who have the “empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.”
And here’s what he said just this week about the type of justice he will nominate to replace Souter:
I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.
Americans want the Supreme Court to make decisions based on the Constitution and not on some lawless standard that puts identity politics before the law. If Obama nominates someone in line with his promises, U.S. Senators who want to protect the Constitution will have no choice but to oppose his nominee.
With Senator Arlen Specter switching teams last week, joining the Democratic Party, and with Al Franken looking the favorite to steal the Senate seat recently held by Republican Norm Coleman, Obama should, in theory, have no trouble having any nominee confirmed.
But his radical vision for the Supreme Court will put his nominee and even some Democratic Senators in a corner. And this will be a test for Republicans who talk a good game on activist judges become supine when it comes time for key votes.
Conservatives should use this coming nomination debate to draw clear distinctions between activist judges like Justice Souter who too often make decisions based on personal whims and prejudices and those who respect the rule of law and try to make decisions based on the text and original meaning of the U.S. Constitution.
Judicial Watch, of course, will be an active participant in this debate.
Judicial Watch Educates Northern California City on Illegal Day Labor Site
Count Mountain View, California among the cities that have come under Judicial Watch scrutiny for its support of an illegal alien day labor site. We’ve been keeping our eye on Mountain View for some time now. This week, we took action again as city officials prepare to vote on a permit application for the Mountain View Day Worker Center that would move the center to a permanent location. (The permit application is currently suspended due to public opposition to the day labor site.)
Last month, in an interview with the San Jose Mercury News, Mountain View Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga said immigration is really a “federal issue.” When asked about Judicial Watch’s opposition to the taxpayer-funded day worker center, the mayor said she doesn’t know what Judicial Watch wants.
We took the comment as an invitation and sent a letter on May 5 thoroughly explaining our position. Here’s an excerpt:
A hiring center for day laborers, who are comprised primarily of illegal aliens, facilitates unlawful employment by matching day laborers with the scofflaw employers seeking to hire them. Actions by the City in support of the Day Worker Center “undermine” the purposes of federal immigration law as they encourage the type of employment that federal law seeks to eliminate. Hence, employment of illegal aliens is not merely a “federal issue,” as actions by a municipality which simply run contrary to the purposes of federal law are prohibited.
This is not the first time Judicial Watch has tried to eductate officials in Mountain View about the law. In April 2008, Judicial Watch wrote to then-Mayor Tom Means expressing our concerns. However, since that time the city has actually increased its financial support of the illegal alien labor site (using taxpayer dollars, of course) and has provided other forms of support as well, including leasing city property to the center for parking.
Next week, on May 12, city officials will decide whether or not to extend a conditional use permit to the day worker center, thereby allowing it to continue to operate. Our Director of Research and Investigations, Chris Farrell, has already testified last month during a Mountain View City Council meeting in an effort to explain that the city’s support of the site is in directy violation of federal law.
Let’s hope our activism pushes city officials to reconsider their support of the illegal day labor site.
Judicial Watch Uncovers New FCC Documents on Fairness Doctrine Debate
If the Fairness Doctrine is dead, as President Obama has said, you wouldn’t know it from the batch of documents Judicial Watch obtained from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). We filed our original FOIA back in December 2008 to find out what internal government discussions have taken place surrounding the reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine, which was abolished in 1987. And there was much discussion for sure.
Not only do the documents show that controversy continues concerning the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC is considering alternative proposals that may regulate free speech in the media just as much under the professed goal of “diversity.”
Here’s one example:
In December 2007, the FCC proposed new “localism” measures to force broadcast stations to offer programming more “responsive to the needs and interests of the communities that they are licensed to serve.” These proposed measures, highlighted in a document entitled, “The Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Approved Rulemaking,” included a requirement that broadcasters, “provide 3 hours per week of locally-produced program,” and that licensees establish “permanent advisory boards (including representatives of underserved community segments).”
The FCC noted that these measures would become part of the application renewal process to make sure broadcasters “meet their responsibilities.” (A nice way for the government to say, “Do it or else.”)
Problems with this “localism” proposal are highlighted in a legal memo written by Kathleen Kirby of the law firm Wiley Rein and submitted to Rosemary Harold, serving as legal counsel to FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell. In the document, which was distributed internally at the FCC, Ms. Kirby advises that the Fairness Doctrine “would do well to stay dead.” Ms. Kirby then turns her attention to “Localism,” advising that such a policy could represent a “stealth enactment” of the Fairness Doctrine. Ms. Kirby States: “Convene permanent advisory boards? Give aggrieved listeners ‘more straightforward guidance’ on ‘how individuals can directly participate in the license renewal process?’ That sounds mild. But then again, so did the Fairness Doctrine.”
One thing is for certain. These documents show that we are going to have to keep an eye on this FCC. The last thing our country needs is bureaucrats in the Obama administration stomping on the First Amendment rights of conservatives.
By the way, Judicial Watch will host a panel discussion regarding the “Fairness Doctrine” May 14th, 12:30 – 2 p.m., in the First Amendment Lounge of the National Press Club, 14th & F Streets, NW, Washington, DC. I’ll be sure to have an update for you in a future installment of the Weekly Update.
Until next week…
May 1, 2009
From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:
Open Borders Put Public Health at Risk
A few weeks ago, I told you that Judicial Watch continues to battle aggressively for any and all documents related to the Security and Prosperity Partnership(SPP) and its offshoot, the North American Competitiveness Council. I also cautioned that even though this “project” was launched during the Bush administration, it is still relevant today, given President Obama’s globalist mentality and the fact that SPP border-blurring policies are still being implemented.
And now here comes the swine flu to prove my point.
Of course, this has been the story of the week. According to The Associated Press:
President Barack Obama pledged “great vigilance” in confronting the swine flu outbreak Wednesday night as it spread coast to coast across the U.S. The outbreak hit 11 states and closed schools amid confirmation of the first U.S. death — a Mexican toddler who visited Texas with his family — and the confinement of dozens of Marines after one came down with the disease in California…
…Despite calls from many U.S. lawmakers for tightening controls over the Mexico-US border, Obama ruled out that option, even though the swine flu outbreak has been at its most virulent and may have begun there…Earlier, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, “Closing our nation’s borders is not merited here”…
This appears to be at odds with the government’s official policy as articulated in a 2005 Department of Homeland Security document entitled National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza:
The most effective way to protect the American population is to contain an outbreak beyond the borders of the U.S. While we work to prevent a pandemic from reaching our shores, we recognize that slowing or limiting the spread of the outbreak is a more realistic outcome and can save many lives. In support of our containment strategy, we will…Encourage all levels of government, domestically and globally, to take appropriate and lawful action to contain an outbreak within the borders of their community, province, state or nation.
Granted, it appears the disease has already made its way into the United States. But doesn’t it make sense that limiting our exposure to the source of the outbreak would help curtail the spread of the disease? Why, for example, quarantine the Marines in California we suspect might have been exposed to the disease but allow people from the disease’s host nation to cross virtually unimpeded across the border to potentially infect great numbers of people?
Unfortunately, it appears the Obama administration’s policy is now more in line with recommendations cited in SPP documents uncovered by Judicial Watch. Here’s the SPP strategy: “It is also essential that throughout a pandemic all borders and major roads remain open…”
Sound familiar?
In fact, an Obama official testified this week to the Senate that the borders would never be closed — no matter the health risk. Here’s what The Washington Times reported about the testimony of Rear Adm. Anne Schuchat, interim deputy director for the CDC’s Science and Public Health Program:
Asked directly by Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, what conditions would require the closing of border, Dr. Schuchat said, “I don’t think there are any.”
Who stands for the public’s health security in the face of this open borders radicalism!?
But even assuming it would be unreasonable do anything other than “passive surveillance” through controlled border crossings – what about the unsecured areas of our border that have no one checking illegal crossers for signs of this new swine flu?
Our government’s willful neglience in securing our border with Mexico has caused much damage to our great nation. Now, with the emergence of this swine flu, you can bet the damage will now be far deadlier.
Judicial Watch Files Senate Ethics Complaint against Senator Christopher Dodd
Look who is in trouble once again for selling favors in exchange for a sweetheart mortgage deal — none other than Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, one of the “Fannie twins,” (the other, of course, being Democratic Rep. Barney Frank).
On April 24, Judicial Watch filed a complaint with the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics against Dodd. What’s the charge this time? Dodd allegedly assisted a longtime friend and associate in obtaining a reduced sentence and ultimately a full presidential pardon from President Clinton related to tax and securities crimes, in exchange for gifts, including a sweetheart real estate deal that he failed to properly disclose in his Senate Financial Disclosure forms.
Our complaint, which can be read in its entirety here, states:
This complaint concerns recent media reports alleging Senator Christopher Dodd used his position and influence as a United States Senator to intervene on behalf of his longtime friend and business associate, Edward Downe, Jr. Senator Dodd is then alleged to have benefited financially as a result of his intervention, and failed to disclose the financial benefits by filing inaccurate Senate Financial Disclosure Statements from 2002 through at least 2007.
Now here’s some of the back story. In 1993, Senator Dodd appeared at a hearing on behalf of Edward Downe, Jr. to help Downe obtain a reduced sentence for violations involving tax and securities laws. In 2001, Dodd ultimately helped Downe secure a full presidential pardon for his crimes on President Clinton’s last day in office, bypassing the normal pardon vetting process. In 2002, Dodd allegedly received a significantly reduced, below-market sales price for a two-thirds interest in a property located in County Galway, Ireland, from Downe’s associate, William Kessinger. (Dodd already owned a one-third interest in the property.) Downe’s signature appears on the property transfer documents. In fact, he is listed as a witness.
(Judicial Watch has sought additional documents about this property from government authorities in Ireland.)
According to the complaint, Senator Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, mind you, allegedly failed to report the gift in 2002 and may have filed inaccurate Senate Financial Disclosure forms related to the property ever since, in violation of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. The penalty for filing false financial disclosure forms is $50,000 and up to one year in prison.
Judicial Watch has asked the Senate Ethics Committee for a full and speedy investigation, but this certainly seems to be a straight-up quid pro quo. Dodd helped his apparently crooked friend and seems to have received a cut-rate price on a property in Ireland in exchange. And then, to make matters worse, it appears he attempted to cover up the transgression by failing to disclose it on his financial disclosure forms. (In fact, above and beyond any Senate Ethics Committee investigation, federal prosecutors need to take a look at this, as knowingly filing false financial forms is a crime.)
By the way, as I referenced earlier, this is not the first time Dodd has been in trouble for his involvement in this type of “arrangement.” You may recall, in 2008, Senator Dodd came under firefor receiving preferential loan terms from Countrywide Financial as a member of the company’s “VIP Program.”
Barack Obama’s First 100 Days
Every president since FDR has bestowed great importance on the first 100 days of his administration. The first 100 days period is often a good chance for the new president to accomplish some major objectives. And it is a natural time for the nation to begin to take the measure of the man.
So, now that Barack Obama’s first 100 days are behind us, I thought it would be worthwhile to take a look at some major themes that have emerged in the early days of his presidency.
Screwed Up Presidential Appointments: Back in February, President Obama admitted he“screwed up” when he appointed former Senator Tom Daschle to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Daschle, it turned out, was a tax evader and a lobbyist rife with conflicts of interest. But Daschle is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Obama’s screwed up presidential appointments. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Obama’s pick for the Commerce Department, for example, was forced to pull his name from contention when the press reported Richardson was at the center of a grand jury investigation into influence peddling.
Among the other Obama appointments with significant ethical baggage: Eric Holder (Attorney General); Janet Napolitano (Secretary of Homeland Security), Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State), Timothy Geithner (Secretary of Treasury), Greg Craig (White House Counsel), Gary Locke (Secretary of Commerce), and Cecilia Munoz (Director of Inter Governmental Affairs).
Amnesty for Illegal Aliens: We have been waiting a long time for Barack Obama to address the issue of illegal immigration. However, when he finally got around to articulating his plans, we longed for the day when he simply ignored the issue. Obama recently announced his bold plan to provide a “path to citizenship” for the millions of illegal aliens currently residing in the country. (Honest Americans call this “amnesty.”) Not only would such policy undermine our very fabric of law, but it will almost certainly lead to a massive flood of illegals coming across the border from Mexico. Of course none of this comes as any surprise considering that Obama’s point person on illegal immigration, Cecilia Munoz, once worked for the ultra-radical National Council of La Raza, a racist group that is committed to staging a takeover of the American Southwest and returning it to Mexico.
Government Takeover of Private Sector: Okay, we all knew Barack Obama was a big government tax and spender, but did we really think it would ever get this bad this quickly? It took President Bush eight years to run up a $1.9 trillion debt. Obama’s proposals hit $4.8 trillion in 100 days, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Money aside, it appears President Obama is using the financial crisis to advance a radical socialist agenda by allowing the federal government to gobble up large stakes in private enterprises. The really troubling part is the fact that no one has any idea how much further Obama is willing to take this campaign. And no one in Congress is putting a stop to it.
Corrupt Connections: During the campaign, the media asked us to forget all about Barack Obama’s troubling connections. Domestic terrorist William Ayers, convicted felon Antoin “Tony” Rezko, and the reverend Jeremiah Wright were irrelevant and off limits. And then Judicial Watch obtained a number of documents from Blagojevich’s office related to federal investigations involving the former governor, including federal grand jury subpoenas listing key White House advisors and other notable people connected to the national Democratic Party. All of this took place just before Obama took office, which meant that the pitch man for “hope and change” began his presidency under a cloud of suspicion and corruption.
When it comes to the expansion of government power and the guaranteed resulting corruption, the Obama administration is simply out of control. After 100 days of Obama, I’m sure you’ll agree Judicial Watch’s watchdog role is more important than ever.
Until next week…
Tom Fitton
President
Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation’s public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.
April 24, 2009
From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton: (4/24/9)
Judicial Watch Uncovers New Report Detailing Sharp Increase in Violence on Mexican Border
If you’ve been reading this Weekly Update for any length of time, you know that Judicial Watch has been tracking the deteriorating situation on our nation’s southern border very closely. Judicial Watch has led the charge to uncover government documents detailing hundreds of intentional incursions by Mexican government operatives into the United States in recent years.
This week we learned that the situation is getting worse.
On Tuesday, we released a U.S. Customs and Border Protection report titled, BorderStat Violence, FY 2008 Year in Review, which documents a sharp increase in violence on the U.S. border with Mexico. Judicial Watch forced the allegedly transparent Obama administration to release this document through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit we filed against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on January 27, 2009.
Here are the headlines:
- There were a total of 147 incursions at and between the Ports of Entry for all Customs and Border Protection (CBP) components for FY 2008 when compared to 32 incursions for FY 2007, an increase of 359%.
- There were 1,325 incidents of violence occurring at or between the Ports of Entry against CBP Agents and Officers, resulting in a 23 percent increase from 1,073 in FY 2007.
- 97 percent of all incidents of violence against CBP Agents and Officers occurred on the southwest border.
- The San Diego sector sustained the largest increase in assaults, 48 percent, for FY 2008 when compared to FY 2007. The Yuma sector experienced the largest decrease, 56 percent.
- There were 227 assaults against CBP Officers at the Ports of Entry in FY 2008 as compared to 85 in FY 2007, an increase of 167 percent.
In the face of what is obviously an indisputable crisis on our border with Mexico, what has been the Obama administration’s response?
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano recently turned down an offer for increased funding from the Senate Committee on Homeland Defense to address the problem of violence on the southern border. The Obama administration also rejected an appeal from Texas Governor Rick Perry and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to deploy 1,000 National Guard troops to help quell border violence. Instead, the Obama administration announced a plan to temporarily send 360 federal agents to the border, a plan which has little chance of succeeding.
The Obama administration has been tone deaf on the issue of border security. Our Border Patrol agents are being attacked and our sovereignty violated at alarming rates. The symbolic gestures offered by the administration are virtually meaningless in light of these numbers. When will the Mexican government be held to account for its purposeful incursions into our sovereign territory?
It can’t be soon enough.
In the meantime, we think there may be more documents that are being illegally withheld by Obama’s DHS. So it looks like our court fight will continue.
Democratic Congresswoman Snared in Influence-Peddling Scandal
Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman is at the center of a media firestorm this week due to an influence-peddling scandal involving two lobbyists, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a coveted post as head of the House Intelligence Committee.
Here’s the story according to The New York Times:
One of the leading House Democrats on intelligence matters was overheard on telephone calls intercepted by the National Security Agency agreeing to seek lenient treatment from the Bush administration for two pro-Israel lobbyists who were under investigation for espionage, current and former government officials say.
The lawmaker, Representative Jane Harman of California, became the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee after the 2002 election and had ambitions to be its chairwoman when the party gained control of the House in 2006. One official who has seen transcripts of several wiretapped calls said she appeared to agree to intercede in exchange for help in persuading party leaders to give her the powerful post.
There was really one party leader in the Harman gang’s crosshairs, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And here’s how the quid pro quo was supposed to work. Harman would work her contacts in the Bush administration to get the two lobbyists, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, off the hook. And, in exchange, Rosen and Weissman would pressure their billionaire friend, Haim Saban, to withhold campaign contributions from Speaker Pelosi unless Harman was named chair of the committee.
Looked good on paper. It did not work in practice.
Harman apparently overplayed her hand. Pelosi, reportedly disinclined to name Harman to the position due to some personal issues between the two Democratic leaders, was apparently annoyed at the aggressive lobbying campaign initiated by Harman. Texas Democrat Silvestre Reyes ultimately earned the post. Pelosi has admitted that she had been briefed on the Harman wiretaps, but did nothing about it (except maybe deny Harman the coveted Intelligence Committee post).
Nonetheless, during an event on Tuesday, Pelosi called Harman a “patriotic American” who would never do anything to hurt her country.
We shall see.
There’s another angle to this story that reflects poorly on the Bush Justice Department. According toCongressional Quarterly, a preliminary Justice Department review of the Harman scandal was halted by former Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez because he wanted Harman’s help in convincing the New York Times not to publish an article that exposed the government’s secret terrorist surveillance program. The Gonzalez part of the story is still developing, but if true is absolutely outrageous.
The speculation now is that the Obama Justice Department, thanks to adverse court rulings, is prepared to drop the case against Rosen and Weissman. (Apparently disclosing national defense secrets isn’t really much of a crime these days.)
As for Harman? Well, according to press reports, the Democratic congresswoman signed off on one of her calls with the lobbyists saying, “This conversation doesn’t exist.” Well, the conversation did exist. And apparently the government has the tapes to prove it.
Will Pelosi now hold Harman to account? Ask her directly at (202) 225-4965.
Feinstein Accused of Helping Funnel Money to Husband — Again
Senator Feinstein is apparently at it again, allegedly abusing her position in Congress to help line her husband’s pockets.
According to Fox News:
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband’s real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms, the Washington Times reported on Tuesday.
Mrs. Feinstein’s intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn’t a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments – not direct federal dollars.
Feinstein apparently made the initial offer to secure funds for the FDIC, just a few days before the agency awarded Blum’s firm the lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties.
So, in other words, at the very least it appears Senator Feinstein greased the wheels at the FDIC with an offer of a large chunk of cash at the very moment the agency was considering Blum’s firm for a lucrative contract. Then once her husband got the deal, she delivered the goods.
As you are probably aware, Senate ethics rules state that members must not only avoid conflicts of interest but also “the appearance of a conflict of interest.”
Feinstein has obviously failed this test.
Of course the California Democrat denies there is any connection between the legislation and the contract awarded to her husband. But there is a precedent for this type of corrupt behavior by Feinstein.
As you may recall, in 2007, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on military construction, Feinstein reviewed military construction government contracts, some of which were ultimately awarded to URS Corporation and Perini, companies then owned by Blum. While the Pentagon ultimately awards military contracts, there is a reason for the review process. The Senate’s subcommittee on Military Construction’s approval carries weight. Senator Feinstein, therefore, likely had influence over a decision making process that enriched her husband (and herself!).
And here we are again.
The latest Feinstein scandal is a good example of how politicians can enrich themselves with taxpayer dollars. It is also a good example of how the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mess is not about markets out of control, but corrupt government meddling that puts our entire financial system at risk.
My colleagues on our investigations team are sending out a Freedom of Information Act request out today on the Feinstein scandal.
So this issue won’t be going away for Senator Feinstein.
Until next week…
Tom Fitton
President
Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation’s public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.
