Crap on the horizon.

Frank Ricci, left, lead plaintiff in the the "New Haven 20" firefighter reverse discrimination case speaks to the media outside of Federal Court in New Haven, Conn. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that white firefighters in New Haven were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge. (Jessica Hill/AP)
The Supreme Court's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, the case of the New Haven, Conn., firefighters, was a ringing endorsement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's ban on racial discrimination and a repudiation of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's decision in the Second Circuit Appeals Court. While five justices flatly rejected Sotomayor's ruling, even the four dissenters wouldn't have let stand her ruling allowing the results of a promotion exam to be set aside because no black firefighter had a top score.

Ricci is also something else: a riveting lesson in political sociology, thanks to the concurring opinion by Justice Samuel Alito. It shows how a combination of vote-hungry politicians and local political agitators -- you might call them community organizers -- worked with the approval of elite legal professionals like Judge Sotomayor to employ racial quotas and preferences in defiance of the words of the Civil Rights Act.

One of the chief actors was the Rev. Boise Kimber, a supporter of Mayor John DeStefano; the mayor testified for him as a character witness in a 1996 trial in which he was convicted of stealing prepaid funeral expenses from an elderly woman. DeStefano later appointed Kimber the head of the board of fire commissioners, but Kimber resigned after saying he wouldn't hire certain recruits because "they just have too many vowels in their name." After the results of the promotion test were announced, showing that 19 white and one Hispanic firefighter qualified for promotion, Kimber called the mayor's chief administrative officer opposing certification of the test results.

The record shows that DeStefano and his appointees went to work, holding secret meetings and concealing their motives, to get the Civil Service Board to decertify the test results. Kimber appeared at a board meeting and made "a loud, minutes-long outburst" and had to be ruled out of order three times.

City officials ignored the inconvenient fact that they had hired an independent and experienced firm -- this is a thriving business -- to draw up a bias-free test and paid a competing firm to draw up another test. Its head testified that the first firm's test was biased without seeing it. The board capitulated and decertified the test. DeStefano was prepared to overrule it if it had gone the other way.

Such is governance these days in a liberal university town. It may remind some of us old enough to remember of the machinations and contrivances of Southern white officials and agitators employed to prevent blacks from registering and voting.

This is the sort of thing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg described in the text as just the workings of politics. Writing in Slate, Emily Bazelon goes further. Bazelon, a media and law fellow at Yale, laments that the promotion test rewarded memorization and that it favored " 'fire buffs' -- guys who read fire suppression manuals on their down time." She is outraged that a fire department might want to promote firefighters who know more about suppressing fires, rescuing victims and protecting their colleagues rather than simply promote a predetermined number of members of specific racial groups whose self-appointed political spokesmen back the politicians in office.

Bazelon and Judge Sotomayor, who voted to uphold the city's decertification of the promotion test, are typical of liberal elites who are ready to ratify squalid political deals -- and blatant racial discrimination -- in return for the political support and the votes that can be rallied by the likes of Kimber. You supply the numbers on Election Day, and we'll supply the verbiage to put a pretty label on your shenanigans.

Usually the people who are hurt by this are not as sympathetic as Frank Ricci, the dyslexic firefighter who paid a friend $1,000 to read the training manuals and studied hard enough to get the highest score on the test.

But I think we ought to reserve some of our sympathy for the purported beneficiaries of this wretched discrimination, the black firefighters. Their champions -- Kimber and DeStefano, Bazelon and Judge Sotomayor -- are telling them that their way up in life should not be determined by the content of their character or by mastery of their worthy craft, but by the color of their skin. Not by a fair and unbiased test, but by dishonest wire pulling and threats of political retaliation.

Thanks to Justice Alito for pulling back the curtain and showing the ugly reality of racial discrimination in America today.

This column originally misidentified Emily Bazelon's position at Yale University

Find this article at:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Firefighter-case-shows-seamy-side-of-racial-politics-7906018-49551952.html

Zoofer wrote:The SC has reversed 4 out of 6 Judge Sotomayor's verdicts. Imagine if a heart surgeon had similar stats!

Every time a Democrat senator has talked during the Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor this week, I felt lousy about my country. Not for the usual reasons when a Democrat talks, but because Democrats revel in telling us what a racist country this is.
Interestingly, the Democrats' examples of ethnic prejudice did not include Clarence Thomas, whose nomination hearings began with the Democrats saying, "You may now uncuff the defendant."

Their examples did not include Miguel Estrada, the brilliant Harvard-educated lawyer who was blocked from an appellate court judgeship by Senate Democrats expressly on the grounds that he is a Hispanic -- as stated in Democratic staff memos that became public.
No, they had to go back to Roger Taney -- confirmed in 1836 -- who was allegedly attacked for being a Catholic (and who authored the Dred Scott decision), and Louis Brandeis -- confirmed in 1916 -- allegedly a victim of anti-Semitism.

Indeed, Sen. Patrick Leahy lied about Estrada's nomination, blaming it on Republicans: "He was not given a hearing when the Republicans were in charge. He was given a hearing when the Democrats were in charge."
The Republicans were "in charge" for precisely 14 days between Estrada's nomination on May 9, 2001, and May 24, 2001, when Sen. Jim Jeffords switched parties, giving Democrats control of the Senate. The Democrats then refused to hold a hearing on Estrada's nomination for approximately 480 days, shortly before the 2002 election.

Even after Republicans won back a narrow majority in 2003, Estrada was blocked "by an extraordinary filibuster mounted by Senate Democrats" -- as The New York Times put it.
Memos from the Democratic staff of the Judiciary Committee were later unearthed, revealing that they considered Estrada "especially dangerous" -- as stated in a memo by a Sen. Dick Durbin staffer -- because "he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."

Sandy Berger wasn't available to steal back the memos, so Durbin ordered Capitol Police to seize the documents from Senate computer servers and lock them in a police vault.
Led by Sens. Leahy and Chuck Schumer, Democrats ferociously opposed Estrada, who would have been the first Hispanic to sit on the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They were so determined to keep him off the Supreme Court that Leahy and Schumer introduced legislation at one point to construct a fence around Estrada's house.

In frustration, Estrada finally withdrew his name on Sept. 5, 2003.
At the time, liberal historian David Garrow predicted that if the Democrats blocked Estrada, they would be "handing Bush a campaign issue to use in the Hispanic community."
Alas, today Democrats can't really place Estrada -- James Carville confuses him with that other Hispanic, Alberto Gonzales. On MSNBC they laugh about his obscurity, asking if he was the cop on "CHiPs." They also can't recall the name "Anita Hill." Nor can anyone remember African-American Janice Rogers Brown or what the Democrats did to her.

Only the indignities suffered by Justices Taney and Brandeis still burn in liberal hearts!
So when Republicans treat Sotomayor with respect and Sen. Lindsey Graham says his "hope" is that "if we ever get a conservative president and they nominate someone who has an equal passion on the other side, that we will not forget this moment," I think it's a lovely speech.
It might even persuade me if I were born yesterday.

But Democrats treat judicial nominations like war -- while Republicans keep being gracious, hoping Democrats will learn by example.
Sen. Teddy Kennedy accused Reagan nominee Robert Bork of trying to murder women, segregate blacks, institute a police state and censor speech -- everything short of driving a woman into a lake! -- within an hour of Reagan's announcing Bork's nomination.

To defend "the right to privacy," liberals investigated Bork's video rentals. (Alfred Hitchcock, the Marx Brothers' movies and Ruthless People -- the last one supposedly a primer for dealing with the Democrats.)
Liberals unleashed scorned woman Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas in the 11th hour of his hearings to accuse him of sexual harassment -- charges that were believed by no one who knew both Thomas and Hill, or by the vast majority of Americans watching the hearings.

But when the tables were turned and Bill Clinton nominated left-wing extremist/ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Republicans lavished her with praise and voted overwhelmingly to confirm her, in a 96-to-3 vote. (Poor Ruth. If Sotomayor is confirmed, Ginsburg will no longer be known as "the hot one in the robe.")
The next Clinton nominee, Stephen Breyer, was also treated gallantly -- no video rental records or perjurious testimony was adduced against him -- and confirmed in an 87-to-9 vote.

As Mrs. Sam Alito can attest, the magnanimity was not returned to Bush's Supreme Court nominees. She was driven from the hearings in tears by the Democrats' vicious attacks on her husband's character. The great "uniter" Barack Obama voted against both nominees.
Even Justice Ginsburg recently remarked to The New York Times that her and Justice Breyer's hearings were "unusual" in how "civil" they were.

Hmmm, why might that be?
To the extent that the Sotomayor hearings have been less than civil, it is, again, liberals who have made it so, launching personal attacks against the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, and even the fireman whose complaint started the Ricci case.
But it was a nice speech.

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," "Godless," "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans" and most recently, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32733

This week I was asked to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Here's what I said.
I testify today not as a wise Latina woman, but as an American who believes that skin color and national origin should not determine who gets a job, promotion, or public contract, or who gets into college or receives a scholarship.

My message today is straightforward. Do not vote to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I say this with some regret, because I believe Judge Sotomayor's personal story is an inspiring one, which proves that this is truly a land of opportunity where circumstances of birth and class do not determine whether you can succeed.

Unfortunately, based on her statements both on and off the bench, I do not believe Judge Sotomayor necessarily shares that view. It is clear from her record that she has drunk deep from the well of identity politics. I know a lot about that well, and I can tell you that it is dark and poisonous. It is, in my view, impossible to be a fair judge and also believe that one's race, ethnicity, and sex should determine how someone will rule as a judge.

Despite her assurances to this Committee over the last few days that her statement that "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life" was simply "a rhetorical flourish that fell flat," nothing could be further from the truth. Judge Sotomayor's words weren't uttered off the cuff. They were carefully crafted, repeated -- not just once or even twice -- but at least seven times over several years. If Judge Sotomayor were a white man who suggested that whites or males made better judges, we would not be having this discussion because the nominee would have been forced to withdraw once those words became public.

Judge Sotomayor's offensive words are a reflection of her much greater body of work as an ethnic activist and judge. Identity politics is at the core of who this woman is. And let me be clear here, I am not talking about the understandable pride in one's ancestry or ethnic roots, which is both common and natural in a country as diverse and pluralistic as ours. Identity politics involves a sense of grievance against the majority, a feeling that racism permeates American society and its institutions, and the belief that members of one's own group are victims in a perpetual power struggle with the majority.

From her earliest days at Princeton University and later Yale Law School to her 12-year involvement with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund to her speeches and writings, including her jurisprudence, Judge Sotomayor has consistently displayed an affinity for such views.

As an undergraduate, she actively pushed for race-based goals and timetables in faculty hiring.
In her senior thesis, she refused to identify the U.S. Congress by its proper name, instead referring to it as the "North American Congress" or the "Mainland Congress."

During her tenure with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, she urged quota-seeking lawsuits challenging civil-service exams.
She opposed the death penalty as racist.
She made dubious arguments in support of bilingual education and tried to equate English language requirements with national origin discrimination.

As a judge, she dissented from an opinion that the Voting Rights Act does not give prison inmates the right to vote.
Finally, and perhaps most dramatically, she showed in the New Haven firefighters case a willingness to let her policy preferences guide her, ruling that it was perfectly lawful for the city there to throw out the results of a promotion exam because those who did well on it were the wrong color.

Although she has attempted this week to back away from her own words -- and has accused her critics of taking them out of context -- the record is clear: Identity politics is at the core of Judge Sotomayor's self-definition. It has guided her involvement in advocacy groups, been the topic of much of her public writing and speeches, and influenced her interpretation of law.

There is no reason to believe that her elevation to the Supreme Court will temper this inclination, and much reason to fear that it will play an important role in how she approaches the cases that will come before her if she is confirmed. I therefore strongly urge you not to confirm Judge Sotomayor as an associate justice of the Supreme Court.

link

a feeling that racism permeates American society and its institutions,

About a month ago, in this space, I told you The New York Times had rigged a poll about Americans wanting to pay higher taxes to fund government-run health care. The Times poll said 57 percent were willing to pay more tax and 37 percent were not willing to do so. But what the Times did not tell its readers was that 48 percent of those polled voted for Barack Obama. Only 25 percent supported John McCain. Of course the poll results would skew left.

Now we have another media deceit. The most recent edition of Newsweek magazine includes a nasty hatchet job on Sarah Palin by a guy named Rick Perlstein. The piece is presented as hard news -- not an opinion column -- and basically says that the governor is a moron who is supported by dimwitted conservatives at odds with smart Republicans. Perlstein also submits that I and other Fox News people lead the dumb GOP folks.
Anyone reading the story would think that a Newsweek correspondent put it together -- the magazine has a staff of trained journalists to do its reporting and analysis. But Perlstein is not a Newsweek correspondent and is identified only as an author at the end of the piece. Strange.

But it gets even stranger.

Turns out that Perlstein is a far-left zealot who blogs for a liberal site called "Campaign for America's Future." He lists one of his "interests" as "conservative failure." In 2007, Perlstein wrote: "I've just become a proud Fox (News) attacker. Now, you can, too. It's not a boycott. It's simply calling advertisers and informing them what Fox says. Fox can't survive that."

So Newsweek hired a far-left loon to do a hit piece on Palin, conservatives and Fox News, and did not inform its readers of his dedicated point of view. Newsweek editor Jon Meacham basically tried to disguise an ideological attack as news coverage.
Newsweek magazine is in dire financial trouble and is seeking to survive by cultivating a liberal, urban audience. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the editors are upfront about it. But this sneaky media stuff is harming America, and it must be unmasked.

With Barack Obama in the White House, the country is facing profound change. America is already on the verge of bankruptcy, and federal intrusion into private business, health care and the environment is unprecedented. The far left aims to create a huge federal apparatus that will promote income redistribution and "social justice." They also see a major opportunity to knock out Judeo-Christian traditions, replacing them with a secular philosophy.

In order to accomplish this, leftwing media are marginalizing people like Palin who oppose the strategy. Under the guise of hard news reporting, the media are pushing rank propaganda on the citizenry. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, successfully developed this tactic in the 1930s.
Americans need to wake up and smell the corruption. If crazy ideologues have infiltrated the news business, we need to know about it. And now you do.

Link

By MARK HELPRIN
Dear Mr. Yusuf:

Here is our memorandum, as promised, and we very much enjoyed meeting you (please return Mr. Goldstein, the fax machine, and the candy bowl). Your business model is admirable in view of its low start-up costs, high return on investment, lack of long-term obligations to employees, freedom from taxation, agility in the face of changing conditions, and absence of regulation. No expenditures are required for public relations, advertising, marketing, or employee recruitment. When necessary, you can liquidate your holdings with neither legal fees nor court supervision—although you yourself may be hanged. To answer the key question of how long you will be able to operate, you must take into account the resources and constraints of your competitors, the maritime nations represented in this analysis by the coastal states of NATO plus Japan.

Despite the dramatic shrinkage of the American military across nearly every category, the distraction of two minor wars, the smallest fleet since 1916, and even steeper reductions in the rest of NATO, cumulatively this group of states can put to sea more than a thousand ocean-going warships, almost 400,000 marines and special operation troops, more than 5,000 maritime aircraft, and thousands of land-based aircraft capable of operating from expeditionary airfields or at a great remove. The United States alone can deploy 335 naval and coast-guard surface combatants, 382,000 sailors and coast guardsmen, 187,000 marines, 43,000 special operations personnel, 4,600 maritime aircraft, and unprecedented resources in reconnaissance and surveillance. Though these nations are but shadows of what they once were, what they have is much more than sufficient to terminate your enterprise should they embark upon one or more of the following:

Protection Allowed: There are many impediments to the self-defense of merchantmen, including national and international statutes, insurance regulations, and government requirements, all of which, however, could easily be swept away by changes in law and policy that would encourage commercial vessels to take on private security teams.

Protection Provided: Special forces trained to work at sea, such as the U.S.N. Seals, with superior weaponry, rapid and continuous access to intelligence and surveillance networks, the ability to integrate with on-call naval and air forces, and the weight of the national militaries backing them, would be a step up from the previous option and could be provided by drawing upon less than 10% of their echelons.

Maritime Patrol: Modern naval vessels except for the smallest are usually equipped with helicopters and/or, in the case of aircraft carriers or amphibious ships, fixed-wing aircraft that can cover tens or even hundreds of thousands of square miles. Fifty ships of various types on station—less than 5% of available inventory—could largely cleanse your operational area.

Maritime Corridors and Convoys: The world’s navies need no more patrol the northernmost quadrant of the Indian Ocean than during WWII the allies needed to purge the entire Atlantic of U-Boats. They can establish closely guarded transit lanes, and/or convoys, with a task force of only twenty active vessels or fewer, as each convoy would require no more than a single frigate or equivalent. Ten discrete groupings of ships could move in both directions simultaneously, eliminating the need for vessels to wait long at assembly points for their escorts.

Facility Raids: One VSTOL carrier, much less a full-deck-carrier task force, is sufficient to destroy your boats and port facilities, using precision weapons to minimize civilian casualties, and remaining on station for long-term suppression.

Punitive Raids: Collectively or individually, the maritime powers could at will expand attacks upon your docks and boats to whatever punitive degree they wished.

Q-Ships: These nations have in the past deployed—and could deploy again—civilian ships fitted out with concealed heavy weaponry. Depending upon the rules of engagement, your employees would be either incapacitated, captured, or annihilated.

As daunting as all this may seem, we believe that you may conduct your business relatively unimpeded for some time to come. When the United States had only a tiny fraction of the naval capability it now has, the small and vulnerable forces it sent to deal with pirates of equal or greater military power performed with legendary bravery and daring. That was then.

Now, large constituencies in the economically advanced nations make it difficult for their governments to act, e.g., against terrorists who for decades remained free of even symbolic retribution. The governments of these countries, often reflecting their most timid and conciliatory citizens, seldom dare to dare. Although President Obama approved an assault upon three of your employees, this was politically not much more than a S.W.A.T. action authorized by a police chief. Despite your 84 attacks in the first quarter of 2009, and the totally rag-tag nature of your followers, a Pentagon official, one Edward Frothingham, claims that the resources of the United States military are too limited to commit against you without “grave implications for us.”

As you well know, the previous American president was held in check by his underestimation of the time and forces required by his policies in the Middle East. The current president’s most war-like virtue is the ability to apologize to people who should be apologizing to us—an extraordinary skill no doubt, but questionable. You might worry a bit more about Messrs. Sarkozy and Berlusconi, either one of whom could drive you out of business, but as for the rest, though the quivers are full, no arrows are likely to be loosed in the near future.

That is because the intelligence that controls them is also the hand that stays them. The powers that should be a threat to you are caught in a paralyzing web of abstract legalities, deference to hostile opinion, and even in the clearest cases a perverse contempt for self-defense, which rules out the ability effectively to define, prepare for, justify, and execute it—and execute you. You would think that if you fire upon our ships we would fire back. But those days are over, and you have prosperous times ahead.

Sincerely,

Stately, Plump, Buck & Mulligan

PORTSTEWART, NORTHERN IRELAND -- The Daily Telegraph's headline is meant to shock, or at least get the attention of Europeans apathetic about the threat they face: "A Fifth of European Union Will Be Muslim by 2050."

In a related article "Muslim Europe: the Demographic Time Bomb Transforming Our Continent," The Telegraph's lead sentence summarizes the problem: "Britain and the rest of the European Union are ignoring a demographic time bomb: a recent rush into the EU by migrants, including millions of Muslims, will change the continent beyond recognition over the next two decades, and almost no policymakers are talking about it."

The late British parliamentarian Enoch Powell warned more than 40 years ago that Britain had to be mad to allow in 50,000 dependents of immigrants every year. Powell, who was denounced as a racist and a xenophobe by the intellectual elites, compared it to watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

In retrospect, Powell looks like a prophet. According to Oxford demographer David Coleman, Britain's non-white population is on course "to grow from 9 percent at the last census in 2001 to 29 percent by the year 2051." Coleman estimates that if Britain continues at its current level of immigration -- 191,000 per year by 1999 reports -- its population could increase by 15 million by 2050, which will bring change most Britons don't believe in.

In his new book, "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West," Financial Times and Weekly Standard columnist Christopher Caldwell lays out in undisputable terms and with irrefutable facts the threat faced by the West. He says it is worse than anything al-Qaida can deliver. Caldwell cites numerous reasons for the predicament faced by Europe (and the United States), including the idea of a European Union, which is quickly eliminating individual identity, culture and money (the one size fits all Euro). Without an identifiable culture, immigrants cannot be assimilated, even if they want to be, which in the case of radical Muslims, argues Caldwell, they don't.

In addition to massive immigration, Caldwell says, the high birth rate among immigrants, coupled with the low birth rate among white Europeans (barely enough in some countries to replace those who are dying) means that soon 20 percent of Europe's population would be Muslim.

The rapid population change, writes Caldwell, is startling when you consider that as recently as the mid-20th century there were virtually no Muslims in Western Europe. At the turn of this century, there were between 15 million and 17 million Muslims in Western Europe, including 5 million in France, 4 million in Germany and 2 million in Britain. What is the attraction of these countries, which to some Islamic minds are full of idolatry, hedonism and secularism? All one need do is listen to the radical sermons and the vitriolic statements of certain Islamic leaders and spokesmen and to the radical Islamic media. They say their goal is to subjugate Europe and America to their religion.

At a recent conference near Chicago called "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam," Imam Jaleel Abdul Razek responded to a question from the audience about whether the U.S. Constitution or Sharia law should rule the United States when Islam is in control. Razek said Sharia would rule and that the Constitution would have to go.

Caldwell writes that uncontrolled immigration without assimilation "exacts a steep price in freedom. The multiculturalism that has been Europe's main way of managing mass immigration requires the sacrifice of liberties that natives once thought of as rights."

Those who support immigration without assimilation claim the West needs more brainy people to run their computers and discover cures for diseases. Why can't our school systems produce more intelligent people without having to import them? More than "brains" are coming to the West. Those with a radical theological and political agenda are infiltrating us more effectively than our enemies of the 20th century ever dreamed of doing.

Twice in the last century America has delivered Europe from homegrown evil. It won't be able to do so again when that evil is imported and when America is dealing with immigration problems of its own.

link
Will we ever learn?

ACORN, calling the actions of some of its employees "indefensible," has suspended advising new clients as part of its service programs and is setting up an independent review to see what happened.

ACORN chief executive Bertha Lewis said in a written statement that she was "ordering a halt to any new intakes into ACORN's service programs until completion of an independent review."

The actions were taken, she said, "as a result of indefensible action of a handful of our employees."

Videos of ACORN workers giving tax advice to people posing as prostitutes and other revelations have led to growing criticism of the organization in recent days.

Lewis continued: "We have all been deeply disturbed by what weve seen in some of these videos. I must say, on behalf of ACORN's Board and our Advisory Council, that we will go to whatever lengths necessary to reestablish the public trust. For nearly forty years, ACORN has given voice to communities, and gotten results. Right now, our nearly 500,000 member are working their hearts out for quality, affordable healthcare for every American and to help stop the foreclosure crisis. We must get this process right, so the good work can go forward."

ACORN, an advocacy group, has fired at least four employees after hidden camera videos showed the group's workers giving financial advice to women posing as prostitutes. The firings occurred in the group's Washington and Baltimore offices.

ACORN has been targeted for years by conservative groups that consider it a sometimes unsavory arm of Democratic electoral politics. The Senate voted earlier this week to deny funding to the organization to help with the next census.