By: Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on February 11, 2025 President Donald Trump ordered the pending federal criminal case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams dropped. An Editorial Opinion After he was sworn-in as the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump ordered his Department of Justice to drop the public corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. On Monday, DOJ notified a federal judge overseeing the case that it was no longer pursuing bribery charges against Adams. Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove justified the decision to dismiss the charges by saying the timing of the charges against Adams and “more recent actions” by Damian Williams, the former U.S. Attorney who led the office, “have threatened the integrity of the proceedings, including by increasing prejudicial pretrial publicity that risks impacting potential witnesses and the jury pool." Bove also said the pending prosecution had “unduly restricted” Adams’ ability to “devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime that has escalated under the policies of the prior Administration." Of course, Bove made these statements to provide political cover for Donald Trump's decision to save Eric Adams from a federal criminal prosecution. Trump is Right About One Thing -- The President is the Chief Law Enforcement Official in the Federal Criminal Justice System Despite his many personal and political flaws, Donald Trump is absolutely right about one thing -- the president of the United States is the chief law enforcement official in the federal criminal justice system. Trump was harshly and repeatedly criticized for interferring with the operation of the DOJ during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021. He has continued to meddle in DOJ prosecutorial decisions since the start of his second term. This criticism of Trump, which has found a very receptive audience in the court of public opinion, is off-base and wrong for several reasons. First, the president appoints the U.S. Attorney General as a member of the executive branch of government. The Attorney General is a cabinet member just like the 24 other cabinet members who serve at the pleasure of the president. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution places the Attorney General beyond the supervisory reach of the president. He/she is directly answerable to the president. Attorneys General at the state level are constitutional officers who run for statewide office and operate independently of the governor in their respective states. They are directly answerable to the people, and only the people. Second, the Attorney General's job in the federal system is to advance and protect the president's public policy initiatives using the federal legal apparatus to achieve this result. The Attorney General also has a concomitant duty to enforce the labyrinth of more than 8,000 federal civil and criminal laws. Contrary to popular opinion, an unelected U.S. Attorney General is not free to detach himself/herself from the president who appointed him/her so that he/she can implement a separate, independent, and unsupervised federal law enforcement agenda. The Attorney General does not join the president, Congress, and federal judiciary as a fourth branch of government. Third, the U.S. Constitution gives the president carte blanc authority to nullify the work of the Attorney General in the enforcement of federal criminal laws, with no questions asked. The president enjoys the unilateral and unreviewable right to pardon convicted federal inmates, commute their sentences to time served, and/or grant them executive clemency. Fourth, the president appoints Article III federal judges who, once they are confirmed by the U.S. Senate, serve in their jobs for life. The Founders believed that lifetime tenure in office would insulate federal judges from political pressure as they protected the rights of individuals from possible tyranny by the local, state, and federal governments. Two hundred and fifty years later, most federal judges have abandoned the protection of individual rights and have assumed the role of unabashed political operatives who use their courtrooms as theaters for advancing partisan agendas. They engage in social, economic, and political engineering that is beyond the reach of electoral accountability to American voters. Within this paradigm, one of the president's main jobs is to "check and balance" runaway political activism on the federal bench. Presidential/Attorney General Pairings Matter in Today's Political World America is best served when its President and Attorney General are both strong personalities and are in sync with each other. Our system of federal laws has always been used as a tool to drive or undergird public policy. John Kennedy placed his brother Robert in the Attorney General's job to cover his back and push his presidential agenda. Both men were rich, strong, and powerful leaders. Lyndon B. Johnson had a strong Attorney General in Nicholas Katzenbach. Their personal strength and aggressive leadership styles produced the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. No successor pairings of President and Attorney General have come close to matching Johnson's and Katzenbach's personal strengths, vision for the future, and domestic accomplishments for Americans of color and poor people. Richard Nixon was a strong president, but he was also a crook. John Mitchell, Nixon's Attorney General, was a crook, as well. Nixon resigned from office, but Mitchell went to jail for the criminal acts he committed while in office. Jimmy Carter was weak on every level. Yet, Carter's Attorneys General, Griffin Bell and Ben Civiletti, were moderately strong. Ronald Reagan was a strong president and so was Ed Meese, his Attorney General. Working together, they ramrodded Reagan's political agenda through Congress and the federal judiciary. George H.W. Bush appointed Richard Thornburg as Attorney General. Bush was weak and ineffective in office, while Thornburg was moderately strong in his job. Bill Clinton chose Janet Reno as his Attorney General. Clinton's ferocious appetite for sex with a young White House intern, his groping some of his female donors, and his flirting with the wife of a fugitive he was pardoning, made him a weak and compromised president. Reno was highly competent, but chauvinistic and sexist Republicans resented Reno because she was the first woman to hold the job. George W. Bush was weak and inept in office, but he had John Ashcroft as his Attorney General. Ashcroft was strong and highly competent. This helped Bush win re-election with ease after he fumbled America's chance to prevent the 911 terrorist attacks. Barack Obama selected Eric Holder as his Attorney General. Both of these men were highly likeable, but weak and ineffective in office. In their minds, Obama and Holder mistakenly confused celebrityhood with political strength. Lyndon B. Johnson and Katzenbach accomplished more for African-Americans than Obama and Holder ever attempted. Trump appointed Jeff Sessions as his first Attorney General. While Trump has a super-strong personality, Sessions was extremely weak and intellectually challenged in the job. Trump replaced Sessions with William Barr, who was a strong Attorney General. Joe Biden was weak and tired, and so was his Attorney General, Merrick Garland. In many instances, Merrick Garland retained Trump appointees and modern-day white supremacists in key DOJ positions during Biden's entire 4 years in office. Trump selected Pam Bondi as Attorney General during his second term. Bondi, who was the former Attorney General of Florida, is an experienced and strong top prosecutor. Epilogue Presidents select their cabinet members, including the Attorney General. Once these appointees are confirmed by the Senate, the ultimate political accountability for what a U.S. Attorney General does in office, or fails to do, rests with the president who appointed him/her. If the appointed Attorney General does a great job, this becomes a positive factor in determining whether to support a president's election bid. If the Attorney General fails in his/her job, the president must shoulder the blame at the polls for this failure.

By: Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on December 9, 2021 IMAGE: Former presidents Lyndon Johnson and Donald Trump Despite his incompetence in office and many personal flaws, President Donald J. Trump was absolutely right about one thing -- the president of the United States is the chief law enforcement official in the federal law enforcement apparatus. Trump was harshly and repeatedly criticized for "interfering" with the operation of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) during his one-term in office from 2017 to 2021. This criticism, which found a very receptive audience in the court of public opinion, was plain wrong for several reasons. First, the president appoints the U.S. Attorney General as a member of the executive branch of government. The Attorney General is a cabinet member just like the dozen or so other cabinet members who serve at the pleasure of the president. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution places the Attorney General beyond the supervisory reach of the president. He/she is directly answerable to the president. Attorneys general at the state level are constitutional officers who run for statewide office and operate independently of the governor in their respective states. They are directly answerable to the people, and only the people. Second, the Attorney General's job in the federal system is to advance and protect the president's public policy initiatives using the federal legal apparatus to achieve this result. He/she also has a concomitant duty to enforce the labyrinth of more than 8,000 federal civil and criminal laws. Contrary to popular opinion, an unelected U.S. Attorney General is not free to detach himself/herself from the president who appointed him/her so that he/she can implement a separate, independent, and unsupervised federal law enforcement agenda. The DOJ does not join the president, Congress, and federal judiciary as a fourth branch of government. Third, the U.S. Constitution gives the president carte blanc authority to nullify the work of the Attorney General in the enforcement of federal criminal laws, with no questions asked. This grant of power was not an oversight in drafting, passing, and ratifying the Constitution. Instead, it was an express grant of power by the people to the president to overrule judicial outcomes that do not suit his liking. The president enjoys the unilateral and unreviewable right to pardon convicted federal inmates, commute their sentences to time served, and/or grant them executive clemency. The president does not need anybody's permission or approval to exercise this power. The pardon power is the ultimate supervisory authority over the Attorney General. Fourth, the president appoints Article III federal judges who, once they are confirmed by the U.S. Senate, serve in their jobs for life. Lifetime appointments sounded like a good thing when the Constitution was drafted, passed, and ratified. The Founders believed that lifetime tenure in office would insulate federal judges from political pressure as they protected the rights of individuals from possible tyranny by the local, state, and federal governments. This form of protectionism effectively converted federal judges into "monarchs" who serve in public office until they die or abdicate their judicial thrones. Two hundred and fifty years later, most of these "monarchs" have abandoned the protection of individual rights and assumed the role of unabashed political operatives who use their courtrooms as theaters for advancing partisan agendas. Today, the federal bench engages in social, economic, and political engineering that is beyond the reach of electoral accountability to American voters. Within this paradigm, one of the president's main jobs is to "check and balance" runaway political activism on the federal bench. The president has a wide array of tools to do so, including the application of strict budgetary controls on the federal judiciary and, where warranted, the initiation of DOJ investigations into judicial misconduct. Of course, Congress could help the president with this "check and balance" function, but Congress is too politically divided these days to do so. Congress has the power to add federal judges, reduce their numbers, and/or impeach them. Rather than "checking" runaway judicial political activism, Congress encourages and blesses it. Presidential/Attorney General Pairings Matter in Today's Political World America is best served when its president and attorney general are both strong personalities and are in sync with each other. Our system of laws has always been used as a tool to drive or undergird public policy. John Kennedy placed his brother Robert in the Attorney General's job to cover his back and push his presidential agenda. Both men were rich, strong and powerful leaders. They went to the brink of a nuclear showdown to keep Russia from becoming a influential military power in the Western Hemisphere. Lyndon B. Johnson had a strong Attorney General in Nicholas Katzenbach. Their personal strength and aggressive leadership styles produced the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. No successor pairing of President and Attorney General have come close to matching Johnson's and Katzenbach's personal strengths, vision for the future, and domestic accomplishments for Americans of color and poor people. Richard Nixon was a strong president, but he was also a crook. John Mitchell, Nixon's Attorney General, was a crook, as well. Nixon resigned from office, but Mitchell went to jail for the criminal acts he committed while in office. Jimmy Carter was weak on every level. Yet, Carter's Attorneys General, Griffin Bell and Ben Civiletti, were moderately strong. Ronald Reagan was a strong president and so was Ed Meese, his Attorney General. Working together, they ramrodded Reagan's political agenda through Congress and the federal judiciary. George H.W. Bush appointed Richard Thornburg as Attorney General. Bush was weak and ineffective in office, while Thornburg was moderately strong in his job. Bill Clinton chose Janet Reno as his Attorney General. Clinton's ferocious appetite for sex with a young White House intern, groping some of his female donors, and flirting with the wife of a fugitive he was pardoning, made him a weak and compromised president. Reno was highly competent, but chauvinistic and sexist Republicans resented Reno because she was the first woman to hold the job. George W. Bush was weak and inept in office, but he had John Ashcroft as his Attorney General. Ashcroft was strong and highly competent. This helped Bush win re-election with ease after he fumbled America's chance to prevent the 911 terrorist attacks. Barack Obama selected Eric Holder as his Attorney General. Both of these men were highly likeable, but weak and ineffective in office. In their minds, Obama and Holder mistakenly confused celebrityhood with political strength. Lyndon B. Johnson and Katzenbach accomplished more for African- Americans than Obama and Holder ever attempted. Trump appointed Jeff Sessions as his first Attorney General. While Trump has a super-strong personality, Sessions was extremely weak and intellectually challenged in the job. Trump replaced Sessions with William Barr, who was a strong Attorney General. Joe Biden is weak and tired, and so is his Attorney General, Merrick Garland. One year after Biden assumed office, Merrick Garland still employs avowed Trump loyalists and modern-day white supremacists in key DOJ positions. Because Biden is the weakest president since Herbert Hoover, he needs a pit-bull as his Attorney General. Epilogue Presidents select their cabinet members, including the Attorney General. Once these appointees are confirmed by the Senate, the ultimate political accountability for what a U.S. Attorney General does in office, or fails to do, rests with the president who appointed him/her. If the appointed Attorney General does a great job, this becomes a positive factor in determining whether to support a president's re-election bid. If the Attorney General fails in his/her job, the president must shoulder the blame at the polls for this failure. As a political Independent, I look forward to the 2024 presidential election. I will be exercising my First Amendment right to work with a new California-based political action committee (PAC) that seeks to register, educate, and turnout at least 2 to 3 million new voters in six swing states for the 2024 presidential election. The PAC will encourage most of these new voters to enter the political arena as Independent voters. The new PAC will be able to comfortably raise between $10 to $20 million by 2024. Fundraising for the 2024 presidential race will commence in 2022. About $2 to $4 million of this PAC money will be spent on voter registration and education activities, targeting Hispanic, black, female, LGBTQ, Asian-Americans, Native-American, and young white professionals who will be first time voters. Another $2 to $4 million will be spent on election day Get-Out-The-Vote activities in the six targeted swing states. Finally, the new PAC will donate $5 to $10 million to the campaign of the presidential nominee endorsed by the PAC. This money will be donated within the last 30 days prior to the November of 2024 election day.

By: Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on February 9, 2025 The Levi and Lillian Watkins Branch of the Carmichael/Varnado/Watkins Family, 2023. An Editorial Opinion   Last week, my sister Marie and I developed a " Watkins Family Survival Guide in the Age of Trumpism ."  Marie is the matriarch of the Watkins family and I am its patriarch. The Survival Guide depicted below was emailed to Carmichael/Varnado/Watkins family members worldwide. The Survival Guide speaks for itself. The Survival Guide is a navigational tool to help family members around the world survive the rapidly changing geo-political and socio-economic conditions in America and abroad in the Age of Trumpism. The Carmichael/Varnado/Watkins family prepared similar Survival Guides for family members during prior transitional periods in American history, including: (a) the end of the Civil War, (b) the rise of Jim Crow laws in old Confederate states, (c) the heyday of White Supremacy in southern society, and (d) the growing Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s.   On July 15, 2013, I prepared and published " Basic Survival Rules for Black Teenagers in America . " Thes Basic Survival Rules were distributed to all Watkins family members in the aftermath of the controversial 2012 killing of 17-year-old Treyvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. This Guide helped to keep our teenage family members safe. Given the affirmative steps taken by President Donald Trump and First Buddy Elon Musk to place known white supremacists in top federal government leadership positions, my siblings and I agreed to make this Survival Guide available to the public, as well. Hopefully, this Guide will help women and people of color in America and around the world survive Trump's intense Blitzkrieg against them.

By Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on July 30, 2019 Sidney T. Williams In 1974, Sidney T. Williams was an officer in the Montgomery, Alabama Police Department. He was one of a dozen or so black officers on the police force. Mr. Williams befriended me after watching one of my trials in Montgomery’s municipal court. He was impressed that I did not allow an old-school racist judge to disrespect my client, who was a working-class black man in his 50s. In a courtroom packed with defendants, police officers, and onlookers, I insisted that my client be addressed as "Mister" and not by his first name. Several months later, I tried another case in this crowded municipal courtroom. The case involved a white police officer named J.T. Rambo and a middle-age black woman who was physically mistreated by him during her arrest for a highly questionable traffic stop. I aggressively defended this woman during the trial. After I won her case, Officer Williams watched Rambo rush toward me, point his finger in my face, and threaten me with bodily harm if I ever challenged his use of excessive force, again. Without blinking an eye, I told Officer Rambo to “kiss my ass.” He turned red and quickly retorted that “we're going to teach you a lesson, boy." Officer Williams, who lived in my Westside neighborhood, volunteered to cover my back and keep my family safe. He quietly organized a handful of black police officers who (a) watched my house during the daytime and at night, (b) monitored the elementary school on Rosa Parks Avenue that my children attended, and (c) stayed outside my downtown law office when I worked alone at night. Proven Loyalty and Friendship During Two High-Profile Cases On November 26, 1976, I won a full and unconditional pardon from the state of Alabama for, the last known surviving “Scottsboro Boy.” I began working on the pardon in 1974 and was met with massive resistance every step of the way. The nine Scottsboro Boys were falsely accused in 1931 of raping two white girls on a train running through Paint Rock, Alabama. All were arrested, tried, convicted of rape, and sentenced to death on multiple occasions. The U.S. Supreme Court saved the Scottsboro Boys on three occasions within hours of their scheduled execution.  The Clarence Norris pardon was based upon a finding of “innocence” of the criminal charge of rape, as proclaimed by the Alabama Pardons and Parole Board. This was the first pardon ever granted by the state to a person who was originally sentenced to death and who was later declared innocent of the charges for which he was convicted. It was highly controversial at the time. Sidney Williams arranged the police protection for Mr. Norris and me when Norris return to Alabama to pick up his pardon. The threats of death and bodily harm towards me seemed unbearable at the time, but Mr. Williams and his dedicated cadre of black police officers covered my back and made me feel safe during Mr. Norris’ visit to Montgomery. In December 1975, I represented the Estate of Bernard Whitehurst in a high-profile, highly controversial wrongful death case against the police department. Whitehurst was an unarmed black man who was fatally shot by Montgomery police officer Donnie Foster, who was white. The police department initially claimed that Whitehurst was a fleeing felon who shot at Foster while on the run and was killed during a face-to-face gun battle with Foster. After hearing one of the officers at the scene announce over the police radio that, “ We done shot the wrong nigger ,” Officer Williams took it upon himself to guide my investigation into Whitehurst’s death. At Williams’ suggestion, we exhumed Bernard Whitehurst’s body. The post-exhumation autopsy revealed that Whitehurst had shot in the back and not in his chest, as initially reported. Thanks to Officer Williams, I later found out that the gun located next to Whitehurst’s body was a “throw-down” pistol that had been “planted” there after his death.  The gun had been confiscated as evidence during a drug bust a year earlier and was last seen in the police department’s Property Room. It was the Whitehurst case that brought threats of bodily harm to my young children, if I did not back off the case. Anonymous callers to my home threatened to throw acid in my children’s faces. Once again, Sidney Williams promised me he would protect my children and keep them safe. He told me to stay focused on exposing Whitehurst’s wrongful death and the police cover-up in this case. I trusted him and pressed on with exposing the truth about what happened to Bernard Whitehurst. ​The Whitehurst case evolved into a nationally recognized scandal that resulted in the resignations of Montgomery’s mayor and police commissioner, the indictment of three police officers, and the firing or resignation of eight others.  This scandal was headlined in the April 3, 1977, edition of the Washington Post as “ Alabama’s Watergate ."   Breaking Through the Police Department’s Color Barrier By 1977, racial discrimination against black police officers was rampant within the Montgomery police department. No black officer could get a promotion above the rank of corporal even though three of them applied for promotion on multiple occasions. Sidney Williams was one of these officers. All three of these black corporals were objectively more qualified than many of the white officers who were promoted to the rank of sergeant over them. Officer Sidney Williams stands next to Officer Johnny Leroy Salter (far left) at the Turkey Day Classic football game in 1966 in Montgomery, Alabama. This photo is a courtesy of Ron Salter, Sr. In early 1978, Sidney Williams decided that the time was right to lay the groundwork for challenging the promotional system within the police department. He asked me to take his case. I did not hesitate to represent him because I admired and respected Cpl. Williams’ intellectual acumen, his exceptional knowledge, skills and abilities as a police officer, his commitment to equal opportunity for black and women police officers, and his raw courage. This tall, dark, strong, and distinguished-looking man had “Big Balls.” It was now my turn to help Cpl. Williams break through the color barrier at the police department. In September 1978, I sued the City of Montgomery on behalf of Cpl. Sidney T. Williams. We alleged that the city denied Williams a promotion to the rank of sergeant in retaliation for contacting the U.S. Department of Justice and because of the existence of racially discriminatory employment procedures. Cpl. Williams caught pure hell within the department for filing this lawsuit, but he never flinched or second-guessed his decision. On April 30, 1979, a federal court ruled that the written examination for promotion to police sergeant had an impermissible "disparate racial impact" on black officers in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court enjoined the city from future use of that test, or any other test or procedure with disparate racial impact, unless and until the test or procedure has been "validated" in accordance with federal law. This court victory cleared the way for Sidney Williams and a host of black police officers to rise through the ranks of the department all the way up to the rank of police chief.  Mr. Williams retired as a Major in the police department after 25 years on the force. Following his retirement, Mr. Williams served as the Director of Safety and Security at Alabama State University. He later served as an Investigator of Medicaid Fraud in the Alabama Attorney General's Office and as a city councilman for the City of Montgomery. Sidney Williams also served as a Sergeant 1st Class after 26 years in the Alabama Army National Guard. On October 29, 2001, Mr. Sidney Williams became the Chairman of the Alabama Pardons and Parole Board, where he served as a board member with distinction for eight years. Mr. Sidney T. Williams is an American patriot and a law enforcement hero. Nobody in law enforcement today would do what Sidney Williams did to (a) protect my family, (b) stop the police abuse of innocent citizens, and (c) promote equal opportunity within the officer ranks. For his many acts of bravery and unselfish service to humanity, my family and I are eternally grateful to Sidney T. Williams. I have waited for 45 years to tell Sidney Williams’ story. He is an incredible man. To this day, I look up to him. It is now time for Mr. Sidney T. Williams to take his rightful place in the annals of recorded history. If there is a finer law enforcement officer in America, I have not met him or her. If there is a braver man on the planet, I have not encountered him. Sidney T. Williams is in a class by himself. He is the yardstick by which I measure all law enforcement officers. Sidney Williams with Mohammad Ali during the Turkey Day Classic football game in 1966 in Montgomery, Alabama.

By: Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on February 8, 2025 President George H.W. Bush (center) campaigns with Montgomery, Alabama Mayor Emory Folmar (right). Folmar served as the Alabama state chairman of Bush's 1988 and 1992 presidential campaigns. Exclusive Special Report and Editorial Opinion --- From 1985 to 1998, I served as Special Counsel to Birmingham, Alabama Mayor Richard Arrington, Jr. I was tasked with using the legal system to drive and protect Arrington's public policy agenda. In February 1992, I needed help in defeating a racially biased and politically motivated effort by local federal prosecutors to topple Mayor Arrington from power.  It was a coup d'état in progress. From January 1988 through January 1992 , I fought a very intense legal battle to stop Frank Donaldson, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama , from using a rigged federal criminal justice system to run Arrington out of office and jail him on trumped up bribery charges. Frank Donaldson, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama (1981 to 1992). By January 1992, I was running out of legal maneuvers in my fight against Donaldson and his gang of prosecutors and investigators.  Even though my previous maneuvers slowed the long-running federal criminal investigation, Donaldson still posed a substantial threat to Arrington’s freedom and his public policy initiatives at City Hall.   My Efforts to Stop Donaldson's Weaponization of His Office Against Arrington Stalled Until I Could Join Forces with an Unexpected Ally   On February 21, 1990, I filed a complaint with the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee about the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) targeting, harassment, and mistreatment of Mayor Arrington throughout his first two and a half terms in office.  The complaint was entered into the Congressional Record by then-U.S. Senator Howell Heflin (D-Alabama).  However, this action did not deter Donaldson from continuing to weaponize the DOJ for the purpose of lynching Arrington in the federal criminal justice system.   On December 12, 1991, Arrington was served with a subpoena duces tecum in connection with Donaldson’s ongoing federal grand jury investigation. The subpoena required Arrington to produce certain documents relating to his official annual calendars and scheduled appointments. Based upon the advice of counsel, Arrington asserted legal objections to the subpoena and refused to produce the requested documents.   Despite his objections, a federal judge in Birmingham ordered Arrington to produce the subpoenaed documents.  Again, Arrington refused to comply.   On January 16, 1992, the judge ordered Arrington to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.  After a hearing on January 17th, the judge found that Arrington's refusal to produce the subpoenaed documents constituted contempt of court.   The judge fined Arrington $1,000 per day until he produced the requested documents.  The judge also ordered Arrington jailed every weekend until he complied with the order to produce the documents.  In January 1992, Mayor Richard Arrington, Jr., (center) marched to the federal courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama chained to his supporters to protest his mistreatment by local federal prosecutors who targeted him for a racially biased and politically motivated criminal investigation on fake bribery charges. Arrington was incarcerated on January 23, 1992.  He remained in federal prison for one day. On January 24, 1992, Arrington surrendered the requested documents (under protest) while the judge's order was appealed. The spectacle of Arrington in jail for one day made national and international news. It also led to a quick and quiet change in the local U.S. Attorney's Office. On January 27, 1992, President George H.W. Bush appointed Jack W. Selden to replace Frank Donaldson as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. Seldon was an honest, unbiased, highly intelligent, and very professional federal prosecutor. On January 27, 1992, President George H.W. Bush appointed Jack W. Selden (shown above) to replace Frank Donaldson as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. Selden was an honest, unbiased, highly intelligent, and very professional federal prosecutor. I Requested Montgomery Mayor Emory Folmar's Help with Arrington's Case and Got It   In early February 1992, I asked Richard Arrington for permission to approach Montgomery, Alabama Mayor Emory Folmar for help.  Folmar was a staunch conservative who had been mayor of Montgomery since 1977.  He was chairman of the Alabama Republican Party from 1985 to 1989.  Folmar was also the Alabama state chairman of George H.W. Bush’s 1988 and 1992 presidential election campaigns. In short, Folmar was the most powerful Republican in Alabama.   I knew Folmar from my days on the Montgomery city council (1979 to 1983), where we often sparred as fierce political adversaries.  I was also the plaintiffs' counsel in a lawsuit involving black police officers who had been denied promotions in the Montgomery police department. I won this class action case by knocking out the old discriminatory promotional exams and job assessment instruments for each ranking position.   From 1978 to 1988, Folmar and I selected the officers who would be promoted in the Montgomery police department until a new promotional system could be devised, validated, court approved, and implemented.  For every three officers Folmar picked for promotion, lead plaintiff Sidney T. Williams and I picked two.  For 10 years, Folmar and I worked closely on all promotions within the police department.  The one thing we had in common was our word.  When it was given, our word was our bond.  Folmar and I highly valued that personal trait.   The Surprising Way Emory Folmar Saved Richard Arrington, Jr.   With Arrington’s blessing, I traveled to Montgomery to meet with Mayor Emory Folmar in his office.  I told Folmar I needed his help with the DOJ’s long-running criminal investigation of Arrington.  Based upon the mutual trust and respect we had developed between us after working 10 years together on promotions within the police department, Folmar looked me straight in the eyes and asked me one question: “ Is Arrington guilty ?”  Without hesitation, I looked Folmar in the eyes and promptly said, “ No .”   With that answer, Folmar immediately picked up his office phone, dialed a number (from memory), and put the phone on the voice speaker feature so I could listen to the call.  A female answered the call.    Folmar said, “ Barbara, I need to speak to George .” Barbara said, “ He’s in the bathroom. ” Folmar said, " Knock on the door and tell him I need to talk to him, now.  I’ll hold! ” Barbara complied with Folmar's request. To my surprise, Emory Folmar had called a direct line to the private residence in the White House. He was talking to Barbara Bush and waiting for President George H.W. Bush to pick up the phone .   When President Bush picked up the phone, Folmar said, “ George, I’ve got a problem down here .” Bush said, “ What’s the problem, Emory? ”  Folmar replied, “ Your people in the DOJ are fucking over a friend of mine. ” Bush asked, “ Who is it, Emory? ”  Folmar said, “ Richard Arrington.  He’s the mayor of Birmingham .”    Bush said, “ I don’t know anything about it .”  Folmar replied, “ I know you don't. That’s my job to keep you in the loop on problems that may hurt us in Alabama.  I don’t need your DOJ guys making a martyr out of Richard Arrington while I am trying to get you re-elected. ”    Bush told Folmar he was going to talk to Borden Gray and Gray would call Folmar within a few minutes.  Bush assured Folmar that the " matter would be handled .”   Within minutes, Borden Gray, who served as President Bush’s White House Counsel, called Folmar. Mayor Folmar took the call in my presence and talked to Gray with the voice speaker feature on.  Folmar informed Gray that DOJ had investigated Arrington throughout his entire term in office and the investigation intensified in 1988. Gray asked Folmar what he wanted done in Arrington’s case.  Folmar said, “ DOJ should piss or get off the pot. ”    Then, Folmar lectured Gray on public corruption cases by saying, “ It doesn’t take 4 years to develop a bribery case against a mayor.  It sounds to me like your DOJ guys are trying to frame Arrington. ”  Gray promised Folmar he would check on Arrington's case and report back to him.  Folmar replied, “ This case needs to be filed away some place in the Department where it can gather dust .”    Several days later, Emory Folmar called me to tell me President Bush had appointed Jack Seldon to replace Frank Donaldson on January 27th, which I did not know at the time of our visit. Folmar also said Arrington’s case was “ as dead as Kelsey’s nuts .”  According to Folmar, Selden was expected to be confirmed by the Senate in March 1992. Folmar instructed me to tone down my political rhetoric about Arrington's criminal investigation and stop throwing " spitballs " at the DOJ.  I complied with Folmar's directives and told Arrington to do so, as well. After Folmar hosted President Bush at a campaign rally in Birmingham on August 22, 1992, he called me to let me know that he saw U.S. Attorney Jack Selden at the event. According to Folmar, he strongly suggested to Selden that DOJ end its review of Arrington's case fairly quickly.  On November 15, 1992, Selden publicly announced that "based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence, the Department of Justice determined, with my concurrence, that prosecution [of Arrington] should be declined."   After the investigation was closed, Folmar called me to let me know the DOJ office in Washington would be sending Arrington the first-ever letter of apology for targeting him for a criminal investigation without sufficient evidence.  Folmar gleefully told me I could thank him later. The DOJ letter of apology arrived, just as Folmar promised it would.   Without Emory Folmar’s direct, persistent, and persuasive involvement in Mayor Arrington’s ongoing federal criminal investigation, the history of Richard Arrington's tenure as Birmingham’s first black mayor might have turned out very differently.   About a year later, Mayor Folmar asked for my assistance in Washington on a matter that was very important to him and the city of Montgomery. Folmar reminded me that I owed him a "thank you" from his display of friendship in the Arrington case. I rendered the assistance, exactly as Folmar requested. Folmar received precisely what he requested. What that assistance was and how it was delivered is a story for another day.

By: Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on February 6, 2025 First Buddy Elon Musk with President Donald Trump. An Editorial Opinion Since January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump, First Buddy Elon Musk, and their far-right minions in government have unleashed a Blitzkrieg of actions against every form of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) that benefits women and historically disadvantaged minorities in America.  Trump and Musk have even lashed out at South Africa over that nation’s land repatriation law without providing the American people with any historical context for these laws.    Recently, Trump appointed white supremacist Darren J. Beattie to a top job in the State Department. Beattie has openly said, “ Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work . ” Beattie also urged black Republicans to “ learn [their] place and take a knee to MAGA ” in a 2021 Twitter post.   In a modern-day expansion of " Manifest Destiny ," Trump announced that he wants 2.1 million Palestinians in Gaza to leave their ancestral homeland so that commercial real estate developers can turn this seaside community into a luxurious “Riviera” for the super-rich.  Trump has even suggested that America should "own" Gaza during the redevelopment process.   Meanwhile, Elon Musk wants South Africa's 7.2% white population, which owns 72% of the nation's land, to retain this ownership even though the land in question was seized via deadly force and without compensation from South Africa’s indigenous black population during Britain's harsh colonial rule of the country from 1806 to 1992.   Musk’s family enriched itself from these land seizures and enhanced its wealth by exploiting black South Africans during the country’s long period of brutally enforced racial apartheid.  Musk wallowed in state-sponsored white privilege in South Africa until he was 18 years old. Before South Africa gained its independence in 1992, Musk migrated to Canada in 1989. He migrated from Canada to America in 1995. As expected, Trump, Musk, and their minions in government have not engaged in any Blitzkrieg actions against the blatant racial bigotry, engrained sexism, and widespread cronyism that operates to systematically exclude women and minorities from the socio-economic progress of America on a daily basis. Less than two years ago, the ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court in Allen v. Milligan affirmed a lower federal court's ruling that the state of Alabama discriminates against its black citizens from the " cradle to the grave ." During his first day on the job, Trump signed Executive Orders that will breathe new life into this " cradle to the grave " model of discrimination against blacks, women, and other historically disadvantaged minorities nationwide. Surviving Blatant Racism, Sexism, and Cronyism   Regardless of the Trump-Musk team’s motives for declaring war on all DEI activities that benefit women and minorities in American, there are proven and practical pathways for surviving this Blitzkrieg.  This article discusses the pathways that have worked for Watkins family members since America’s Civil War ended in 1865. The Watkins family has always stressed educational excellence, brainpower, goal setting, focus, perseverance, patience, financial independence, and hard work to secure and protect our future in American society.  These are the only tools that have consistently worked for us in the face of never-ending racism, sexism, and other impediments to our inclusion in the socio-economic progress of this nation. We have always had to outthink, outwork, outperform, and outlast any competitor or adversary. Watkins family members do not complain whenever we are cheated out of victories that rightfully belong to us, or whenever we are "railroaded" in contests by racially biased public officials. These situations occur quite often in life.   We use the cheating, railroading, racial discrimination, and sexism that has been perpetrated against us to sharpen our focus and fuel our passion for success in life.   Here are our Basic Rules for Surviving Racial Bigotry, Sexism, and Cronyism: We are never ambiguous about who we are and what we stand for. We are morally strong people who nuture well-defined, positive character traits within our family members. We always stand up for what is right, even when we have to stand alone. We never kowtow to bullies. We fear no man or woman. We worship God and not men or women who act like gods. We treat everyone with respect and in a fair manner.  We believe it is better to be respected than to be liked. We develop and adhere to a purpose-driven life. We set personal and professional goals and work hard to achieve them, even under adverse conditions. We develop extensive, close-knit, and impenetrable networks of family members and true friends who share our personal values, our world vision, and our personal and business goals. We avoid negative, selfish, and small-minded people. We never seek to lower anybody's performance standards. Instead, we strive to outperform whatever the announced standard is in any field we choose. We live within our financial means. We spend our money with people who support us and on things that create or generate wealth. We educate and mentor young people and bring them into our family's networks. We let our work speak for us. We never seek validation from anyone outside of our family and we never allow others define who we are. We are bridge-builders in a global society.  The positive impact and accummulated goodwill from our bridge-building activities have lasted for generations. We register every generation of family members to vote and we vote in every election. In the new Trump-Musk political paradigm, no strong American political leader is likely to emerge in the near future to protect women, blacks, Palestinians, black South Africans, and other disfavored groups from the perils of Trumpism. These groups must do this for themselves.

By: Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on February 2, 2025 Black orphaned children and juvenile offenders could be bought to serve as laborers for white planters in many Southern states from 1865 until 1941. (Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Detroit Publishing Company Collection, LC-D428-850). Photo courtesy of the Equal Justice Initiative. An Editorial Opinion   In 1865, America outlawed private ownership of slaves, but the country did not abolish all forms of slavery.  The Thirteenth Amendment expressly authorized slavery within the nation’s prison systems and jails.  Incarcerated inmates are “ slaves of the state ,” according to the Virginia Supreme Court in Ruffin v. Commonwealth , 62 Va. 790 (1871).   The U.S. has 1,566 state prisons, 122 federal prisons, 3,116 local jails, 1,323 juvenile correctional facilities, 142 immigration detention facilities, and 80 Indian country jails, as well as in military prisons, civil commitment centers, state psychiatric hospitals, and prisons in the U.S. territories.  On any given day, these systems hold  over 1.9 million “slaves of the state. ”   The Convict Leasing Plan    Today, President Donald Trump and First Buddy Elon Musk plan to use prison slavery to provide a captive workforce that can be easily substituted for the one created by illegal migrants in America. The Trump administration has targeted these migrants for mass roundup and deportation.   On January 31, 2025, Musk, who grew up as a privileged member of South Africa's white society during the country's apartheid era, showcased El Salvador’s recently implemented convict leasing program on X (formerly Twitter).  Musk proclaimed, “This is the way.”    https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1885568627992129879   El Salvador is using prison laborers to build roads, hospitals, and schools; manufacture clothing and furniture; grow and harvest crops; and clean the countries rivers.  The country's convict leasing program does not use imprisoned rapist and murders. Convict Leasing in the U.S. was Abolished in 1941   Convict leasing began in the U.S. during the Reconstruction era, shortly after the Civil War.  The practice involved selling the forced labor of state and federal prisoners to private businesses. It was widely viewed as a form of legally permissible slavery, particularly within states that made up the Confederacy.  The practice peaked about 1880 and persisted in various forms until it was abolished by President  Franklin D. Roosevelt  via U.S. Attorney General Francis Biddle's " Circular 3591 , " dated December 12, 1941.  Trump is expected to revoke Circular 3591 via an Executive Order.   Today, state and federal inmates are forced to work whatever jobs are assigned to them, onsite or offsite.  They are paid from 12¢ to $1.41 per hour, depending upon the jobs they perform. "Slaves of the state" are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act or Workers’ Compensation statutes. The Goals of the Trump-Musk Convict Leasing Plan   The Trump-Musk convict leasing plan, which has not yet been publicly announced, seeks to accomplish four of Trump’s economic goals: Provide a never-ending domestic supply of inmate labor that can be worked like private sector "slaves." Lease “slaves of the state” to private sector employers at hourly rates that are far below the market rates for private sector employees. Create windfall profits for prison systems and private sector employers who will use leased convict labor on farms and ranches, at poultry, fish, and meat processing plants, on construction jobs, in restaurants, at janitorial firms, at landscaping companies, as truck drivers, and in a host of other laborer jobs. Ramp up the convict labor supply pool, as needed, by imprisoning greater numbers of historically disadvantaged population groups in new supersized prisons.   The Trump-Musk convict leasing plan is expected to be quickly embraced in states controlled by MAGA governors and legislatures. The plan will exclude violent offenders and sex offenders as eligible participants.  All other state and federal prisoners will have no choice but to participate in the plan.

By: Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on January 28, 2025 Southern Company Chairman, President, and CEO Christopher Womack's letter to President Donald Trump pledged to be a "partner and resource for Trump and his administration." The company has moved from promoting DEI in the workforce to promoting "Diversity of thought and perspective," whatever that means. An Editorial Opinion On December 9, 2024, Southern Company Chairman, President and CEO Christopher Womack sent a letter to President-elect Donald Trump congratulating him on his November 5, 2024, election victory.  Womack asked Trump to “ consider Southern Company, our subsidiaries, and our 28,000 employees as a partner and resource for you and your administration. ”  Womack told Trump, “ We look forward to once again working with you and your administration. ”   Womack concluded his letter by wishing Trump and his family a “ safe and happy holiday season, with gratitude for your dedication to our nation and its citizens.  Let me know if I can help you in any way .”   [Click here to read Womack’s entire letter to President Donald Trump]   On Monday, January 20, 2025 (Inauguration Day) , Womack sent an email to all Southern Company employees. The email contained a link to Womack's December 9th letter to Trump and warned employees as follows: “ This is an internal email and not intended for external distribution. Please do not forward . ”   Womack’s email appears below.  The email speaks for itself. Based upon Womack's letter to Trump and email to employees, Southern Company appears to have fully embraced President Trump's MAGA political agenda. The company is now a " partner and resource " for President Trump and his administration. Mr. Womack expressed gratitude for Trump's " dedication to our nation and its citizens" and offered to "help [Trump] in any way." This giant utility company, which derives more than 25% of its revenue from African-American customers in seven states, has also made a low-keyed pivot from promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) , which Trump rails against, to promoting " diversity of thought and perspective, " whatever that means. Nobody outside of the Southern Company was supposed to know about this inconspicuous shift in the company's"diversity" priorities. President Trump is pleased to have Mr. Womack and the Southern Company in his back pocket. BlackRock and The Vanguard Group -- the largest two institutional investors in the Southern Company -- are also pleased with this move. These investment companies are big Trump supporters. Meanwhile, Chairman, President, and CEO Christopher Womack, whom some company insiders claim was a DEI hire in May 2023, will get to keep his job -- for now. Except for Costco, Apple, JPMorgan Chase, and Goldman Sachs, nearly all major publicly-owned corporations and big Wall Street banks have fallen in line with President Trump's aggressive dismantlement of DEI policies and programs.

By: Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on January 25, 2025 The EPA's map of the 35th Avenue Superfund site in North Birmingham, Alabama. Each red ring shows a one-mile radius, with the 35th Avenue Superfund site in the center. The EPA examined a subset of pollution sources within this three-mile radius. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cleanup of the East Palestine, Ohio train derailment in February 2023 cost Norfolk Southern  $1.1 billion .  East Palestine, which is 93.5% white, has a population of 4,457. The cleanup costs includes environmental response, legal fees, community assistance, and safety improvements.    Norfolk Southern excavated and shipped hundreds of thousands of tons of soil and millions of gallons of water to decontamination facilities.  Norfolk Southern also agreed to a settlement with the United States valued at over $310 million.  Additionally, Norfolk Southern offered a $600 million class-action settlement to people who lived within 20 miles of the derailment.  All of this happened in less than a year.   In contrast, only $46 million has been spent cleaning up the EPA-designated 35th Avenue Superfund site in North Birmingham, Alabama.  North Birmingham includes parts of the Collegeville, Fairmont, and Harriman Park neighborhoods and the Five-Mile and Harriman Park Creeks. Within the site are three public schools, two public housing communities, and 638 residential properties (as of June 2022). Since 2011, Birmingham residents in and around the 35th Avenue Superfund site have been fighting to clean up toxic levels of multiple types of pollution in their air, land, and water, including lead; arsenic; and benzo(a) pyrene, which is part of the group of chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, commonly known as PAHs. About $20 million of the $46 million spent to date was secured during Mayor Randall Woodfin’s 8 years in office . The contaminated North Birmingham communities have a residential population of about 4,000, 92.5% of whom are black.   Unlike the proper, thorough, and expedited cleanup in East Palestine, the cleanup in North Birmingham has languished for 14 years. As of 2023, less than one thousand tons of the contaminated soil in the poisoned North Birmingham communities had been removed and replaced.   During his 8 years in office, Woodfin never directed his city attorneys to sue the polluters to get at least $310 million in cleanup money for the 35th Avenue Superfund site and at least $600 million or more in community assistance, healthcare funding, and burial assistance for the adversely affected residents of North Birmingham. Unlike the mayor of East Palestine, Woodfin's No. 1 statutory duty as mayor is to enforce all laws and ordinances in Birmingham. This, Woodfin has NOT done in North Birmingham for 8 years. Woodfin's Close Ties to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Never Resulted in Adequate Cleanup Funding for the North Birmingham Mayor Woodfin pals around with former President Joe Biden and former Vice-President Kamala Harris. Yet, these close ties never resulted in adequate funding for the EPA cleanup in North Birmingham. The meager cleanup activities to date have been extremely slow, superficial, and insulting to the long-suffering residents of North Birmingham. In 2014, the EPA identified five potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for the current pollution in the neighborhoods that have been the site of heavy industry for more than 100 years. The named PRPs are: Drummond Company, which owns the nearby ABC Coke facility; Walter Coke; Alagasco; U.S. Pipe and Foundry; and KMAC Services. Most of these companies are/were strategic alliance partners of Alabama Power Company, which is headquartered in Birmingham.   It is well-known in Birmingham that Alabama Power is Woodfin’s principal financial backer and political boss. Why the Cleanup in East Palestine was Fast and Successful, but the One in North Birmingham was Not   Unlike the first-term Republican mayor of East Palestine, Democrat Randall Woodfin never pushed the Biden-Harris administration for a full, thorough, and expedited cleanup of North Birmingham.   Instead, Woodfin gaslighted the residents of North Birmingham for 8 years solely to help the companies that polluted their communities avoid a $1 billion cleanup.  What is more, Woodfin spent years cozing up to Biden and Harris in the hope of getting a high-powered job in Washington for himself, in the event one of them won the presidency in 2024. The polluters of North Birmingham, together with Alabama Power and its business alliance partners, laundered hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributors through “dark money” 501(c)(4) entities to fund Woodfin’s 2017 and 2021 campaigns.  Today, these big mules are also financing Woodfin’s 2025 re-election campaign.   In my view, East Palestine experienced a highly successful and expedited $1.1 billion cleanup from the Biden-Harris administration. North Birmingham experienced a mere $6 million cleanup during Biden's 4-year presidency for the same size of polluted land mass. The reason appears to be this: Woodfin was bought off and the mayor of East Palestine was not .  It was far cheaper for the polluters and their businesss alliance partners to contribute to Woodfin’s 2017 and 2021 successful mayoral campaigns than it was to (a) spend $1 billion in an EPA-mandated cleanup the contaminated properties in North Birmingham, (b) relocate residents who wanted to move out of the contamination communities, and (c) pay the medical bills and burial expenses of the residents who were poisoned.   Scores of residents in North Birmingham died from cancer and related ailments because of their non-stop exposure to toxic levels of environmental poisons during Woodfin’s 8 years as their mayor. Their deaths were painful, needless, and mostly preventable.   Meanwhile, in 2023, Woodfin moved from his old home in the crime-ridden College Hills neighborhood in West Birmingham to his new $1.4 million hilltop mansion in an exclusive gated community in East Birmingham.  Woodfin never considered moving into a new home in North Birmingham because he knew those residential communities were still heavily polluted.  Woodfin also knew that the residents of North Birmingham will continue to die every year from toxic environmental poisons until these neighborhoods in that area are properly cleaned up. For sure, Woodfin does not want to become one of these deceased victims.  Which mayor was bought-off? The one in East Palestine, Ohio or the one in Birmingham, Alabama? You decide for yourself.

By Donald V. Watkins ©Copyrighted and Published on May 21, 2019 Sherman Industries signaled today that it may not move its downtown concrete batch plant to the Five Points West community and may seek an alternative site that is zoned for this business. In a statement released today, Lehigh Hanson spokesman Jeff Sieg said: “Sherman Industries intends to continue working with the city and the community to improve everyone’s understanding of the scope of our project and trying to identify a mutually acceptable solution at Fayette Avenue in Five Points West, or possibly an equally viable location that is, like the Fayette Avenue site, properly zoned for this business.” Lehigh Hanson is the U.S. parent company of Sherman Industries, LLC. The HeidelbergCement Group is the parent company of Lehigh Hanson. The HeidelbergCement Company was a collaborator with the Nazis during World War II. Only one of the company’s board members distanced himself from Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust that killed six million Black Germans, Jews, Gypsies, and Gay Germans. The fight with Sherman Industries is not over, but it may be ending in the near future. After I published Sunday’s article titled, “ Why Randall Woodfin will not fight Sherman Industries ,” I received several off-the-record-phone calls about this explosive situation. During three lengthy phone calls, I suggested that Sherman Industries needed to find another home for its concrete batch plant. I also indicated that Alabama Power Company could solve this dilemma for Mayor Randall Woodfin because, as I explained in my article, he is the company’s political puppet. Alabama Power created Woodfin, financed his campaign, and controls his political agenda. Former Alabama Power Company executive Bobbie Knight co-chaired Woodfin's transition committee. After my three phone calls, I was cautiously optimistic that Alabama Power Company would use its substantial influence in the business community and political arena to de-escalate the rising tensions in this matter. Thank you, Alabama Power Company for helping to resolve an environmental justice issue that was NOT of your making. This demonstrates your positive leadership in the community. Thank you, Five Points West neighborhood leaders (most of whom are female) for standing up to Sherman Industries. You were not afraid to protect your neighborhood from a known air polluter. When our men have been weak and compromised, our women have always stood tall. Thank you, Steven Hoyt and Joseph Cole for “blowing the whistle” on Sherman Industries and Randall Woodfin last month. The company's controversial relocation plan had been greased, but the two of you pulled the covers off the bed so that we could see who was making love under the sheets. Thank you, William Bell for showing us that a concrete batch plant has no place in the city limits by the example you set when you ran Ready Mix USA out of a downtown neighborhood in 2017. Thank you, Michael Hansen and GASP for educating me on the many dangers of air pollution. Thank you, citizens of Birmingham for mitigating the vestiges of 1930s-era environmental racism that are embedded in the city's zoning ordinances. Stay vigilant, everybody! Monitor and verify every aspect of this matter very closely. Our work is far from over. PHOTO: Sherman Industries site in downtown Birmingham, Alabama

By: Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on January 23, 2025 Bishop Mariann Budde An Editorial Opinion Most Christians are familiar with the Beatitudes that Jesus preached in his sermon on the Mount of Beatitudes . They are listed in Matthew 5:3-10. One of the Beatitudes is this passage, “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” According to Jesus, those who are merciful will be shown mercy by God. During the Inaugural Prayer Service at the National Cathedral, Bishop Mariann Budde pleaded with President Donald Trump to show mercy to immigrants and members of the LBGTQ community. She literally pleaded with Trump to show the mercy that Jesus preached about in the Beatitudes. President Trump and MAGA World immediately condemned Bishop Budde for preaching the Beatitude for mercy during this prayer service. Trump tweeted that her plea for mercy was “inappropriate” and her tone was “nasty.” True Christians know that preaching the Beatitudes is NEVER inappropriate in a church service or any other venue where Christians gather in Jesus' and God's name. Furthermore, anyone who views the video of Bishop Budde's plea for mercy can see that it was made in a respectful and dignified manner. MAGA World’s Castigation of Bishop Budde is Unwarranted The venom that has spewed from MAGA World’s castigation of Bishop Mariann Budde’s plea for mercy during the Inaugural Prayer Service is the same kind of venom that was directed at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. when he preached the Beatitudes to a racial segregated America in the 1950s and 60s. Bishop Budde is being slammed as a “far-left lesbian” and “Radical Left hard line Trump hater” who should not have asked Trump to show mercy on the “least of these, my brethren.” Somehow, her plea for the Beatitude of mercy during a church service was “inappropriate” and “brought her church into the World of politics in a very ungracious way.” Bishop Budde merely asked Trump to show mercy to immigrants and gay Americans. According to MAGA World, this plea for mercy was wrong. When Trump showed mercy to dozens of violent rioters who physically assaulted and harmed scores of police officers at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, by pardoning them with this point-blank directive, “Fu-k it, release ‘em all,” MAGA World was pleased. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was Castigated in the Same Way In the 1950s and 60s, Southern politicians and private citizens, so-called “Christian” members of Congress, white clergy throughout the South, and top FBI officials called Dr. King a “communist,” an ”outside agitator,” a “coon,” a “nigger,” a “trouble-maker,” “the most dangerous racist in America today,” “the most dangerous Negro in America,” a “colossal fraud,” an “abnormal moral imbecile,” a “filthy, abnormal animal,” and an “evil, abnormal beast.” For the record, Dr. King was my pastor, Sunday School teacher, and BTU instructor at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. He never preached anything but obedience to God and love for humanity. He was a living example of the Beatitudes. This made him “dangerous.” Although in death Dr. King became one of the most revered figures in U.S. history, for the entirety of the 39 years that King lived and breathed, there wasn’t a single day when the majority of white Americans approved of him. In 1966, Gallup measured his approval rating at 32% positive and 63% negative. That same year, a December Harris poll found that 50% of whites felt Dr. King was “hurting the negro cause of civil rights” while only 36% felt he was helping. By the time he died in 1968, three out of four white Americans disapproved of him. In the wake of his assassination, 31% of the country felt that he “brought it on himself”. The Modern-Day Church is Becoming Increasingly Weak and Irrelevant The Church has been in the world of politics since religion has been in existence. In fact, Christian Nationalists are ardent supporters of President Trump and his policies. What is more, Trump began peddling his own version of the Bible last year. I agree with Dr. King’s view about the Church, as expressed in his 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail. The modern-day Church "is so often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. It is so often the arch supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the Church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the Church's often vocal sanction of things as they are." Castigating Bishop Budde and her plea for mercy will merely cause the Church to “lose its authentic ring, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning” for the 21st century.” Finally, Bishop Budde does not owe anybody an apology for serving God, preaching the Beatitudes, and pleading with Trump for the Beatitude of mercy.

By: Donald V. Watkins Copyrighted and Published on January 22, 2025 President Donald Trump signs Executive Order No. 14145 that revoked all prior executive orders and actions that guarantee women and minorities fair access to jobs and contracts in federal agencies and private sector businesses. An Editorial Opinion Taking a page out of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 playbook, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order No. 14145 that revoked all prior executive orders and actions that guaranteed women and minorities fair access to jobs and contracts in federal agencies and the private business sector. [Click here to read Executive Order No. 14145 in its entirety.] Trump claims that “ critical and influential institutions of American society, including the Federal Government, major corporations, financial institutions, the medical industry, large commercial airlines, law enforcement agencies, and institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences that are discriminatory and harmful .” Trump also claims that the revoked executive orders “ undermine our national unity, as they deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system. ” As such, Trump’s first Executive Order of his second term in office ordered “ all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements. I further order all agencies to enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities .” Trump also revoked all prior executive orders (dating back to 1965) that were designed to protect women and minorities from widespread discriminatory employment and contracting practices in the government and private sector businesses. Several of these executive orders are specifically listed in Executive Order No. 14145. Finally, Trump directed all federal agencies, with the assistance of the Attorney General, to take all appropriate action to end fair access protections for women and minorities to employment and contracting opportunities in a broad array of private sector businesses. Trump ordered each federal agency to " identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars. " Nowhere in Trump’s Executive Order does he acknowledge or reference the history of discrimination against women and minorities in America for over 400 years in fair employment and contracting opportunities. This history is documented in Congressional reports, academic research, and thousands of adjudicated federal court cases, dating back to the 1600s. In contrast, Congressional reports, academic research, and adjudicated court cases documenting "reverse discrimination" against white men during this 400-year period are extremely rare and scant. Interestingly, Trump's order does not “ prohibit persons teaching at a Federally funded institution of higher education as part of a larger course of academic instruction from advocating for, endorsing, or promoting the unlawful employment or contracting practices prohibited by this order .” The bottom line of Executive Order No. 14145 is this: Affirmative action in government and private sector employment and contracting opportunities that has the operative effect of excluding women and minorities is now protected by all agencies of the federal government. This form of affirmative action is automatically presumed to be "merit-based." Affirmative action that has the operative effect of affording women and minorities fair access to employment and contracting opportunities that have been historically and systematically denied to them is banned. This form of affirmative action is automatically presumed to be "illegal" and "discriminatory." Any other interpretation of the plain language of Executive Order No. 14145 is pure political spin.