Showing posts with label Jackson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jackson. Show all posts

Saturday, January 26, 2013

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER SLAPDOWN FOR WHITE HOUSE: EPA slammed for mandating use of nonexistent biofuels

It seems like just yesterday that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit blasted President Obama's unprecedented act of claiming the Senate was in recess to place unpopular appointees on the National Labor Relations Board. Oh, that's right. It was just yesterday.

Slamming the administration in a blistering unanimous decision, Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote, "We will not do violence to the Constitution by ignoring the Framers’ choice of words."

Early this morning, The Daily Caller reports, another federal judge slammed the Obama EPA for mandating the use of nonexistent biofuels. Go figure.

A federal court delivered a serious blow to the Environmental Protection Agency’s renewable fuel agenda, ruling that the agency exceeded its authority by mandating refiners use cellulosic biofuels, which isn’t commercially available.

The court sided with the country’s chief oil and gas lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, in striking down the 2012 EPA mandate that would have forced refineries to purchase more than $8 million in credits for 8.65 million of gallons of the cellulosic biofuel. However, none of the biofuel is commercially available.

“[W]e agree with API that EPA’s 2012 projection of cellulosic biofuel production was in excess of the agency’s statutory authority,” reads the court decision...

The Obama administration is operating without any concern for the law. I believe that they have failed to consider the full implications of their behavior.

Lawlessness begets lawlessness. Which explains rallies like this one.


And signs like this.


If a president operates with reckless disregard for the law, why would the citizenry behave any differently?


Thursday, December 27, 2012

CHART: America's Disappearing Fathers

Truly tragic:

In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers...
The spiral continues each year. Married couples with children have an average income of $80,000, compared with $24,000 for single mothers.
“We have one class that thinks marriage and fatherhood is important, and another which doesn’t, and it’s causing that gap, income inequality, to get wider,”

...Though income is the primary predictor, the lack of live-in fathers also is overwhelmingly a black problem, regardless of poverty status, census data show. Among blacks, nearly 5 million children, or 54 percent, live with only their mother...

[One black father] is quick to blame the absence of fathers to deaths or incarcerations, though women point out that many absent fathers live around the corner...

The inconvenient truth? The "War on Poverty" and the Left's failed welfare state policies have decimated the two-parent family and ruined the lives of millions.

Of that, there can be no debate.


Richard Windsor Resigns as Head of EPA

Or is the name Lisa Jackson? I'm so confused.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson has decided to resign her post as top environmental regulator, a move that comes as Congress applies pressure on her for complicating oversight of the EPA by using at least one secondary email address under an alias.

...Lawmakers and the EPA inspector general wonder if Jackson used a private email account created under an alias to develop those policies in a way that would be invisible to watchdogs and congressional oversight...

...Jackson used a private email under the alias “Richard Windsor” to correspond with EPA colleagues, a decision her staff defended by saying that her official email account received too many messages for her to use it efficiently.

Her official email received too many messages?

Gee, I'm no Bill Gates, but I figure with 17,000 employees and an $8 billion budget the EPA could marshal the necessary brainpower to add a lisa.jackson2@epa.gov to their Exchange server.

Investors Business Daily summarizes the story as a question: "Is The EPA's Lisa Jackson Trying To Dodge A Federal Probe?"

Answer: of course she is. Just add this scandal to the list.


Tuesday, November 13, 2012

HARD TO KEEP UP WITH THE SCANDALS: EPA said to have broken law by using secret email accounts to hide radical agenda

At the rate this administration is going, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Kim Kardashian is involved in a secret love triangle with Jay Carney and David Axelrod.

I refer, of course, to the daily stream of scandals involving the Obama administration and its many tentacles. The latest shoe to drop, outside of the Benghazi-related sex scandals, is the unsurprising report that the EPA's top dogs have been routinely breaking the law for years.

The name Richard Windsor may sound innocuous, but it is allegedly one of the secret “alias” email accounts used by Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

...In his book [“The Liberal War on on Transparency", author Chris] Horner revealed the existence of “alias” email accounts used by EPA administrators. The first such transparency dodge, he writes, came from Carol Browner, former director of the Obama White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy and Bill Clinton’s EPA administrator.

“You remember Ms. Browner, the lady who suddenly ordered her computer hard drive reformatted and backup tapes erased, hours after a federal court issued a ‘preserve’ order … that her lawyers at the Clinton Justice Department insisted they hadn’t yet told her about?... The one who said it’s all good because she didn’t use her computer for email anyway? That one.”

Horner said two former “fairly senior” EPA officials contacted him while he was researching his book, and gave him the name of one of the email alias names used by EPA Chief Jackson... “Richard Windsor” was just “[o]ne of the alternate email addresses she used...”

...“These alias accounts, from their origin and use under Browner to their use by Browner’s successor, are now the subject of a lawsuit..." [because] all government employees are required by federal law to use official email accounts to conduct government business...

Jackson, of course, is a hard left "eco-warrior" who has pushed the EPA to enact the most radical, anti-business regulations in American history.

And Horner asserts that other top officials are also using private email accounts to avoid Freedom of Information requests.

That Jackson would illegally hide her agenda from public scrutiny is precisely what we've come to expect from "the most transparent administration ever".



Thursday, April 19, 2012

Not Trayvon: 'I don't want to go back with him'

Although highly relevant to the Trayvon Martin tragedy, you won't read this story in old media:

Ten-year-old Abdifatah Mohamud was running for his life down Sycamore Street at about 5 p.m. Tuesday when a concerned neighbor stopped to try to help. Seeing the boy's stepfather chasing after him, the neighbor helped the man, Ali Mohamed Mohamud, catch up with the child.

The boy didn't want to go home with Mohamud.

"I told the boy, 'Daddy promises nothing is going to happen,'" the neighbor later told The Buffalo News. "The boy said to me: 'No, he always says that.'"

Less than six hours later, Abdifatah was dead, brutally beaten, and his stepfather, Ali Mohamed Mohamud, was under arrest.

The boy was tied to a chair with duct tape, a sock stuffed in his mouth, and he was beaten with a stick or blunt object in the basement of their Guilford Street home, near the Broadway Market, authorities said... The stepfather was angry because the boy, a fifth-grader at the International Preparatory School on Clinton Street, had fallen behind in his homework...

...Mohamud, 40, a native of Somalia who has been in the United States for a decade, was charged with second-degree murder. Police investigators were shocked over the viciousness of the beating... "The defendant admitted he tied up his 10-year-old stepson, admitted that he put a sock in his mouth, put duct tape over the mouth and beat him to death with a stick or similar blunt object," Finnerty said.

And this story is simply too heartbreaking to use the all-too-suitable "Boy who could have been Obama's son..."

Pity the professional race-baiting scam artists -- Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson foremost among them -- won't be seen within 250 miles of this case.


Hat tip: Winterspirit.

Monday, April 9, 2012

Exclusive: Marion Barry Campaign Poster

Biff Spackle discovered this poster, which highlights Marion Barry's commitment to ethnic cleansing.


Remember: it's not racist unless Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson and Al "Diamond Merchant" Sharpton say so.


Thursday, March 29, 2012

This is six-year old Aliyah Shell, one of 10 killed and 50 wounded last weekend in Chicago. So where are the professional race-baiters?

At 3:00pm on Saturday afternoon, 6-year old Aliyah Shell was sitting with her mother and sister on the front porch of her home in the 3100 block of South Springfield Avenue. A pickup truck drove by, slowed to a near stop and the passenger side window rolled down. Shots rang out.

Aliyah Shell was killed by the gunfire as the truck drove off.

At least 10 people were killed, including a 6-year-old girl, in shootings over the weekend in Chicago... The slain were among at least 49 people wounded in shootings from 5 p.m. Friday to 6 a.m. Monday...

So where are the professional race-baiters like Al "Not So" Sharpton and Jesse Jerkson?

Where is MSNBS, ABS, CBS and NBS Nightly News?

Where are the New Black Panthers and the other thugs seeking to profit from Trayvon Martin's death?

They don't give a crap about Aliyah Shell, or the hundreds of others killed and wounded every year in Obama's hometown of Chicago.

No, they care only about fomenting hatred, division and dissent. They studiously avoid the ramifications of their failed policies, from the "Great Society" to the "War on Poverty".

All Americans -- citizens of every race, creed, religion and color -- should reject the Democrat Party and its vicious marketing of racial hatred.


Saturday, February 18, 2012

Dreams From My Single-Parent Family

In September of 2009, a cell-phone video that depicted Chicago public school students beating a fellow teen to death circulated throughout the Internet and the mainstream media.

Curiously, none of the media outlets that covered the story bothered to recollect that President Barack Obama had once served as a community organizer and then a state senator in these very same South Side neighborhoods.

Throughout his years working for "change", Obama paid scant heed to the primary cause of violence and dependency in the area: the eradication of the black two-parent family by decades of Democrat policies.

Community organizing had gotten its start in Chicago under the direction of an activist named Saul Alinsky. Alinsky believed that poverty was the result of political inequities. He envisioned a power-grab by the "have-nots" of society, who would form massive, grassroots coalitions that would defeat the rich and redistribute their possessions.

But the Alinsky movement suffered two calamitous setbacks in the years leading up to the Obama era. First, the "War on Poverty" had established a governmental community organizing bureaucracy called the Community Action Agency. Rife with corruption, the agency's money was misappropriated and used to fund gang warfare, rape and murder.

In addition, the Alinsky playbook was doubly irrelevant because blacks occupied most of the positions of power in Chicago. The city had elected its first black mayor, Harold Washington; it had power-brokers like Emil Jones, Jr. in the State Senate; and Jesse Jackson would launch his 1984 presidential campaign in the south side.

Despite the sea-change in political influence, Chicago had exploded in a maelstrom of black-on-black violence. In 1984, the year Obama came to Chicago, one of the top high school basketball players in the country -- an immensely talented and likable center named Ben Wilson -- was murdered by gang members.

The outcry was as predictable as it was ineffectual. None of the power-brokers pointed out that all of Wilson's killers came from single-parent families. None concerned themselves with the mind-blowing statistic: 75% of all black Chicago kids were born out of wedlock. In fact, it became a cultural norm for young black men to father children and flee responsibility. The result was rampant crime. In fact, statistical studies show that, whether you are white, black or brown, you have the exact same chance of going to prison if you come from a single-parent family.

In Obama's book Dreams from My Father, his narrative "is almost devoid of men. With the exception of the local ministers and the occasional semi-crazed black nationalist, Obama inhabits a female world. His organizing targets are almost all single mothers. He never wonders where and who the fathers of their children are. When Obama sees a group of boys vandalizing a building, he asks rhetorically: 'Who will take care of them: the alderman, the social workers? The gangs?' The most appropriate candidate—'their fathers'—never occurs to him."

Rather than confront the central issue, Obama as community organizer initially struggled to find his role. He was relieved to find that a Mayor's Education and Training (MET) office had no branch in Roseland, and he promptly filed an application to open one. The office had as much of an effect on the area as his asbestos removal efforts, which is to say: none. In fact, youth violence continued to increase and by his third year, 57 children had been killed in the city.

In 1994, a series of brutal child murders galvanized public attention: an 11-year old gang member was executed to keep him from implicating others in an accidental shooting death. A month later, a five-year old boy who had refused to steal candy for two under-12 gang members was dropped from a 14-story building. Not one of the participants came from a two-parent family.

A year after these notorious murders, the would-be candidate for state senator granted an interview to The Chicago Reader. Rather than point out the lack of family structure endemic to the rampant violence, Obama instead attacked "the Christian Right and the Republican Congress for 'hijack[ing] the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility.' Yeah, sure, family values are fine, he says, but what about 'collective action . . . collective institutions and organizations'? Let’s take 'these same values that are encouraged within our families,' he urges, 'and apply them to a larger society.'"

The ignorance or naivete inherent in these statements expose a bizarre worldview. Never in the history of western civilization has some collectivist framework served as a realistic substitute for the traditional family structure. In Obama's Chicago, fathers are AWOL; and some nebulous obligation for "collective action" has no chance of succeeding without a sense of personal responsibility. In fact, Obama downplays the notion of a familial duty and points to an overall societal failure, saying "...we have a society that talks about the irresponsibility of teens getting pregnant... [but] not the irresponsibility of a society that fails to educate them to aspire for more."

The ideology of Alinsky then -- as now -- appears to have polluted Obama's sense of right and wrong. Where history, facts, logic and reason point to the need to encourage, nurture and reward the traditional family unit, Obama instead vilifies family values and those who promote them.

For decades, Obama and the Democrats have embraced an utterly defective and destructive strategy: Crushing school choice. Incentivizing single-parent families. Encouraging a lifelong culture of dependency.

The children of Obama's South Side deserve better. They deserve more than a dream of a father.


Based upon: Heather Mac Donald, Chicago’s Real Crime Story, City Journal.

Monday, January 16, 2012

Good news: EPA creates bureaucratic nightmare to prevent farmers from using... pesticides

And what could possibly go wrong with a de facto ban on pesticides? Farm Futures explains:

The U.S. Senate and the Senate Agriculture Committee failed to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing a regulation which will require a Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit when applying pesticides.

...any person discharging pesticides and leaving a residue, waste or surplusage through a point source and into a water of the United States will be required to obtain a NPDES permit before application. This case still poses a legal risk for tillage agriculture...

• mosquito and other flying insect pest control;
• weed and algae pest control on the water and the water's edge;
• animal pest control...;
• forest canopy pest control where pesticides will necessarily have to be applied over and deposited into water.

The general permit issued by EPA will start being enforced at the end of February, 2012... As producers, you need to be extremely vigilant as to what your state environmental agency may be doing with regard to requiring NPDES permits for spraying of pesticides.

In other words, if a farm has any water on its property, it could be required to submit a "pesticide discharge management plan". This fun package of regulatory overreach includes:

• a Pesticide Discharge Management Team;
• Problem Identification;
• Pest Management Options Evaluation;
• Response Procedures;
• Spill Response Procedures;
• Adverse Incident Procedures;
• and Documentation to Support Compliance with Other Federal Laws.

As the understated Farm Futures observes, "it is unlikely most agricultural operations could support this bureaucratic framework."

[The framework] does not provide any protection or preemption if a producer is sued by a citizen who claims the spraying of a crop leads to the discharge of the pesticide or herbicide into the air and is discharged or deposited into a water of the state.

...Before spring planting begins, you should have your local farm organization check with the state environmental agency to determine its position on pesticide application and any potential legal liability that might develop as a result of spraying practices... It still poses a risk to farmers and applicators.

I guess we really didn't need reliable food production after all.

And what's the real motivation behind this regulatory nightmare? To make farming so difficult, so onerous, so bureaucratic, that small farms will simply give up and sell out to huge corporations; you know, the kind that have an incestuous relationship with Congress. With the state. It's Crony Capitalism 101, folks (refer to tenets #1 and #7 in Compare and Contrast: Karl Marx' 10 Point Program of Communism and the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Agenda).


Thursday, December 22, 2011

Jesse Jackson's advice for black fathers: teach your children the value of reading. Just kidding, he wants them to teach kids how to fight.

Mush-mouthed race hustlers hardest hit:

There’s no guarantee the being a black father will stop this because they’re killing black fathers too. One of the tragedies of this [garbled] is that you don’t have to be guilty to be crucified – killing the innocent. Therefore we must overwhelm them with numbers. That becomes our strength to fight back.

When I was younger I would say I wanted my children to get educated so that they wouldn’t have to go through what I’ve gone through. I’ve changed that position now. I want them to get a good education so they can have more tools with which to fight. The fight will not stop. I want them to have more tools. I want black fathers to have more tools with which to fight.

So when it’s time for Operation Black Vote to have massive registration, responsible black fathers vote to make a difference. They demonstrate. They march. They fight back.

So I say ‘fathers, teach your children how to fight for jobs and justice and healthcare using the weapons of your mind, your vote, and your marching feet.’

It will be a good day when professional race-baiters like Jackson and Sharpton are finally given all the respect they deserve. Which is to say, none.


Related: The Democrats' "War on Poverty"

Friday, October 28, 2011

Great news: EPA chief Lisa Jackson agitating college activists to shut down power stations

I wonder how these climatards plan to survive winter?

College environmental activists met Thursday with Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson to tell her what they're doing at their schools to try to shut down campus coal-fired heating plants.

"It's so important that your voices are heard, that campuses that are supposed to be teaching people aren't meanwhile polluting the surrounding community with mercury and costing the children a few IQ points because of the need to generate power. It's simply not fair," Jackson said.

The three dozen student activists from coal-consuming states such as Georgia, Kentucky and Indiana included leaders of Sierra Club campus groups that have been pushing to switch from coal to cleaner forms of energy.

"Make sure we don't lose what we have already in trying to keep stretching forward," Jackson told them. "Because it would be tragic if we take one step forward and then we end up taking five or six steps back."

Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, have held 168 roll-call votes so far this year on measures that would reduce the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, waste-disposal laws and other national laws.

"None of them are safe right now," Jackson said of those environmental-protection statutes. "It was my generation and a generation before who advocated in the '60s until 1970, and finally they created the EPA in 1970. You would think all that's behind us? We're talking about losing all that."

..."In Indiana we get more than 90 percent of our electricity from coal. This means that fish in our lakes and streams are polluted with mercury and other pollutants from coal ash and combustion," [one student] said.

Johnson said he faced a lot of opposition on campus in Kentucky, a leading coal-producing state. He said the school's two coal plants, both around 50 years old, were close to the university's two hospitals and classrooms. "It's a serious public health issue," he said.

Really?

Really?

Lacking only evidence, logic, and reason, these gullible crackpots are perfectly willing to follow Marxists like Lisa Jackson on their malevolent mission to transform this society into North Korea.


Tuesday, December 28, 2010

So the Democrats Finally Want Fiscal Responsibility? Great. Let's End Their Disastrous "War on Poverty"

Race Hustler Wants More Spending for the "War on Poverty"--It Seems $16 Trillion Isn't Enough


The nation's foremost race hustler is in the news again, agitating for more spending in the "War on Poverty". Oh, and he wants a "radical reordering" of our economy, because the Consitution is apparently an arcane relic with no particular relevance to race hustlers.

Jesse Jackson appeared on MSNBC yesterday and let it be known that President Obama better enjoy his vacation now, because come January, Jackson expects a lot from the President. Not only does he want a renewed commitment to the war on poverty, but he also wants the President to go right to Congress and to stick up for the women and children Jackson meets in homeless shelters who apparently are working every day and still can’t afford the rent.

Jackson has seen enough and calls for “a radical reordering of our economy, bottom up, because those, the very top are drowning in wealth. It’s paper-driven not even productivity-driven.” Given Jackson’s unique and mangled pronunciation of so many words in the brief clip, it sounds like Jackson is actually the one under water and drowning... Overall it’s debatable which is crazier: the radical rearrangement of the economy or the idea that Obama wants economic advice from Jackson.

I can answer that question.

Since the inception of means-tested welfare programs in 1964, Americans have spent $15.9 trillion on the "War on Poverty".

Coincidentally, our national debt is approaching $15 trillion and is projected to top $20 trillion by the end of the decade.

After adjusting for inflation, America's welfare expenditures are 1300% higher than in 1965. And the results have been absolutely catastrophic. But the documented failures haven't stopped President Obama and the Democrats from charting a course for massive new spending programs, at a time when the country can least afford it.

A record number of Americans -- 3.7 million -- fell into poverty in 2009, according to the Census Bureau. And the percentage of poor today is virtually unchanged from what it was in 1966. America's poverty rate stays within a range of 11 to 15 percent, year in and year out, no matter how many trillions in money borrowed from our children we spend.

Worse still, unbridled welfare programs have insidious impacts on society


The out-of-wedlock birthrate is now 40 percent and the African-American out-of-wedlock birthrate is a shocking 72 percent. But when the "War on Poverty" began, the out-of-wedlock birthrate was just 7 percent.

Of 23 peer-reviewed U.S. studies since 2000, 20 found that family structure directly affects crime and/or delinquency. Research "strongly suggests both that young adults and teens raised in single-parent homes are far more likely to commit crimes, and that communities with high rates of family fragmentation (especially unwed childbearing) suffer higher crime rates as a result."

In The Atlantic Monthly, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead states that the "relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime."

What legacy media and Democrats won't tell you is this shocking fact: the statistical link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is conclusive. The more welfare society provides, the more single-parent families society creates.

There have been dozens of studies that link the availability of welfare benefits to out-of-wedlock births. One study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.

Research for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.

In 1995, Dr. Patrick Fagan wrote a seminal summary of the situation: "Over the past thirty years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers... High-crime neighborhoods are characterized by high concentrations of families abandoned by fathers... The rate of violent teenage crime corresponds with the number of families abandoned by fathers... Neighborhoods with a high degree of religious practice are not high-crime neighborhoods... Even in high-crime inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable homes do not become delinquents. By contrast only 10 percent of children from unsafe, unstable homes in these neighborhoods avoid crime... Criminals capable of sustaining marriage gradually move away from a life of crime after they get married."

To summarize these facts (in simple words for any Democrats reading along): not only has the "War on Poverty" been a $15 trillion failure, it has actually caused more misery, more poverty, and more violent crime than if we had never spent that money in the first place.

President Obama wants ideas to help balance the budget. Here's one: end the failed "War on Poverty", once and for all.


References: Washington Examiner, 12/12/10, "Let a vigorous economy fight the War on Poverty"; Heritage Foundation, 9/16/10, "Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty."

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

How much is a Senate seat worth? For a member of Nancy Pelosi's 'Most Ethical Congress Ever', oh, about $6 million

Democrats: if they weren't in power, they'd make a great crime drama

'Scum' is too kind a word.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. directed a major political fund-raiser [Oak Brook businessman Raghuveer Nayak] to offer former Gov. Rod Blagojevich millions of dollars in campaign cash in return for an appointment to the U.S. Senate, sources said the fund-raiser has told federal authorities...

...The FBI interviewed [an] acquaintance — a Washington, D.C., restaurant hostess named Giovana Huidobro — ...as part of its corruption probe of Blagojevich... Huidobro, Jackson and Nayak all dined together on Oct. 8, 2008 — the same day that Nayak has told authorities he had a key conversation with Jackson about the Senate appointment, sources said. The three then ended up at Ozio, the restaurant and club where Huidobro works and where Jackson has held fund-raisers.

...Nayak told the FBI that he paid for two airline trips for Huidobro from Washington to Chicago in 2008.

A spokesman for Jackson declined to comment on Monday.

Reached Tuesday on his cell phone, Jackson said: "I have nothing to say. Call my office. Have a good day."

Pressed about Huidobro, the congressman again said, "I have nothing to say."

Jackson does not appear to have reported the flights for Huidobro as a gift on his House financial-disclosure statement, and it's unclear whether he violated any ethics or fund-raising laws by not doing so...

...Nayak, also a former Blagojevich fund-raiser, said that Jackson asked him to tell Blagojevich that if the then-governor appointed Jackson to the U.S. Senate, Chicago's Indian community would raise $1 million for Blagojevich and -- after Jackson was appointed -- Jackson would raise $5 million for the then-governor.

...At trial, Robert Blagojevich, Friends of Blagojevich chair, said he was twice approached by Indian fund-raisers offering money for Jackson. He testified that Nayak had offered the $6 million for Jackson.

Just when you think the Democrats have hit a new ethical low -- after Rangel, Waters, Geithner, Mollohan, Feinstein, Reid, Frank and Dodd, to name but a few -- they break out the bulldozers and dig a new sub-basement.


Hat tip: Memeorandum. Linked by: Michelle Malkin. Thanks!

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Lower Court Dismisses Former AD's Case Against Lafayette College

Eve Atkinson sued Lafayette College in 2001, arguing that the college terminated her from the athletic director position, which she had held since 1989, in retaliation for her advocacy on behalf of women's athletics and Title IX. A federal court initially dismissed her lawsuit on the grounds that Title IX's private right of action did not cover retaliation claims. Her appeal was stayed pending the Supreme Court's eventual decision in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education allowing for private enforcement of Title IX retaliation claims, so the Third Circuit reversed the lower court's decision and reinstated Atkinson's case. Lafayette then moved for summary judgment, arguing that Atkinson did not allege sufficient evidence to support a retaliation claim. Earlier this month, the district court agreed, and again dismissed Atkinson's case against the college.

In particular, the district court determined that Atkinson had not sufficiently alleged that she engaged in protected conduct, the first element of a retaliation claim, because all of her advocacy for gender equity advocacy was done in her capacity as Athletic Director. However, I believe that in requiring a Title IX retaliation plaintiff to be targetted for conduct outside her job duties in order to receive the protection of law, the district court imposes a new and unwarranted requirement that is inconsistent with other Title IX retaliation decisions, including Jackson. Moreover, if it is the case that the college terminated her because of her Title IX advocacy (the district court thinks Atkinson's fails on this element as well) then it should not matter at all whether she was acting against or in accord with her role as the athletic director. I hope that an appeal gives the Third Circuit an opportunity to clarify this legal issue.

Decision: Atkinson v. Lafayette College, 2009 WL 2949295 (E.D. Pa. 2009).

Saturday, February 14, 2009

WATN? Coach Roderick Jackson of Birmingham

In the spirit of WHB's "where are they now?" feature, I note that Roderick Jackson, the girls high school basketball coach who brought the successful and groundbreaking Title IX retaliation case against the Birmingham Board of Education, is back in the coaching game -- though coaching a different game. Jackson announced yesterday that he has been hired to coach the girls soccer team at one of the Birmingham high schools, where he will be "building a program from scratch." The article raised the possibility that this new position is part of a settlement agreement between Jackson and the school district. Though Jackson's retaliation case settled in 2006, Jackson has continued to challenge what he argues is the district's failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement that they had reached.

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Coach Jackson Fights On

After the Supreme Court confirmed in 2005 that Title IX prohibits retaliation against a coach who advocates for gender equity on behalf of his team, the defendant in that case, the Birmingham Board of Education, eventually settled with the plaintiff, former girls basketball coach Roderick Jackson. However, according to Coach Jackson, the Board has not been living up to its obligations under the settlement agreement. The Birmingham News reports that Jackson filed a motion in federal district court last week asking the judge to find the Board in contempt.

Jackson argues that, contrary to the Board's promise in the settlement agreement, female athletes at Jackson-Olin High School (and likely, other schools in the district) are still receiving inferior athletic opportunities, as measured by things like transportation, uniforms, and access to facilities.

The settlement agreement also obligated the Board to produce a Title IX compliance report. But Jackson maintains that the report is incomplete for failing to compare the financial resources provided to girls and boys sports. (The district's excuse, that it doesn't keep track of donations by "outside sources," sounds suspiciously like the "booster club made me do it" excuse we've heard many times before.) The report was also flawed, says Jackson, for only comparing the numbers of sports offered to boys and girls -- a meaningless statistic in terms of Title IX compliance -- rather than the number of athletic opportunities offered to each sex. Moreover, since Jackson-Olin High School does not satisfy that aspect of Title IX by statistical proportionality (55% of the student population is female, but receive only 36% of athletic opportunities) the report should have explained whether the district is in alternatively in compliance under one of the other two prongs.

Last, the article reports that while the settlement agreement required the Board to reinstate Jackson as head coach, Jackson is currently not serving in that position. Jackson claims this is a result of ongoing discrimination against female athletes and retaliation against him. Jackson reportedly resigned around the time of the settlement, out of concerns that his litigation was a distraction to his team. He rescinded his resignation 8 days later, and even though the Board hadn't acted on it, it refused to rehire Jackson back for the remainder of the season. Nor was he rehired for the position when it was posted for the following school year. Instead, the Board hired a football coach who some players and parents say was "treated them disrespectfully, had little basketball knowledge, and made football his priority."

Friday, January 25, 2008

Another Retaliation Case of Note

Last September, the federal district court in Montana denied Montana State University's motion for summary judgment on a Title IX retaliation suit filed by former head women's basketball coach, Robin Potera-Haskins. Her case is now heading for trial, but is unscheduled as of now.

Potera-Haskins headed the women's basketball program in Bozeman from 2001 until 2004, when the University president gave her the choice between resignation and termination. In her complaint, Potera-Haskins maintains that she was retaliated against in this manner for complaining about the inequitable conditions for the women's program relative to the men's in areas including coaching salaries and benefits, access to facilities, and the university's efforts to secure corporate sponsors and otherwise promote the team. She also alleges that she was singled out for this treatment because she resisted pressure from Athletic Director Peter Fields to offer a spot on the team to a friend of his who lacked the talent required of Division I program.

Potera-Haskins turned a losing MSU program around, posting three winning seasons and two conference championships during her tenure as head coach. Neverthess, MSU defends Potera-Haskins was terminated because of poor performance as a coach and "mistreatment and abuse suffered by the student athletes under her leadership." However, the judge acknowledged that this is a factual dispute properly decided by a jury rather than on summary judgment.

Though this post is belated (the judge's decision's recent publication in the F. Supp. 2d finally brought it to my attention), I am eager to mention it because it helps illustrate the trend of Title IX retaliation cases we have seen in the wake of Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, the 2005 Supreme Court decision affirming that Title IX also protects coaches (and others) who complain about inequitable treatment of women's sports. Potera-Haskins is another member of the "team" of female coaches and athletic department administrators who have brought retaliation cases against their colleges or universities -- a list that includes Eve Atkinson, Lindy Vivas, Karen Moe Humphreys, Diane Milutinovich, Stacy Johnson-Klein, Laurel Wartluft, Terri Patraw, Deena Deardurff Schmidt, and Jaye Flood.

Decision is: Potera-Haskins v. Gamble, 519 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (D. Mont. 2007).