Our Rights, Our Future

Every Wrong Shall Have a Remedy

"During the first two centuries of this Nation's history much of our law was developed by judges in the common-law tradition. A basic principle animating our jurisprudence was enshrined in state constitution provisions guaranteeing, in substance, that 'every wrong shall have a remedy.' Fashioning appropriate remedies for the violation of rules of law designed to protect a class of citizens was the routine business of judges."

The above quotation is from Supreme Court Justice Stevens in his dissenting opinion in this past Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling on third party liability in securities fraud.  The quote sets up the historic premise of the American court system: to ensure compensation for those harmed by another's injustice.  That the court is moving away from valuing our ability to seek a remedy is the essence of the 'rollback' of our rights.

At face value, a securities fraud case may not seem to have much to do with civil rights -- but in reality this is just another piece of the puzzle of our slowly-dissolving freedoms.  First we were told we couldn't sue for discrimination unless we could prove it was intentional, or only if a complaint had been filed within an impossible period of time.  Then women's reproductive rights took a big hit in Gonzales v. Carhart.  Now, investors who relied on false information when making financial decisions have been denied the capacity to seek damages from those who helped inflate the price of stock they purchased, which then plummeted.  In a gradual and very subtle way, Americans are coming to understand that big business is the only big winner, and that our individual rights are being rendered meaningless by the day.

You know things have reached a critical point when reporting by Fox Business News has you cheering and waving your fists.  In their coverage of the StoneRidge decision, they illustrate the changing face of the courts and its affect upon the average American:

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the court is conducting a continuing campaign to render investors' rights to sue "toothless."

A liberal Supreme Court in 1971 endorsed investor lawsuits under antifraud provisions of securities law at issue in the current lawsuit.

Fourteen years ago, a more conservative Supreme Court imposed limits on such lawsuits, prohibiting cases against third parties for aiding and abetting a company's misstatements.

Amen.  So, back to facts.  What happened here, exactly?  And why does this case matter?

For those of us who don't traffic in financial legalese, a cable company named Charter Communications found that their finances were less-than-robust, so they struck a deal with two of their suppliers, Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta, which made it appear that they had earned $17 million more in revenue then in actuality.  When their scam was revealed and their stock crashed, angry investors went after Charter and followed up with a suit against Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta.  Before its appeal to the Supreme Court, the latter suit was dismissed by a lower court, as a 1994 decision had protected third parties from such litigation -- but that decision rested on the assumption that the third party as issue was innocent of wrongdoing.

Supreme Court Justice Breyer recused himself from consideration of the case because he owns stock in Cisco, which currently owns Scientific-Atlanta. In the resulting 5-3 ruling, according to Reuters:

The Supreme Court upheld a lower court's dismissal of the lawsuit. Justice Anthony Kennedy concluded for the court majority that federal securities law does not reach the companies because Charter investors did not rely on their statements or representations.

Kennedy said Scientific Atlanta and Motorola "had no duty to disclose; and their deceptive acts were not communicated to the public."

The shareholders cannot show reliance on any of the third parties' actions "except in an indirect chain that we find too remote for liability," he wrote.

He went further to say that allowing shareholders to pursue third parties "would expose a new class of defendants to these risks." "Overseas firms with no other exposure to our securities laws could be deterred from doing business here," he said.

While Justice Kennedy appears to have our best interests in mind, he fails to acknowledge that a new class of defendants exists because a new class of multinational corporations is employing a new class of deceptive tactics to expand their bottom line at the expense of everything and everyone else.  Tuesday's ruling has not only been cause for numerous champagne toasts in corporate America, it has provoked much speculation over whether or not this decision will doom those waiting for fair compensation in the massive Enron debacle from a few years ago.  Their case is still pending Supreme Court consideration.

I hear my baffled twenty-something self asking what has happened to our integrity as a nation. When exactly did the notion of democracy as government by and for the people become lip service?  While these are certainly questions worth considering, our energy is much better spent figuring out how we can reclaim the rights we've lost and re-envision the just society that our founders sought to establish.

 

The Rise of the Federalist Society and the Erosion of Justice

Cross-posted from The Huffington Post

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the nation's most important employment law--prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. In 1991 Congress extended Title VII's protections beyond private employees to include state employees as well.

But two weeks ago a federal appeals court issued a technical ruling in Alaska v. EEOC holding that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority in extending Title VII's landmark civil rights protections to state workers. The case strikes a blow to tens of thousands of workers. Yet it is only one ruling in a string of decisions that have closed the courthouse doors on civil rights cases.

What may come as a surprise to some readers is that the case comes from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal court that has been decried by the right-wing as "liberal". Those on the right think these judges wear pink robes, live on the "left" coast and cause most of the problems in our society. The "Ninth Circus", they say, is "out of touch" with the rest of the country. There have been enormous efforts to appoint right-wing judges to the Ninth, as well as attempts to split the circuit in order to isolate California and the few remaining moderate judges. The efforts to pack the courts with right-wing judges paid off: the three judge panel in Alaska v. EEOC was split 2-1 with the two Republican appointees in the majority.

Stacking the federal courts with right-wing ideologues is drastically undermining the laws as we know them. Recall last term's decision in Ledbetter in which the 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court held that Ms. Ledbetter's Title VII suit was time barred because she didn't file her complaint within 180 days of the decision to pay her less than her male counterparts. Never mind that Ms. Ledbetter had no way of knowing that she was being discriminated against until she received an anonymous note after years of receiving lesser pay.

So, who is leading the charge in pushing right-wing appointments? A close look at recent appointments shows that the Federalist Society is at the center of these efforts. According to People for the American Way, "since its inception, the Federalist Society has played a key role in advancing the right-wing agenda. As an ideological proving ground for ultra-conservative activists, lawyers, and scholars, the Federalist Society has long served as a valuable professional network for those on the Right..." And what a network it is.

The Federalist Society

About a quarter of Bush's early judicial appointments were recommended by the Washington headquarters of the Society. In 2005, 15 of the 41 federal appeals court judges who were confirmed by the Senate identified themselves as members of the Society. Half of the Justice Department lawyers hired for the Civil Rights division were members of the Society. Other notable Federalist Society appointments include John Ashcroft, Gale Norton, Ted Olson, Michael Chertoff, and Justices Scalia, Roberts and Thomas.

In fact, the court-stacking has been so successful that last Friday the Society threw a great big fancy party celebrating their 25 years of triumph. Speakers included President Bush along with Society members Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas. As usual, the Society members complained bitterly about "activist" judges over their fois gras.

President Bush blasted the Senate over his "stalled" nominations to the federal courts and urged members of the Senate to capitulate. Never mind that 12 of 14 federal appellate courts are already dominated by judges appointed by him, his father and President Reagan. In fact, according to our partner the Alliance for Justice, 7 of 14 federal appellate courts are two-thirds or more Republican appointed. And these judges have an agenda.

The scariest part of the celebration came when Rudy Giuliani promised the Society even more "conservative" judges.

I'm going to give you 200 reasons why the next election is really important. It's the 200 federal judges that the next president of the United States will likely appoint over the four years in the White House.

According to Giuliani, his picks would be like Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts, the four most "conservative" justices. (I put conservative in quotes because these judges are anything but "conservative.") Giuliani's picks would oppose "racial quotas", thrust the 10 Commandments into public spaces, and require the words "Under God" be used in the Pledge of Allegiance. Not to mention overturn Roe v. Wade (forget about the fact that this man wears a dress). The not-so-diverse crowd at the Society celebration broke out in golf-claps that lasted minutes. Giuliani then gave a few of the Society members the secret handshake and took off to the next event.

When Will the Madness Stop?

So, with 426 days left in Bush's presidency, what's next for judicial appointments? One might think that not a lot can happen. After all, won't the Senate stop the courts from shifting even further to the right?

Not so. Progressives should be prepared to face a last push for right-wing nominees. Leslie Southwick's recent nomination is a case in point. Southwick's nomination was widely opposed by civil rights groups for his abysmal record on the rights of workers, people of color and the LGBT community, among others. But thanks to Republican Senator Dianne Feinstein (ignore the misleading "D" in her title), Southwick now has a lifetime appointment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

We can expect several more right-wing nominees. For example, President Bush recently nominated Steve A. Matthews for a Fourth Circuit seat. Mathews is a former state chapter president of the Federalist Society and, until he was nominated, served on the board of directors for the Landmark Legal Foundation, known for nominating Rush Limbaugh for a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. There are several others who fit the mold and we should pay close attention.

As a result of ideological appointments, the federal benches have shifted dangerously to the right. The courts are increasingly unavailable for the average person to enforce rights, like the state workers who now lack the protection of Title VII. The National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights is working with our partners to reverse this rollback and reclaim our courts.

Liveblogging from "Why We Can't Wait: Reversing the Retreat on Civil Rights"

The conference we've organized in cooperation with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the North Carolina Central University School of Law is in full swing, as this morning's opening session kicked off with a introductions by NCCU Law School Dean Raymond Pierce and LCCR President Wade Henderson.  The welcome session was geared towards showing that civil rights affect people's lives every day, and that the rollback of our civil rights has left many Americans unable to protect themselves against unlawful discrimination.  Two panelists told their stories: Lilly Ledbetter, of this year's Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Supreme Court case on employment discrimination, and Reverend Lois Dejean of the Gert Town Revival Initiative, Inc. in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Ledbetter spoke of the ordeal she went through after realizing that she was paid significantly less than the other male managers at the Goodyear tire manufacturing plant where she had worked for twenty years. Filing a lawsuit in 1998, Ledbetter was originally awarded $3 million in damages, but was then told that the cap for such damages was set at $300,000 - all before her case advanced to the Supreme Court this spring.  In a tight 5-4 ruling, the court said that Ledbetter was not eligible for any damages because she had not filed a complaint within the mandated time period from each unfairly low raise she had received.  As Goodyear walked away scot-free, Ledbetter has sworn to use her voice to advance the cause of civil rights in America, even recently giving testimony to a House committee that formulated new civil rights legislation that has is up for consideration in the Senate. While she cannot change the result of her own case, she can talk about those aspects of discrimination that we would not ordinarily think of as related to our rights. For example, the discrimination that Ledbetter faced changed not only the salary she used to support her family, but also directly affected the pension and retirement account that she will depend on in years to come.  She also spoke about the media attention she's gotten after the ruling, about how the mainstream television news stations requested that she bake a cake or serve tea and coffee while they were videotaping her in a questionable attempt to better define her gender role, a role she described by declaring proudly, "no man ever had to do my job for me."

Reverend Dejean spoke about the area in which she lives in New Orleans, neighborhood known as Gert Town, known before Hurricane Katrina as one of the most devastated neighborhoods in the country. After the hurricane, only 10% of previous residents have returned home, and those that have a constantly struggling for environmental justice, the drive to make their community safe and liveable. Dejean's neighborhood is overrun by toxic waste that floated in from a nearby plant, and she's been largely unable to get the EPA or other organizations to do any testing, even on playgrounds, let alone obtain the funding needed for revitalization.  Furthermore, she's watched that as the neighborhood is rebuilding, it is doing so in a way that guarantees the gentrification that will make the area inaccesible to former residents, by demanding minimum incomes and credit ratings.  Having traveled to areas rebuilt after tsunami damage, Dejean has come to wonder why the US government is so investing in funding revitalization abroad while it won't do it at home. Her experiences and efforts, including presentations to the United Nations, have helped ensure that issues of environmental justice are firmly tied in will civil and even human rights.

More later about the afternoon sessions!

Colbert Announces: What Does It Mean for the Courts?

Cristóbal Joshua Alex has a thought-provoking new piece up on The Huffington Post, copied here in order to spread awareness about this striking new development in the 2008 election.

Last night, National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights' staffers were on the set of The Colbert Report when Stephen Colbert officially announced that he would run for President of the United States of America. While the Campaign cannot officially endorse any person in the already crowded race, we can offer observations about how the next president, and Colbert in particular, may impact the courts, and our democracy.

Our research has thus far yielded very little on Colbert's view of the courts and civil rights. But he has expressed clear disdain for the U.S. Supreme Court. Colbert claimed on the Daily Show that he "has taken the decision to abolish the Supreme Court and since [he] is God there is nothing you can do to stop me!" Why he would abolish the Court is one of the questions we'd like to ask him.

Colbert was also quick to attack the Court for its decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, striking down the military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay detainees as violative of U.S. and international law. Colbert stated that it was "gutless" for SCOTUS to hand down this decision and then ditch town.

Some also question Colbert's close relationship with Justice Scalia. At last year's White House press briefing, Colbert stated:

Justice Scalia is here. Welcome, sir. May I be the first to say, you look fantastic. How are you? [After each sentence, Colbert made a hand gesture, an allusion to Scalia's recent use of an obscene Sicilian hand gesture in speaking to a reporter about Scalia's critics. Scalia is seen laughing hysterically.] Just talking some Sicilian with my paisan.

The question on our minds is what kind of judges would Colbert appoint? Would he appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Alito? And what about his attorney general? Would Colbert appoint Bill O'Reilly for that position to improve morale? These are important questions Colbert and his close advisors -- rumored to include Karl Rove, Pat Robinson and Beelzebub -- need to address.

There are also concerns about Colbert's openness, and whether his administration would be more transparent than others. Colbert raised red flags when he was banned from Wikipedia. Those concerns only grew following his recent New York Times column in which he wrote, "Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream is driving a bulldozer into The New York Times while drinking crude oil out of Keith Olbermann's skull." Colbert seems to share that dream, as do many others on the extreme-right.

We hope that Colbert will explain his vision for the Court and our civil rights soon. But if his past comments and associations are indicative, we can expect him to attempt to dissolve the Court. And the Congress. And the media (starting with the Times).

If so, Colbert would essentially be offering more of the same right-wing ideology, which could hurt his chances in the early primary states of Nevada and South Carolina. Perhaps recognizing his vulnerability among voters of color and elderly voters, Colbert announced that he will run as both a Republican, and a Democrat. Whether this sudden about-face is successful is a question the voters will soon answer.

Campaign on The Huffington Post: Justice Kennedy Speaks on the Eve of the 2007 Term

Last Wednesday, Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke at the Economics Club of New York. Justice Kennedy's speech and responses to questioning offered a unique insight into the most crucial member of the Court. He discussed California's three-strike laws--the federal version of which is being challenged before the Court tomorrow--punitive damage awards, criminal sentencing, and several other controversial topics.

The Campaign has a recap of Justice Kennedy's speech on The Huffington Post.  We invite you to read it and post your comments.

Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You. Period. (Thoughts on Patriotism, Pt II)

By Kia Franklin (Cross-posted from TortDeform.Com)

I was a bit overwhelmed by all the 9/11 related blogs and news stories so  I took a day and a step back to think about the “big picture.” After much reflection I would like to propose the following amendment to JFK's famous "ask not" charge: Ask not what your country can do for you. Period. Unless you are ready to be disappointed.

9/11 is also called “Patriot Day." So, I am (once again) thinking about the notion of patriotism and how it has been exploited in the context of national disasters to quell public outrage and foster complacency. Cloaked behind the call for patriotism is the message: silence your protests, forget about the government’s indifference toward the safety of the public, don’t worry about its prioritization of the needs of big economic interests over the needs of the general citizenry. And if you don’t heed this advice, well, you’re not a “good American.”

According to this message you either have to be Condi or Kanye, and there’s no in-between (although I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being Kanye. If I saw him on the street today I’d thank him for his honest post-Katrina commentary). Rightly so, this doesn’t quite sit well for most of us, especially in light of the government’s own relative lack of patriotism, displayed in its continued sluggishness in addressing the health needs of deserving Ground Zero heroes and 9/11 victims, and in its shamefully inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina, among other instances.

The post-9/11 plight of the rescue workers is yet another reminder that we should have no or little confidence that our country will protect us, even after we take care of our country. If this is how our heroes are treated, then look at what happened with Katrina and ask yourself if you are genuinely surprised. (You shouldn't be.)

Katrina was a worse-case scenario. There, you had a pre-disaster group that had little political and economic power, lacks racial privilege, and has little so-called "cultural capital" to persuade the government to give a good damn, or a good levee, about their welfare. Two years later, Katrina survivors rely heavily on fellow citizens to do what the government should prioritize doing, and meanwhile "W" heads out there to tell them "I hope people understand that we [the Federal Government] do [care]... we're still paying attention. We understand." Do you, now? Two years later, we've got around 40% of New Orleanians still displaced. Many of the homeless population, now doubled due to Katrina, have been camping out at the park across from City Hall as a constant visible reminder of the government's unmet obligations to its people.

9/11 was the warning bell for Katrina. Look at it: SIX YEARS LATER, and people who literally sacrificed their lives and their health in order to help in emergency relief efforts, are still clinging to the hope that the hollow “tributes” accorded them will be matched by substantive compensation and health care. Kudos to representatives Maloney, Nadler, and Fossella for the bi-partisan 9/11 Health and Compensation Act they're pushing to address this continued need. Nadler says:

“It is simply not enough to honor the courage and humanity of the heroes of 9/11 with words. We must also offer them concrete support in their time of need… For the thousands who are sick due to exposure to World Trade Center toxins, including our heroic first responders and area residents, workers, and school children, the federal government must provide appropriate monitoring, treatment and compensation [and] help those still suffering the consequences of this lingering national tragedy.”

It's about time, that's for sure.

As we wait on the proverbial rooftop to be rescued, my general Kanye-ness is at least a little bit comforted (only a little, mind you) by the fact that our judiciary offers a civil court system that keeps public record of, and provides an avenue of redress for some of these grievances. Through this mechanism many Ground Zero Heroes are fighting what looks like a gross misuse of Congress’ $1 billion set-aside which, according to Senator Schumer was supposed “to pay appropriate claims [for compensation], not fight claims." Advocates in the Gulf Coast are using the system to hold FEMA accountable for both its shoddy, life-endangering relief work, and also for obstructing people's access to legal aid out of fear that people would want to sue them.

What does it mean about our government’s values and the real end effects of the tort deformers that a concern over saving money is keeping the government from helping HEROS and INNOCENT displaced citizens in their time of need? It isn’t very American, and it definitely doesn’t show any patriotism.

Ouch! That really hurt (times four)

We knew things were bad but we didn’t realize how bad. There were four major decisions by the Supreme Court today, three of which were decided by a vote of 5-4, that chipped away at democracy, separation of church and state, the environment and free speech.

Democracy
The Court gutted a major part of a campaign finance law dealing with "issue ads." In a 5-4 ruling the high court's conservative majority concluded that an anti-choice group should have been allowed to air attack ads during the final months before the 2004 elections. The ruling is a blow for the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law and should be a big deal in the upcoming elections, giving interest groups like Wisconsin Right to Life, a louder and more influential voice in the closing days before the elections.

The consolidated cases are FEC [Federal Election Commission] v.Wisconsin Right to Life (06-969) and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life (06-970).

Separation of Church and State
By a 5-4 vote, a conservative majority in Hein v. Freedom from Religion (06-157) concluded taxpayers did not have "standing" to challenge in court the discretionary spending authority of the executive branch for its Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI). The ruling makes it impossible for taxpayers to sue when the executive branch of the government violates the separation of church and state.

Environment
In a 5-4 victory for big business and developers, the conservatives ruled today that the Environmental Protection Agency can hand over to states the authority to issue water pollution permits, even if doing so appears to violate the Endangered Species Act. The Court concluded that the clean water law should be considered ahead of the endangered species law, which translates into a big loss for environmentalists.

The cases are National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 06-340, EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife, 06-549.

Student Free Speech
In this case, a student in Alaska was suspended from school for holding up a banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” on a public street. The Court ruled 6-3 that school officials did not violate a student's free speech rights by punishing him for displaying a banner during a public event.  Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority concluded that schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use. This case represents a rollback of students’ First Amendment rights. Better watch that “freedom of expression” on your Myspace site.

Note: The reason this wasn’t a 5-4 decision is because Justice Breyer addressed a technical issue (qualified immunity) and didn’t go with the majority’s section of the ruling dealing key part of the Opinion.

School Integration
We think the school integration cases will come down Thursday. Based on how things have been going with this new Court, we better brace for the worst.   

Posted by
Cristóbal Joshua Alex
Campaign Coordinator

 

 

What in the world?! Court rules for little guy in civil rights case

In a remarkable departure from the scary rulings issued by our Supreme Court this term, on Monday the Court ruled in favor of a regular person instead of the government or a corporation. The case may turn out to be an important civil rights victory for anyone in a car, including passengers. In fact, the case may be important for anyone ever stopped by police. Here’s what happened:

In November 2001, Deputy Sheriff Brockenbrough and his partner pulled over a Buick driven by Karen Simeroth to check to see if the driving permit on the windshield matched the car. (The cops later admitted there was nothing wrong or unusual about the permit). When Deputy Sheriff Brockenbrough got up to the car he thought he recognized the passenger, Bruce Brendlin, as someone who was in violation of his parole. The deputy then called for reinforcements, and when they arrived Brendlin was ordered out of the car at gunpoint and arrested.  The cops then searched Brendlin and the car and found drug paraphernalia.

Brendlin was then prosecuted. His defense attorney argued that because there was no reason to stop the car, the “seizure” of Brendlin that resulted from the stop was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.   Brendlin’s argument basically goes like this: if you stop a car the car is “seized”—so if the car is “seized” so too are the people in the car. Makes sense, right? Well, the California State Supreme Court said no—only the driver was seized. In fact, the state supreme courts of Washington and

Colorado had also ruled that a passenger in a car stopped by police is not “seized”, just the driver is seized.

The case then worked its way up to the Supreme Court (justice can sometimes take a while, the stop was in 2001) and on Monday the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brendlin. The Court ruled that if the police stop a car—they seize the car and everyone in the car. That was the correct ruling—and a victory for the constitutional rights of passengers.

If you want to read the Opinion, click here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-8120.pdf

 

Hey kids! You can make a difference!

Mad and don't know what to do? You think diversity and civil rights are important, and want to help make sure we get to keep them? Here are some fun, and valuable, ways you can make a difference.

Family Education teaches us about kids and diversity and how to "take your family on a culture cruise with these ideas, expert opinions, and activities."

Tell us your story about diversity, and why you think it's important in our schools. Even though our official Kids Speakout writing contests have ended, we still want to hear from you. You can email us at [email protected], or click here to find submission forms.

Join our Media Watch listserv: Work with us and help us make the media accountable and fair and balanced in its coverage of civil rights.

Let us know about events in your area. Go to our calendar page and list your event there (send us an email letting us know you did), or you can simply email us all the facts.

Be a guest columnist. Let us know what you'd like to write about and we'll work together to see if we can get it published on the site.


Find out more:
Children's Defense Fund: Information, news and resources for and about kids.
Advancement Project's links: Networks and community-based groups to support kids and youth activism.
EdChange: Dedicated to diversity and equality in the schools.
Campus Progress: If you're heading to college or university, head here first.

Can you believe this stuff?

Some of these facts are scary, and some can make us mad. But they show us the need for diverse schools where tolerance and understanding can be cultivated. Schools where we support and provide equal opportunity and care for everyone.

Did you know:

Schools are more racially segregated now than they were in 1970.

African-American and Latino students are three times more likely than their white peers to go to a high school where graduating is not the norm.

African American children are more than twice as likely as a white child to be behind grade level.

Teachers with less than 3 years of experience teach in schools where the majority of students are people of color twice as often as in schools where the majority of the students are white.

African American young people are almost 50 times more likely to be jailed for drug offenses than their white peers.

Children of color lag behind white children in almost every health indicator, including infant mortality, immunizations, asthma, dental care, lead poisoning, and obesity.

Since 1979, almost 100,000 children and teenagers have been killed with guns in the United States -- more than twice the American deaths in the Vietnam War. More than half of those kids who were murdered were African American.

In the United States:

* Every four seconds a public school student is suspended.

* Every 20 seconds a child is arrested.

* Every 35 seconds a child is born into poverty.

* Every five minutes a child us born without health insurance.

(sources: Children's Defense Fund, Advancement Project, Opportunity Agenda)

If you read these facts and want to find something you can do, start by clicking here. And you can always let us know what you think at [email protected].