Politics

No one currently in the United States Congress has the guts and might to say what is truly on his mind except Harlem’s own Charles B. Rangel. A member of Congress since 1971, he unseated the legendary Adam Clayton Powell to represent Harlem in Washington D.C. Charles Rangel, the heart and soul of the United States Congress stated in August 2006, that he will resign his seat if the Democrats did not take the House in November. The mid-term elections in November are so important to our country. The elections have been termed as a “cleaning of house” in which many hope that the Democrats will regain seats lost in Congress back in 1994. Well they did and the Dems came back with a vengeance passing important policies within the first 100 days of the 110th Congress.

As a native New Yorker, and as a past member of Mr. Rangel’s office, I feel a personal obligation to talk about him with the dignity and respect that he deserves. He taught me a lot, and his teachings have carried me to my present situation in life. When the Democrats took control of Congress in the election, Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) became Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. There was no way we could have possibly lost him without having felt his absence across the nation. No one has spoke out so adamantly against the miscalculations in Iraq or the Bush Administration’s economic policies, which he feels favor the rich over the poor.

Mr. Rangel is not afraid of saying what he feels is important and necessary. In response to remarks made by Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez at the UN general assembly on September 20, 2006 and implying that Bush was the devil, Rangel said, “I want President Chavez to please understand that even though many people in the United States are critical of our president that we resent the fact that he would come to the United States and criticize President Bush… you don’t come into my country, you don’t come into my congressional district and you don’t condemn my president.”

Do not get the impression that Mr. Rangel is strong supporter of our President or his policies, but he values a certain thing called respect. In 2005, Rangel compared the President to Bull Connor, the former Public Safety Commissioner for Birmingham, AL, “George Bush is our Bull Connor.” In response, Vice President Dick Cheney during an interview said “I’m frankly surprised at his comments. It almost struck me; they were so out of line, Charlie was having some problem.

Charlie is losing it, I guess.” Rangel shot back, “The fact that he would make a crack at my age, he ought to be ashamed of himself…He should look so good at 75.” That tenacity and energy is what we need on Capitol Hill and our country is in a better position now that Mr. Rangel runs at least some of the show.

Mr. Rangel is needed in the Congress, a champion of the people he is fourth in Seniority in the House only after Rep. John Dingell, Rep. John Conyers, and Rep. Dave Obey. The Co-Founder of the Congressional Black Caucus, he has been fighting for many years and his absence would have been felt across this country. Let’s take the time to appreciate this fighter and to make sure he sticks around for many more years to come.

Many thought the day would never come. A day that all Americans could prove to their children that they could become whatever they want in life no matter what their background is. A day that Americans could put aside their differences and see their neighbors for the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

Barack Obama’s stunning victory at the Iowa Caucus ignited a spark among Democratic voters, reminiscent of the days of Camelot and John F. Kennedy. Many believed that a state like Iowa, with a miniscule Black population, would never elect an African American to such a high position, but Obama’s message of change resonated in the Hawkeye State, as 37.6 percent of Iowa voters selected him to represent the Democratic party in November.

More shocking was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s third place finish with 29.5 percent of Iowa Democrats supporting the New York Senator.

According to the Associated Press, Obama’s victory marked the first time an African American candidate has won such a vital caucus or primary.

“Years from now you’ll be able to say, ‘This was the moment when it all began.’ This is the moment when we finally beat back the politics of fear and doubt and cynicism,” a victorious Obama told a crowd of supporters at a Des Moines, Iowa sports arena.

Obama dominated the college-age vote and enjoyed enormous success among Blacks in Waterloo, Iowa.

His success among African Americans should assist in his chances in November because many Black voters still believe he is not electable.

Obama’s wife Michelle believes America is ready for a Black president despite the skepticism.

“Ain’t no Black people in Iowa. Something big, something new is happening. Let’s build the future we all know is possible. Let’s show our kids that America is ready for Barack Obama right now,” said Michelle Obama at the Trumpet Awards, a gala celebrating achievement in Black America.

Despite his resounding win in Iowa, and pollsters predicting a double-digit win in the first primary of 2008, Obama finished a close second to Clinton in New Hampshire days later. Surprisingly, Clinton defeated Obama 39 percent to 37 percent in the Granite State. However, the Illinois senator was still upbeat and optimistic in defeat.

“We always knew our climb would be steep. You made it clear that at this moment in this election, there is something happening in America … You can be a new majority,” Obama told his supporters in New Hampshire. Clinton recently won the primary in Michigan and the Nevada caucus also.

According to Allen G. Breed of the A.P., “Obama’s stunning victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Iowa caucuses and strong second in New Hampshire’s primary showed he could win White votes. But some say the South Carolina contest offers a new test of his viability. Can he energize Black voters in places where their numbers could help him win in November?”

On January 26, Obama won the South Carolina primary in a landslide, winning 55 percent of the Democratic vote.

At least half of South Carolina Democrats are Black and they could have been persuaded to distance themselves from Clinton because comments she and her husband Bill Clinton made, which some people view as racially insensitive.

Clinton recently stated that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of racial equality was realized only when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The former president later said that Obama was telling a “fairy tale” about his opposition to the war in Iraq, and that he has received a free pass in this election.

Clinton later went on “Meet the Press” to explain her comments and implied that Obama was injecting race into the election.

“I think it offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King’s role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous,” Obama replied.

According to the A.P., Clinton’s advisors claim that an Obama staffer has compiled examples of comments by Clinton and her surrogates that could be construed as racially insensitive. The memo later surfaced on some political Web sites.

“To me, as an African American, I am frankly insulted the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think that Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in Black issues—when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood; I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in his book—when they have been involved,” argued BET founder Bob Johnson in a reference to Obama’s past drug use.

Johnson later said he was talking about Obama’s community activism and not his past drug use.

Former North Carolina senator John Edwards replied, “I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change came not through Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that.”

Ironically, the change that Dr. King gave his life for could be the same change that gives America its first Black president. As Obama’s campaign slogan says, it is a “change we can all believe in.”

When it finally seemed as if Barack Obama had regained momentum, after losing primaries in Ohio and Texas, critics played a card that is still polarizing today, and ultimately threatening his goal of bringing all Americans together in a turbulent era.

In the 2008 election campaign, Obama has distanced himself from his rivals, not by solely focusing on the hot-button issues that have divided Americans in the past, such as 4,000 lives lost in the Iraq War or the imminent economic recession. However, he has done so by uniting people of all colors and backgrounds to work together for the common good.

Nevertheless, past remarks by the controversial former pastor of Obama’s church in Chicago may derail some of that momentum, as some have questioned his “true” political ideologies and patriotism.

“I think it’s ridiculous to try to penalize someone for being a part of a congregation or sitting under a pastor and being responsible for whatever the pastor’s views are,” said Pastor Patricia Rickenbacker of the predominantly Black Living Hope Fellowship Baptist Church in Massapequa, N.Y.

“All the other levels that Pastor Jeremiah Wright has ministered to Obama’s family, they have developed some type of personal relationship there that is not crossed out or cancelled because there’s a difference in ideology or message. You hate the message, but you don’t hate the messenger,” she added.

Obama responded to the controversy by delivering what critics have called the most important speech on race relations since Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963.

If there is a litmus test that says Black candidates must distance themselves from the Black community and leaders who are still bitter over past racial injustices, then America may not have come as far as she thinks she has.

Has White America come far enough to understand that the wounds of discrimination still hurt for the thousands who were beaten, jailed and killed so that Obama could be sitting on the cusp of history?

In addition, has Black America come far enough to realize that race relations have improved and many in the younger generation see people for the content of their character and not the color of their skin?

“I was uncertain whether Obama was going to be able to get out of the tired old racism box he was painted into. I am now more convinced than ever that Obama is the right candidate at the right time to move us into the 21st century without a whole lot of the baggage that has been weighing us down as a nation,” said Meryl Vladimer of Brooklyn, N.Y.

However, Harvey Karron stated, “Obama knew his pastor for more than 20 years. He had to have known about the hateful remarks that his pastor said against America. Yet, Obama and his wife continued to think of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a great inspiration. If Obama wanted to be a great healer, unifier and different type of politician, he should have had the strength to move his family out of that church.”

Nevertheless, Rabbi Jonathan Waxman said he often hears from congregants who do not agree with his sermons or political views, according to the Associated Press.

“Religious leaders don’t necessarily represent the views of the people in the pews. Sometimes we are deliberately provocative, knowing that not everybody will be thrilled,” said Waxman.

Do you remember Jesse Jackson’s run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984 and 1988? Do you recall the hope and pride that filled the streets of the African American community during Jackson’s two campaigns? Streets filled with the chant, “run Jesse run.”

That same hope has been reborn with the announcement that Illinois Senator Barack Obama will make a run for the White House in 2008.

Many have compared Obama’s bid for the White House to John F. Kennedy’s election in 1960. At the time, many critics did not believe that the American public would elect a Catholic to the run the Oval office, but his victory over Richard Nixon captured the imagination of the American public, and started a love affair between Americans and the Kennedy family.

However, the presidential hopeful has also faced intense criticism from the African American community for not being “Black enough,” and from conservatives for his lack of experiences on many foreign and domestic issues.

At a recent forum, critics blasted Obama’s health care plan, while praising rival Hilary Clinton.

“I think he needed to know a little more about health care issues and he was just unprepared,” said Daniel Romo, 45, a member of Service Employees International, sponsors of the forum.

Despite criticisms of his health care plan, supporters praise Obama for his plan to get troops out of Iraq, beginning with a drawdown in May that would last until next March. However, many critics believe that plan is virtually impossible because President George W. Bush plans to veto any bill that calls for the withdrawal timetable.

Although Obama has discovered that support in the Black community is not guaranteed, he has picked up an endorsement from Black Entertainment Television co-founder Sheila Johnson, despite the fact that her ex-husband Robert Johnson is endorsing Clinton.

“Barack Obama’s campaign of change brings hope to America,” said Johnson.

However, the majority of African Americans in Long Island, New York support Clinton who has a long history of supporting causes that are important to them such as health care, education, and affordable housing.

Despite Clinton’s popularity in Long Island, her 40-point lead among African Americans is gone and now Obama has an 11-point lead, according to a poll conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post.

“Both of these candidates have enormous potential to offer, not only to the Black community, but to the country at large. Not everyone in the African American community is always of one mind, but it’s clear that the African American vote will be critical and crucial as it has been in the past three presidential elections,” said civil rights attorney Fred Brewington of Hempstead, New York.

On the contrary, many conservatives recently blasted the senator for his membership in a Black activist church that preaches a “Black Value System.”

Obama received criticism for distancing himself from the pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., who has supported Louis Farrakhan and Moammar Gadhafi in the past.

Regardless of the outcome of the election, and the political pressure that Obama has endured over the recent months, his campaign has lit a fire across America, and not just Black America.

Voters see a confident and charismatic leader that they can envision leading America in a new direction in 2008. Furthermore, his success can lead to an entire generation of young Americans changing the course of this great nation for the near future.

The looming mortgage crisis has affected almost everyone in all facets of life. When the homes stop selling the builders stop building, the carpenters stop nailing, the painters stop painting, paint stores stop selling and Home Depot stock hits record lows. Vertical damage is universal in almost all aspects of retail, services and durable goods. Let’s face it, America is a nation that is fueled by land development and salesmanship. One look at all of the runways across the world and you can see that we have the greatest airplane sales people in the world. Unfortunately, ingenuity, invention and production have taken a back seat to Americans selling products owned or built by other countries. For Goodness sake, GM is second in sales to Toyota now, who’d a thunk it?

The reason for this article is not to bemoan today’s economic footprint but to help people understand the most common myths that you hear about the housing and mortgage debacle. What you hear from our completely un-biased and non-partisan media auspiciously omits some of the important facts that might help the average American better understand exactly what we are up against.

Living in Atlanta, right around the corner from CNN, I have originated my fair share of mortgages for reporters and correspondents, who will remain nameless. I can honestly attest that news reporters, anchors and correspondents have the exact same blank stare and vacant head nod as John Q. Public does when loan officers dive into the details. However, now that we have a mortgage crisis they have mysteriously morphed into expert authors as they recite Democratic talking points. If questioned, most reporters that write columns about the mortgage industry have no clue as to the real life ramifications of the political solutions they publicize and promote.

As evidence I have taken excerpts from an article by Andrew Jakabovics named “Myth vs. Fact: Helping Homeowners” and corrected some of the Democratic talking points he has recited. Mr. Jakabovics writes for americanprogress.org, an organization that resembles the aforementioned non-partisan press. My initial intention was to post this article as a rebuttal to his article on his company’s website. However, after taking a glance at the website it would appear that any article that fails to blame President Bush for personally orchestrating the entire debacle will fall on deaf ears.

The bill referred to in Mr. Jakabovics‘s article is the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008; a bill that will raise taxes on mortgages to the tune of $500 million per year. The bill is a part of a larger piece of legislation that will eventually transfer $300 billion dollars of “at risk” mortgages that have been hand-picked from our nation’s lenders portfolios. These loans will carry a higher default rate that will cost the Federal Housing Administration dearly that will be made up by additional funding from Uncle Sam. Guess where Uncle Sam gets his money.

The Mr. Jakabovics writes:

1) “Myth: The bill offers a bailout to speculators.

Mr. Jakabovics: All legislation under consideration requires owners to live in the homes they want refinanced.”

Real Answer: Agreed, however I do not know how much of a “myth” this is. Let’s move on.

2) “Myth: The bill offers a bailout to lenders.

Mr. Jakabovics’s Fact: To take advantage of an FHA loan guarantee, lenders and investors must take a “haircut” and pay closing costs plus an insurance premium up front.”

Real Answer: The bill is linked to legislation that takes the worst loans from our nation’s lenders portfolio’s and transfers them to the Federal Housing Administration which is Government funded. Am I missing something here?

Furthermore, “an insurance premium “ PMI, MIP has always been on loans over 80% loan to value on ALL agency loans funded by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA. The insurance premium will not represent a change from the norm as the writer infers. I assume that the “haircut” refers to the fact that all loans will be trimmed to the actual appraised value. This will still present FHA with an an “at risk” loan at 100% LTV.

3) “Myth: The bill offers a bailout to homeowners.

Mr. Jakabovics’s Fact: Under the House’s Home ownership Retention Mortgage program and the Senate’s Hope for Homeowners program, each part of the legislation now before Congress, individual homeowners would have to pay an ongoing insurance premium to cover the costs of the FHA credit enhancement.”

Real Answer: Ditto

4) Myth: There is no need for Congress to act; the private sector’s Hope Now Alliance has been very successful in making necessary workouts.

Mr. Jakabovics’s Fact: Few borrowers have been offered substantive, long-term modifications to their loans. Moreover, a loan-by-loan approach to the housing crisis simply can’t address the scale of the need.

Real Answer: I agree that Hope Now Alliance is inept. However it is the best response the Executive branch could muster with the Legislative branch bickering and fighting about which side of the aisle can claim credit for “solving” the mortgage crisis. A loan by loan solution is exactly what is needed; sweeping legislation that over regulates the banking industry will stifle the flow of money. History has proven time and time again the when congress tell the banks who and how to loan their money they simply stop loaning it.

The truth is, both sides deserve the blame here. In an election year neither Republicans nor Democrats are going offer much in the way of concessions that until after the election. The only difference is that the Democrats have ABC, CBS, NBC and every production being produced from Hollywood cheer-leading their point of view. Admittedly, the Republicans have Fox and Talk radio, until the Dem’s pass the “Fairness Doctrine.”

5) Myth: The housing crisis only affects irresponsible borrowers, so taxpayers who struggle to meet their obligations shouldn’t pay for their mistakes.

Mr. Jakabovics’s Fact: The housing crisis affects all homeowners and even renters.

Real Answer: Agreed, blaming homeowners for getting caught up in the mortgage fiasco is analogous to blaming kids in the 60’s for smoking pot. By in large most people caught up in that atmosphere have learned from the experience and moved on.

In closing, none of the answers you have read here should be considered a “fact”. The only fact is that we are in a serious financial crisis that is extremely fluid. What America needs is our top financial minds, this excludes a lot of politicians on either side, putting their heads together to come up with a non-partisan answer. The answer in not going to be solved by just letting the market “right itself” nor will it be solved by boot strapping federal agencies and private banks with a mandate that bails out everyone in a bad mortgage. The answer is in between those two answers.

Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans are dragging their feet even more than usual because we are in an election year. The answer to this crisis has been lost with meaningless amendments and stalls that positions each side for concessions on larger issues. Neither side is willing to give up any ground with an election looming for fear that it may possibly give the other side bragging rights in November, ironically while their constituents suffer.

In the wake of a tragedy we are often left in a state of complete and utter shock. Especially in events where our homes are destroyed and our loves one separated from us, our minds are the furthest thing from rational or clear. The unfortunate part about this fact is that it is in times like these that a clear head is the most important thing we can have. When events such as these happen, it is our family, friends, and neighbors in our communities that often come to our aid, providing relief and support where needed. When disaster hits on a broader scale, however, and it affects entire cities, counties, and states, what happens then? Enter the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Since 1979, this organization’s efforts have played vitals roles in the lives of millions of citizens who have fallen victim to natural disasters across the nation. With almost 30 years past, and five presidents overseeing this agency, it has undergone reorganization and changes aimed at making it a better responsive resource for the citizens of the United States in times of urgent need. Ironically enough, it is this reorganization, among many things, that have caused for this organization to fail at its primary task of responding efficiently and effectively in times of national crisis.

One of the worst disasters in American history is the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. Almost eight hundred citizens died and over two hundred and fifty thousand were left homeless as a result of the earthquake and its resulting damage. (Kernell, p.77) In the aftermath of the earthquake federal and state government officials were unable to immediately communicate with San Francisco authorities regarding the damage and needed assistance. When word finally made it through, the disaster was on a scale nobody had ever seen. Mass looting and chaos eventually led the city’s mayor and the state governor to request President Roosevelt for assistance. Roosevelt’s response was to use the United States Military and the American Red Cross as well as private party support from across the country. (Kernell, p. 78-79) The aid of these institutions and people was dysfunctional and controversial, as no central direction was given for the enormous task of coordinating all rescues, relief and rebuilding efforts. The resulting lesson was that in times of crisis, local governments who are also often rendered inoperable, have a serious need for national support in most all aspects of response. Over the next sixty years, various measures were taken to implement programs and response plans into national government entities in preparation for another major disaster. Multiple organizations were setup to be responsive to specific aspects of need. (fema.gov, history 3/11) Although doing much better in comparison to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the federal government’s involvement was still inefficient in disaster times. In 1979, the National Governor’s Association urged President Jimmy Carter to centralize the leadership of the various federal organizations and programs involved in emergency response. (fema.gov, history 3/11) President Carter’s response was Executive Order 12148. This order created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and effectively consolidated the leadership of the Federal Insurance Administration, the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration, the National Weather Service Community Preparedness Program, the Federal Preparedness Agency of the General Services Administration and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration activities from Housing and Urban Development. Additionally it would oversee army responsibilities transferred from the Defense Department’s Defense Civil Preparedness Agency. (fema.gov history 3/11) FEMA’s abilities were tested shortly after its creation with various smaller-scale situations and the agency’s inception proved to be beneficial. Although kinks in the organization were still being worked out, a sense of order seemed to be brought to the local governments of areas fallen victim to disasters. (fema.gov, history 3/11). Approximately ten years after its creation, FEMA faced its first large-scale natural disaster, ironically enough, in San Francisco. “The 1989 San Francisco earthquake snapped sections of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The disaster triggered massive federal assistance and efficient disaster relief efforts, in stark contrast to the failures of volunteerism and state efforts so evident in 1906.” (Kernell, p. 79) This tribute to efficiency and organization is largely as a result of FEMA and the efforts coordinated under its leadership and training. Only two months prior to the earthquake FEMA had conducted a training exercise for emergency response and government officials in relation to such an earthquake scenario. (Kernell, p 78). This is evidence of a successful direction of the organization shortly after its implementation and a far superior response comparatively to the 1906 quake. The direction of FEMA following the 89’ earthquake was towards building on the already demonstrated strengths of the organization, a valuable asset to this country.

Despite its relatively short existence, FEMA’s structure has had a rollercoaster history. Its initial establishment as an independent regulatory agency was eventually elevated to cabinet-level leadership by President Clinton, only to be reorganized as an agency under the new Department of Homeland Security by current President George W. Bush in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in his Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate. (dhs.gov, emergencies and disasters, 3-11) The current organization of the agency carries a Director (the Under-Secretary), four divisions, fourteen offices, and ten regions. (fema.gov, structure 3-11). The Director position is currently vacant but acting Director is Robert David Paulison, who reports directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. The four divisions, which the agency defines as domains of emergency management, are mitigation, preparedness, recovery, and response. They have very distinct roles and the heads of these divisions report to Interim Director Paulison. (fema.gov, structure, 3-11) (dhs.gov, dhs organization, 3-11) Interim Director Paulison is a Democrat from Florida who also currently serves as the Director of the National Preparedness Division of FEMA. He was appointed by President Bush in 2001 to lead the United States Fire Administration and served in that capacity until 2003 when he was promoted. Former FEMA director Michael Brown was relieved of command in 2005 following much controversy surrounding FEMA’s response performance to Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the Gulf Coast of the United States in August 2005. Paulison was selected to temporarily replace Brown and the position has yet to be filled. (Fournier, AP 9-12-05). The responsibilities of the agency, which have also been adjusted a lot, are to primarily respond to United States disasters as declared by the President. It works heavily with different organizations at all governmental levels, leading and coordinating the response effort and eventually the financial assistance for the rebuilding effort. While much of its management powers have been relocated to the Department of Homeland Security, the agency still oversees the National Flood Insurance Program. (dhs.gov, emergency response and preparedness, 3-11) This jumbling and exchanging of the organizational structure and responsibilities is credited by critics as being one of the largest reasons for the failure of the agency during Hurricane Katrina. (Editorial 2-16-06, Columbus Dispatch)

The arguments about the strengths and weaknesses of FEMA as an agency are tough to make for the fact that the reorganization of the agency has practically created a brand new organization in comparison to the pre-9/11 FEMA. Following the enormity of Hurricane Katrina and the terrible response to the destruction that plagued the southern states, demands for investigations into the slow response of FEMA and other governmental bodies including the White House and the Department of Homeland Security were rampant. The agency’s current positions, critics argue, leaves it with less money to fund federal disaster relief efforts because of increased spending on the fight on terrorism and the agency’s belonging to the Department of Homeland Security. Additionally, the mass reorganization of twenty-two federal agencies into the Department of Homeland Security is often citied by critics as a major reason for failed relief efforts during Katrina.

Former FEMA Director Michael Brown has been castigated for his agency’s failure to respond competently to the Gulf Coast disaster, but The Post’s investigation showed that he had been bitterly protesting for two years about the shifting of some of FEMA’s responsibility to other agencies in the reorganization. In a September 2003 memo to then-Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, Brown wrote that moving some of FEMA’s emergency-preparedness functions elsewhere would “shatter agency morale” and “break longstanding, effective and tested relationships with states and first-responder stakeholders” and could result in “an ineffective and uncoordinated response” to a disaster. –Editorial 2-16-06, Columbus Dispatch

A major strength of the organization lies in its recognition with the citizens of the United States. Its well-known responsibilities given its enormous work in the last 26 years have elevated the agency to a position of leadership in times of a disaster crisis. Thus, the coordinating and management of smaller agencies, governments, and private companies during such times is beginning to move smoother and for that reason. Well the debate on the topic of FEMA’s strengths and weaknesses is never-ending, one thing is clear; this agency is a relatively young one that is still experiencing growing pains and figuring out how to operate among mass changes and in primarily chaotic times.

Very clearly this organization is failing. Hurricane Katrina is one of the largest disasters in our nation’s history. Like the earthquake of 1906, victims of that disaster were left stranded, by themselves, in complete and utter shock. The prevailing opinion is that FEMA’s response to the disaster was nothing close to what it should or could have been. The real question is why is this organization failing? Evidence of streamlined operations and ever-increasing performance quality was making itself apparent in the early 90’s and President Clinton’s action of bringing the agency to cabinet level only helped that process move forward. The response of FEMA to the terrorist attack of 9/11 was within minutes of the first plane striking the tower. It played the major role in the distribution of the almost all of the raised funds. However, the new directive of President Bush to reorganize FEMA under the new DHS has proven to be the cause for failure as it has not been since before the agency’s existence that we have seen such a failed federal response to a large-scale natural disaster. Predictions of the reorganization’s implication on FEMA’s performance were made when former director Brown first heard of the plan. According to The Washington Post’s investigation, Brown shouted these concerns at the top of his lungs for months prior to Katrina. Once Hurricane Katrina happened, the federal government even ignored offers to help there were so disorganized (Editorial, Chicago Tribune) It is unfortunate that this consolidation attempt is so seriously impacting the performance of the organization and the outcry for its reestablishment as its own agency needs to be considered immediately.

Just when many Americans believed that Barack Obama’s success in the Democratic primary was a sign that racial divisions were mending, racism has reappeared and threatens to curtail the progress that has been made.

Lyndon LaRouche recently compared Obama, one of the most successful Blacks in politics, to a monkey and referred to his mother as a race-mixing slut, comparing her to Margaret Mead, a woman who had various husbands of various ethnic backgrounds.

“If you chase Obama’s family tree, everybody’s climbing and swinging from the branches there—from all over the world,” LaRouche stated. “Every monkey in every tree from every part of the world, has participated in the sexual act of producing him. And he works for organized crime—which is a branch of British intelligence.

According to Dennis King of lyndonlarouchewatch.org, LaRouche’s followers “seeking a political alliance around seemingly legitimate issues” have approached Blacks in politics for their assistance.

“The LaRouche people are trained in deceptive tactics,” King said, “and have scored successes from time to time. I hope that ministers, state legislators and others in the Black community who’ve been tricked into lending their names to some LaRouche-sponsored conference or rally—and also White liberals like Ed Asner who’ve become enamored of LaRouche—will look at the evidence … If they do, I think many of them will agree that it’s time to sever all ties with the LaRouche network.”

A further look at some of LaRouche’s past writings shows that he views the Black community as a subhuman culture. He supported the apartheid government of South Africa from the 1970s to the mid-1990s and has been associated with the Ku Klux Klan and other White supremacists.

Comments such as the ones made by LaRouche and the media’s obsession with the fiery rhetoric of Rev. Jeremiah Wright has led many like Joy Behar of “The View” to believe that Obama’s opponents are using racial fear to “sabotage” his campaign, and that of other highly regarded Blacks in politics.

Since the release of Wright’s incendiary remarks, the Black community and prestigious Blacks in politics have had to defend Obama and his historic bid at the White House.

A candidate who has spent his entire political life defending the rights of all citizens, not just those in the Black community, has had to constantly answer questions about his close relationship with his former pastor and whether or not he shares the same views.

It would be hard to believe, that John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic in the White House, would have had to endure the same scrutiny if his priest and spiritual advisor faced accusations of sexually molesting young children.

No one would think for a moment that Kennedy was a child molester, simply because his priest allegedly molested children.

However, for Blacks in politics like Obama, serious issues like health care, high gas prices and a never-ending war are pushed to the background because of mainstream media’s determination to derail his once unstoppable momentum.

It is important that the Black community and White community realize the insignificance of Wright’s remarks. Because after all, people like Wright and LaRouche are not running for president, and their views are irrelevant.

It’s just what France (and the world) has been waiting for – the real story behind the marriage of the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and his third wife Carla.

And that’s exactly what it’s going to get on Thursday – apparently – with the release of a new book “La Véritable Histoire de Carla et Nicolas”.

On the whole since their marriage, Bruni-Sarkozy has remained pretty tight-lipped, gorgeously appearing at her husband’s side on state occasions and uttering the occasional “Hmmmn” and “Delicious.” Indeed the only interview she has granted so far was to the weekly news magazine “L’Express” shortly after their marriage in February.

But now she is “telling the story as it really is” in a book written by two journalists, Valérie Bénaïm and Yves Azérouai. And it promises to make fascinating reading as it reportedly contains approved material from the first lady herself in which she sets straight some of the rumours that have been circulating ever since the couple met, fell in love and tied the knot.

The first tantalising snippets have already appeared in the French press, from which we learn that the two did in fact meet at a dinner organised by the publicist Jacques Séguela in November last year, and Carla quickly realised that they had both in fact been set up on a blind date of sorts.

“There were three couples and us – two single people,” she says. “I had never expected someone so funny, so lively. I was seduced by his physique, his charm and his intelligence.”

So that’s one rumour that has been doing the rounds well and truly confirmed – by Carla herself. That’ll doubtless come as a blesséd relief to all the gossip columnists and Sarkozy-watchers who would seem to have been (accurately) reporting very much the same thing right from the start.

Another rumour though, that Bruni-Sarkozy enjoys less than a warm relationship with the justice minister, Rachida Dati, is one she unsurprisingly sets out to scotch.

Before Bruni-Sarkozy appeared on the scene it was often the justice minister who appeared at the side of the president at official functions after the break up of his marriage to his second wife, Cecilia.

But the current first lady denies that there is any rivalry between her and Dati in spite of what the media might maintain.

“I see her quite often and she makes me laugh a lot,” says Bruni-Sarkozy.

“These rumours must have their source in the fact that she is a close friend of the president’s former wife. But there really is no hostility between us.”

As to her future and role as first lady, Bruni-Sarkozy reveals that she has set herself the goals of campaigning against poverty and ignorance, but she’s not going to give up her music career.

“I have a role to fulfil but it isn’t my metier,” she insists.

“I am not just a folk singer. I tell stories which are the same as everybody else’s. There’s nothing subversive in that.”

The excerpts that have so far appeared in the press would seem to suggest that the book gives a certain “spin” on events. Whether anyone really thinks that an expectant public will completely believe everything that’s written is perhaps a little hard to imagine.

Doubtless though these gems and others will make the book a bestseller. The Carla-Nicolas story is after all is one everybody loves to pretend they’re not really interested in.

That has been proven on countless occasions over the last six months. Whenever a picture of either or both has been slapped on the cover of a magazine, a boost in sales has been guaranteed. And Sarkozy has also been a profitable subject for many a publisher with more than 70 books written about him in the past year.

Only a cynic would dispute the need for yet another one, especially one in which the principle figure and source is the first lady herself.

So go on, rush out and buy your copy tomorrow, while stocks last. And don’t forget Bruni-Sarkozy’s album is released next month – July 21 to be precise.

The French justice minister, Rachida Dati, has once again shown that she has a less than a firm grasp of her job by doing a complete volte face in a case that has been making the headlines here in France over the past week.

On Monday Dati asked the public prosecutors office to appeal a court ruling, which had annulled a marriage because the wife had lied about being a virgin.

When the case first came to public attention last week, Dati refused to intervene (she actually supported the decision by the court). But a heated debate has since raged – largely fuelled by the media – and the justice minister (or is it the president, Nicolas Sarkozy?) has now decided it’s time to act.

The case involves a man who suspected that his bride – also a Moslem – had lied about being a virgin before they were married in 2006.

His wife at first assured him she was “pure” but later revealed that she had indeed had sex before marriage. The wife returned to her family “in disgrace” and although she was initially reluctant to assent to her husband’s request to seek an annulment, she eventually agreed.

In April a judge in the northern French city of Lille granted the couple’s request for an annulment on the grounds that the man had been “mistaken about the essential qualities” of his wife-to-be. Such a term of course leaves the door wide open for a myriad of potential interpretations.

The media didn’t actually get wind of the story until last week but not surprisingly once it broke it created an uproar with many politicians, women’s rights campaigners and leading French Moslem figures denouncing the court’s ruling as both a breach of a woman’s privacy and an offence – in legal terms – to the equality of men and women.

While the debate raged Dati appeared to say very little and do even less – until that is her immediate boss, the prime minister, François Fillon, stepped in.

Fillon suggested that annulling a marriage on grounds of virginity was tantamount to taking France – a secular country - back in time and he didn’t want “people one day to be able to make virginity a constitutional element of marital consent.”

Dati’s hesitance in taking the decision to request an appeal is perhaps to a certain extent further proof - to put it kindly - of her political inexperience. Before she became justice minister last year Dati had never held office.

Critics – and there are many who accuse Dati of sheer incompetence – will be less generous in their assessment.

She has already raised the hackles of many in the legal profession by the manner in which she has tried to force through reforms to the judicial system. And Dati is often the target of much media ridicule, being portrayed as an overbearing boss. Since she took over at the justice ministry there have been a dozen resignations among her staff.

Dati has also come in for a fair amount of stick for her spending habits especially after she admitted that her department had spent over two-thirds of its annual €200,000 entertainment budget in the first three months of this year.

Spiritual light has to do with three central things, among others: 1) heightening the capacity for empathy and love and the desire to share love, 2) bringing into greater awareness a sense of truth and an increasing sense of what only masquerades as truth, 3) and enhancing the motivation of those holding greater light to adopt courses of action that are not self-seeking but that truly represent the welfare of a greater whole.

There are other qualities of character and personal expression that are brought forward by the infusion of greater light – qualities such as gentleness, kindness, a willingness to listen, a lack of ego, a desire to share, a desire to comfort those in need. These qualities, like notes on a musical scale, can be played in many different ways and with many different tonalities, corresponding to the inner nature of the one who carries them. Nevertheless, they share a common foundation which lies in the essential properties of spiritual light.

Within the electoral process, as light becomes more prominent and darkness recedes, the above effects of greater light begin to make themselves known more clearly. People begin increasingly to desire truth among those who claim to be its representatives; they desire integrity within those who claim to speak for a particular issue or point of view. Such integrity is based on the faithfulness of one who takes a position on an issue to the underlying values that that position represents. Integrity requires that one feel things and care about things deeply, not merely as a surface phenomenon. It also applies to the character of one who has an inner standard of moral rightness, a standard that must be followed for the sake of rightness itself, because conscience requires it.

The increasing inflow of light into the electoral process therefore affects both candidates and the general public. People begin to want more truth. They begin to want more kindness and integrity. They begin to want a public servant who truly represents the interests of the Whole. As this ‘wanting’ develops, a quality of listening is also enhanced, and what is listened for in candidates is what the heart tells the listener is real, more than what the mind says. Sometimes, this has been referred to as a ‘gut reaction’. But often such a ‘gut reaction’ is simply a way of saying that there is no rational reason to feel something – it is one’s heart that tells one that something is so.

Inspiration is also an effect of greater light. When people feel inspired, it is often because the light in a situation causes them to feel uplifted, more capable of making a difference, stronger in conscience, and stronger in a desire to serve. Outwardly, the source of inspiration may be attributed to a person and to a particular time in history, and it is true that these are factors, but inspiration and the capacity to feel inspired is also a function of light operating within consciousness which creates a yearning for an ideal – an ideal that, within the one so inspired, feels approachable. It feels as if it can be attained. And so inspiration carries one into action and into a state of feeling hopeful and optimistic about the possibility of realizing one’s ideal.

This election year, including the campaign thus far, has shown itself to be filled with various shades of light and darkness, and is likely to continue to be so up until the election in November and beyond. Those who are developing an awareness of spiritual reality will be led more and more during this year to begin to feel things that exceed what the rational mind can know, and to sense things that lead in the direction of belief and perception, without a mental process being involved. With this development already underway, it is useful, no matter what one’s religious or spiritual beliefs, to ask for inner guidance regarding the path of greatest clarity, truth, and love, for along this path is the light that leads to the future, and the hope for the most positive outcome of this year’s electoral process.