By Julian Bond

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - I have always suspected that racists didn’t like being called out for their racism. Now I have proof.

When I told MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts on May 14^th that the Tea Party was “the Taliban wing of American politics”, a firestorm erupted.

Arguing the IRS was correct to target them for extra scrutiny, I also said, “Here are a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political” and therefore worthy of IRS concern.

I was not prepared for the slew of angry emails, including two from self-identified Black people (your worst nightmare, one said) I received.

Many of them suggested I leave the country, reminiscent of the “Go back to Africa” chants racist crowds of Whites shouted at Black protestors in my youth.

One said my advanced age – I am 73 – meant I would not be around to make such mischief much longer, and I should prepare for that quick eventuality.

A few suggested my employer fire me, not knowing that I retired from that job a year ago. Several of the messages were badly written with misspelled words, including one from a relative by marriage – you can’t choose your in-laws – reading “Your calling folks Talabans borders on Traitorism.”

This same correspondent noted I had been “head of the most classic Racist group in our country,” referring to the NAACP, whose board I chaired for eleven years. Others characterized the NAACP, the nation’s oldest civil rights group, interracial in membership and dedicated to racial integration since 1909, in the same way.

After an exchange of messages with some of them, trying to convince them that while I opposed it, I didn’t condemn every member of the Tea Party, the interactions became more civil and less hostile. Some even wished me well.

But to a person they rejected the labels “racism” and “racist”, even as I thought I had proved that the Tea Party has had racist, anti-Semitic and nativist elements from its beginning until today.

One source is a study conducted for the NAACP by the Institute for Research and Education for Human Rights.

Their study, called "Tea Party Nationalism", found “Tea Party ranks to be permeated with concerns about race and national identify and other so-called social issues. In these ranks, an abiding obsession with Barack Obama’s birth certificate is often a stand-in for the belief that the first black president of the United States s not a “real American.”

It says Tea Party organizations have given platforms to anti-Semites, racists and bigots and “hard-core white nationalists have been attracted” to Tea Party protests.

The link between the Tea Party and the Taliban was made by a prominent Republican office holder.

In 2008, the Washington Post reported that former Chairman of the Republican Congressional Committee and present day Congressman Pete Sessions likened the GOP House minority to the Taliban, saying, “Insurgency, we understand perhaps a bit more because of the Taliban.”

Just as my arguments failed to convince my correspondents, so apparently does the actual evidence: Not the ugly racist signs and placards displayed at Tea Party rallies, not the shouts of the “n” word aimed at members of the Congressional Black Caucus, not the spittle hurled at civil rights icon and Congressman John Lewis, not the racists expelled from the Tea Party for their venom, not the association of many members with the Council of Conservative Citizens, a lineal descendant of the White Citizen Council, not the anti-gay slurs aimed at former Congressman Barney Frank, not the members whose racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia should be an embarrassment – not all or any of this could get them to acknowledge the label “racist.”

My Black correspondents even claimed that their race prohibited them from being racists, as if skin color was a proscription against ignorance. And many of my presumably non-Black correspondents accused me of being a racist, so my race apparently offered me no protection from this evil.

What is the lesson here?

That the label “racist” has become so toxic that almost everyone rejects it? That the toxicity makes the label unacceptable but its actual practice is still tolerable for many?

Or that it is a defense against itself? As the relative-I-try-not-to-claim wrote, “I don't know any White people who hate Blacks like you advocate Blacks should hate whites.”

Or only that while the United States has made much progress in race relations, we still have a long, long way to go?

Julian Bond is Chairman Emeritus of the NAACP and a Professor at American University in Washington.

May 19, 2013

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from Target Market News

(TriceEdneyWire.com) Wells Fargo recently named Michelle Thornhill, senior vice president, as strategy and integration manager reporting directly to the head of Enterprise Diversity and Inclusion. For the last five years, Thornhill served as the African-American segment manager at Wells Fargo. In this role, she led the development and execution of the enterprise marketing and engagement strategy for African American consumers and communities.

As Strategy and Integration Manager, Thornhill is now responsible for providing strategic leadership consultation in support of Wells Fargo's diversity and inclusion business goals and objectives. Thornhill will focus on developing the enterprise-wide diversity and inclusion implementation strategy. As the central facilitator of strategic planning and coordination for this area, her role involves partnering with Wells Fargo leaders and key stakeholder groups to support them in their efforts to strengthen and sustain an inclusive culture for Wells Fargo.

"Michelle's commitment to diversity and inclusion has proven to be a great asset for Wells Fargo," says Jimmie Paschall, head of Enterprise Diversity and Inclusion, Wells Fargo. "Diversity and inclusion is not only about acquiring diverse talent, but also developing and promoting diverse talent from within. We look forward to the work Michelle will do in supporting what we consider a business imperative."

Wells Fargo ultimately aims to become known as one of the world's greatest companies, a goal of which Thornhill feels requires a solid foundation around a common diversity and inclusion strategy.

Thornhill brings more than 15 years of experience developing consumer initiatives for diverse audiences in the financial services and nonprofit sectors, and has traveled both domestically and internationally in support of these goals. Her educational credentials blend finance and public policy with a Bachelor of Science in Financial Management from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, a Masters of Science in Organizational Behavior and Culture from Central Michigan University and a Masters of Public Administration from Harvard University, the John F. Kennedy School of Government.

As a mother of two young boys, Thornhill is extremely passionate about education and serves as a co-chair of the advisory board for New Leaders of Charlotte. She believes that all children should have access to a quality education and considers it a personal priority to play her part.

"The State of Equality and Justice in America" is a 20-part series of columns written by an all star list of contributors to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The contributors include: U. S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) LCCRUL 50th Anniversary Grand Marshal; Ms. Barbara Arnwine, President and Executive Director, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (LCCRUL); Mr. Charles Ogletree, Professor, Harvard University Law School/Director, Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice; the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr., President/CEO, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition; the Rev. Joseph Lowery, Co-founder, Southern Christian Leadership Conference; U. S. Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.); and 14 additional thought leaders and national advocates for equal justice.

U. S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.)	Bryan Stevenson

Despite progress, in the last 50 years we have retreated from an honest conversation about racial and economic justice, and have opted instead for mass criminalization and incarceration leaving many poor and minority people marginalized and condemned. As Taylor's story reminds us, out of sight is hardly out of mind. It is an abysmal violation of human dignity.

U. S. Rep. John Lewis has represented the 5th Congressional District of Georgia since 1987. An iconic civil rights leader and recipient of a 2010 Presidential Medal of Freedom, he is the only living person who was actually a speaker at the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Bryan Stevenson is executive director and founder of the Equal Justice Initiative and a professor of law at New York University.

This article - the fifteenth of a 20-part series - is written in commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, of which Congressman Lewis is grand marshal. The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar's leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity - work that continues to be vital today. For more information, please visit www.lawyerscommittee.org.

NEWS ANALYSIS
By Dr. Wilmer J. Leon, III

“We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency… Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.” President Barack Obama – WhiteHouse.gov 

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Over the past few weeks the Obama administration has been embroiled in a number of controversies.  Three of which are the Benghazi talking points; the Department of Justice obtained through a subpoena two months of telephone records of Associated Press reporters; and the Internal Revenue Service targeted Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax exempt status.

Let’s look at each of these issues separately.  First, the Benghazi talking points.  Conservatives such as former Vice President Dick Cheney, Senator’s Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and John McCain (R-Ariz.) are accusing the Obama administration of covering up the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack to help the president's chances in the election battle with Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

After a release of over 100 pages of emails between the CIA and the Department of State, the record is clear that there was a disagreement between David H. Petraeus, former director of the C.I.A., and his assistant, Michael J. Morell, over how much detail to provide.  The conclusion that one draws from this is it was not the administration concerned about reelection, it was officials in the government such as Petraeus and others at the Department of State who were concerned about how this attack would reflect upon them.

What gets lost in this conservative echo chamber is the critical analysis of why did the Obama administration agree to remove a leader of a sovereign country who was posing no immediate threat to American interests.  Senator Obama railed against the Bush administration (and rightfully so) for the illegal invasion of Iraq but then as president engages in similar chicanery.

Also, how has this illegal and ill-advised blunder made America safer when as a result of destabilizing Libya there are now thousands of surface-to-air missiles (SAMS), rocket propelled grenades (RPG’s) and other dangerous weapons showing up in Mali and other countries in the region? As Secretary of Defense Gates said on Face the Nation, “Well, given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft-- over Benghazi under those circumstances.”

Second, the DOJ vs. AP. The Justice Department sought and was granted a subpoena to obtain two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press (AP).  According to CNN this is related to a DOJ investigation of how the AP obtained and then published details of a foiled bomb plot that targeted a U.S. bound aircraft leaked in May 2012.

For as unsettling as it may be to know that the DOJ is investigating journalists, the DOJ followed the law and did nothing illegal.  There is a First Amendment protection of the press but there is no “shield law” protecting journalists and their sources at the federal level.  Just ask Judith Miller who spent 85 days in jail for refusing to testify about her source in revealing the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame (and ask “holier than thou” VP Cheney how Judith Miller received the information).

According to The New York Times, President Obama now backs a proposal by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) which says reporters do not have to disclose the names of confidential sources or their means of communicating with them.  The real question is will President Obama try to water down a revived Schumer plan the way he tried to in 2009. In 2009, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and then-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) introduced a bill that sought to prevent federal officials from compelling journalists to reveal sources or information under threat of jail time. The Obama administration worked to water down the bill by seeking a far broader national security exemption and by instructing judges to be deferential to executive branch assertions about whether a leak caused or was likely to cause such harm.  Is “watered-down” support really support?

Finally, the Justice Department is investigating the IRS for targeting Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax exempt status. The inspector general’s report, released Tuesday, does not indicate that Washington initiated the targeting of conservative groups. But it does say a top supervisor in Washington did not adequately supervise agents in the field even after she learned the agents were acting improperly.

According to The Dallas Morning News, IRS agents were trying to determine whether the political activities of such groups disqualified them for tax-exempt status. These groups were claiming tax-exempt status as organizations promoting social welfare. Unlike other charitable groups, they can engage in political activity. But politics cannot be their primary mission.

When examined individually, each of these “scandals” can be reasonably explained. None of them reach the impeachable standard of Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution “High crimes and misdemeanors.”  They tend to indicate a poor management style and too much delegation similar to the way a college professor would allow his graduate students to coordinate their own group projects.

When viewed in the larger context of increased drone attacks, a president seeking to allow the U.S. Army to indefinitely detain American citizens, and an Attorney General Holder who says President of the United States can assassinate American citizen’s any place in the world without judicial review, it makes the “transparent” government that a majority of Americans voted for opaque at best.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “Inside the Issues with Leon,” and a Lecturer  in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C.  Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..