Iris's profileIris' PlacePhotosBlogLists Tools Help

Blog


    July 30

    US lawmakers apologize for slavery



    WASHINGTON (AP) — The House on Tuesday issued an unprecedented apology to black Americans for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow segregation laws.

    "Today represents a milestone in our nation's efforts to remedy the ills of our past," said Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

    The resolution, passed by voice vote, was the work of Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen, the only white lawmaker to represent a majority black district. Cohen faces a formidable black challenger in a primary face-off next week.

    Congress has issued apologies before — to Japanese-Americans for their internment during World War II and to native Hawaiians for the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom in 1893. In 2005, the Senate apologized for failing to pass anti-lynching laws.

    Five states have issued apologies for slavery, but past proposals in Congress have stalled, partly over concerns that an apology would lead to demands for reparations — payment for damages.

    The Cohen resolution does not mention reparations. It does commit the House to rectifying "the lingering consequences of the misdeeds committed against African-Americans under slavery and Jim Crow."

    It says that Africans forced into slavery "were brutalized, humiliated, dehumanized and subjected to the indignity of being stripped of their names and heritage" and that black Americans today continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow laws that fostered discrimination and segregation.

    The House "apologizes to African-Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow."

    "Slavery and Jim Crow are stains upon what is the greatest nation on the face of the earth," Cohen said. Part of forming a more perfect union, he said, "is such a resolution as we have before us today where we face up to our mistakes and apologize as anyone should apologize for things that were done in the past that were wrong."

    Cohen became the first white to represent the 60 percent black district in Memphis in more than three decades when he captured a 2006 primary where a dozen black candidates split the vote. He has sought to reach out to his black constituents, and early in his term showed interest in joining the Congressional Black Caucus until learning that was against caucus rules.

    Another of his first acts as a freshman congressman in early 2007 was to introduce the slavery apology resolution. His office said that the House resolution was brought to the floor only after learning that the Senate would be unable to join in a joint resolution.

    More than a dozen of the 42 Congressional Black Caucus members in the House were original co-sponsors of the measure. The caucus has not endorsed either Cohen or his chief rival, attorney Nikki Tinker, in the Memphis primary, although Cohen is backed by several senior members, including Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. Tinker is the former campaign manager of Harold Ford, Jr., who held Cohen's seat until he stepped down in an unsuccessful run for the Senate in 2006.

    The bill is H. Res. 194

    On the Net:


    July 29

    Give Me Your Opinion.




    Do you like this theme?  Or do you like the last one?






    July 18

    Bitter Clinton Supporters are Planing A Convention Fight

    Are you guys aware that Senator Hillary Clinton has not officially conceded to Senator Obama? If so, have you been questioning Senator Clinton's sincerity on whose side she is really on? Are you all aware of what PUMA and The Denver Group is planning to do at the convention? It's on their website for everyone to see. This is just a diary entry at the daily kos but the writer made some valid points.

    by Templar

    Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:38:56 PM PDT

    Right now there is a strong movement to give Hillary Clinton a fighting chance at the presidential nomination.  It's led by a blog group called "The Denver Group". This may be part of the reason for Hillary's lengthly explanation of her FISA vote. Some HRC supporters are comparing Hillary's "no" vote to Barack's "yes" vote and McCain's not having voted on the bill in numerous blogs. The FISA vote is clearly being used to draw support for Hillary.

    The following is found on their website::

    The Denver Group has been formed to insure that the Democratic National Committee respect and carry out the democratic process at the convention in Denver this August by meeting certain specific goals. We will be advocating, and if neccessary pressuring, through purchased mass media as well other accepted avenues, the Democratic National Committee to see to it that these goals and the interests of tens of millions of Democratic voters are met.

    Our goals are:

    An open convention.

    Senator Clinton's name placed in nomination. No symbolic roll call vote.

    Speeches allowed by supporters of Senator Clinton on
    behalf of her candidacy.

    A genuine roll call vote with Senator Clinton as a legitimate candidate.

    No coronation

    The group plans to run large ads in The Washington Post and other leading newspapers which will be aimed at the millions of pissed off Hillary supporters to make these demands of the DNC. They claim this is all possible for the following reasons:

    1. Senator Clinton has only suspended her campaign. She has not conceded and never offered a statement of concession which is traditional when someone is no longer a candidate. She did not officially end her candidacy which she could have chosen to do. She is still technically a candidate.
    1. Senator Clinton has not released her delegates. Releasing or asking her delegates to support Senator Obama is also something she could have done. She has not. All of Senator Clinton's delegates won during the primary season are still committed to her and can cast their votes for her at the convention as long as her name is on the ballot.
    1. Super delegates public declarations do not count. They can change their minds ( as some did during the primary). They are not committed to any of their public declarations. Nothing counts until they cast their votes in Denver on August 27th.

    They also note that Hillary's attorneys are meeting with the DNC leadership to clearly define Hillary's roll at the convention.  How this will all turn out one can only guess. When it comes to the Clintons is seems to be not over until its over.

    Senator Clinton's refusal to concede has given them hope that they can change the outcome of the race at the Convention and they mean business.  Their behavior is pretty disturbing. They are irrational, delusional and very obsessive and we all know what comes out of that type of behavior.

    Regardless or what they try to do, The Denver Group and PUMA still don't have a leg to stand on.  Obama this nomination fairly and in the right way and he still has the nomination, however we still need to be aware of what's going on. 

    The Denver Group:

    PUMA:

    Videos:
    Link

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tZWu5m6p4r4
    July 17

    Obama To Talk Tough-Love at NAACP, Despite Jackson Frustrations


    Tonight, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. will address the 99th Annual Convention of the NAACP in Cincinnati, Ohio.

    Despite the feeling among some (especially older) African-Americans that Obama has been lecturing black America too often -- a sentiment captured most vividly last week by Rev. Jesse Jackson's hot mic comments expressing a desire to castrate the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for talking down to black people -- Obama will continue to discuss these issues before the NAACP, as he said he would.

    "Now, I know some say I’ve been too tough on folks about this responsibility stuff," Obama will say, according to his prepared remarks. "But I’m not going to stop talking about it. Because I believe that in the end, it doesn’t matter how much money we invest in our communities, or how many 10-point plans we propose, or how many government programs we launch – none of it will make any difference if we don’t seize more responsibility in our own lives.

    "That’s how we’ll truly honor those who came before us. Because I know that Thurgood Marshall did not argue Brown versus Board of Education so that some of us could stop doing our jobs as parents. And I know that nine little children did not walk through a schoolhouse door in Little Rock so that we could stand by and let our children drop out of school and turn to gangs for the support they are not getting elsewhere. That’s not the freedom they fought so hard to achieve. That’s not the America they gave so much to build. That’s not the dream they had for our children.

    "That’s why if we’re serious about reclaiming that dream, we have to do more in our own lives, our own families, and our own communities. That starts with providing the guidance our children need, turning off the TV, and putting away the video games; attending those parent-teacher conferences, helping our children with their homework, and setting a good example. It starts with teaching our daughters to never allow images on television to tell them what they are worth; and teaching our sons to treat women with respect, and to realize that responsibility does not end at conception; that what makes them men is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one."

    In addition to reinforcing his theme of personal responsibility, the presumptive nominee will touch upon his offer of a middle class tax cut, highlight his healthcare plan, and stress the need for education reform. The candidate also plans to briefly discuss his efforts to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit.

    - jt

    July 16

    Response from Barack on FISA and Discussion with Policy Staff

    This is Senator Obama's explanation for his support for the FISA bill.

    I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

    This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

    But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

    The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

    The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer.  Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I’m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

    Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

    I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny. 

    Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok.  But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course. 

    So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.





    Why Obama Kinda Likes the FISA Bill (But He Won't Come Out and Say It)

    Why Obama Kinda Likes the FISA Bill (But He Won't Come Out and Say It)

    JB

    Emily Bazelon wonders, entirely correctly, why Barack Obama has been missing in action on the FISA compromise bill passed by the House today. Finally, the Obama campaign sent a lukewarm endorsement of the measure: As to the key reforms of FISA, the bill is an acceptable compromise, not perfect but the best one can do under the situation. As to the retroactive immunity for telecom companies, Obama says he will work to change that in the Senate.

    What gives? Why did Obama stay silent for so long, and why did he finally offer such a muted response to the bill?

    The answer is simple:

    Barrack Obama plans to be the next President of the United States. Once he becomes President, he will be in the same position as George W. Bush: he wants all the power he needs to protect the country. Moreover, he will be the beneficiary of a Democratic-controlled Congress, and he wants to get some important legislation passed in his first two years in office.

    Given these facts, why in the world would Obama oppose the current FISA compromise bill? If it's done on Bush's watch, he doesn't have to worry about wasting political capital on it in the next year. Perhaps it gives a bit too much power to the executive. But he plans to be the executive, and he can institute internal checks within the Executive Branch that can keep it from violating civil liberties as he understands them. And not to put too fine a point on it, once he becomes president, he will likely see civil liberties issues from a different perspective anyway.

    So, in short, from Obama's perspective, what's not to like?

    Most Americans don't realize that the FISA compromise comes in two parts. The first part greatly alters FISA by expanding the executive's ability to wiretap and engage in much broader searches of communications than were permissible under the law before. It essentially gives congressional blessing to some but not all of what the executive was doing under President Bush. President Obama will like having Congress authorize these new powers. He'll like it just fine. People aren't paying as much attention to this part of the bill. But they should, because it will define the law of surveillance going forward. It is where your civil liberties will be defined for the next decade.

    Part II, by contrast, is the part that everyone has gotten up in arms about. It creates effective immunity for telecom companies. It makes perfect sense for Obama to criticize this part of the bill. That's because he doesn't need it as much as he needs the first part, and his base really really dislikes it. True, it might be nice to have retroactive immunity for the players who he will be working with in the future. But remember, he expects to be President, and he figures that his OLC and Justice Department can offer sufficient assurances of legality going forward based on the changes in the first part of the bill.

    So, let's sum up: Congress gives the President new powers that Obama can use. Great. (This is change we can believe in). Obama doesn't have to expend any political capital to get these new powers. Also great. Finally, Obama can score points with his base by criticizing the retroactive immunity provisions, which is less important to him going forward than the new powers. Just dandy.

    It should now be clear why the Obama campaign has taken the position it has taken. And given what I have just said, Obama's supporters should be pressing him less on the immunity provisions and more on the first part of the bill which completely rewrites FISA. Because, if he becomes president, he'll be the one applying and enforcing its provisions.

    If you really care about civil liberties in the National Surveillance State, you have to recognize that both parties will be constructing its institutions. The next President will be a major player in its construction, as important if not more important than George W. Bush ever was. That President will want more authority to engage in surveillance, and he'll be delighted for Congress to give it to him officially.


    The Mistake Of Worshiping Senator Obama


    Democrats have made Senator Obama into something he never was. They all thought the message of change was about a far-left progressivism that would override the right because that's what many of them wanted, which is understandable after 8 years of being battered by the right-wing agenda. Change is not necessarily about revolution. Obama has always been about inclusion, which isn't possible if only the left progressive agenda is pushed. Now progressives on the left are disappointed that their image is not being acted out.

    I have listened to Democrats talking Obama up as a left-wing progressive and thinking that wasn't quite what I saw him to be. Yet I felt happy with his candidacy because he seemed to me to be talking about sensible compromise politics: It's a method that, when it works, gets things done to benefit the greatest possible number, but not all, and usually not those on either end of the spectrum.

    Obama's commitment to the idea of unity, of valuing all and including all, is fundamental to his message and goal. He is not a liberal ideologue. He is a liberal open to compromise. He is also a sensible, rational, responsible leader who takes care to work out pragmatic solutions to difficult problems.

    In Psychology, when people first fall in love they go through a process called cathexis, in which the lover makes the beloved into something he or she wants and needs the other to be. After a period of time, both lover and beloved begin to see each other as they really are. This is what is happening with liberal progressives and Obama now. A relationship reality check is going on. It is not that Obama is "flip-flopping," but that liberal progressives are coming to see him for who he is-a grownup, thoughtful, non ideological politician who offers Americans a balanced, inclusive, and cooperative political future.

    Now that many of Obama's supporters have been disillusioned by his decision to support the FISA bill, they are angry and want to get even by not voting for him... big mistake!

    In spite of it all, Senator Barack Obama is still the sure thing for this country.  We shouldn't allow our self-righteous indignation cause us to screw America, our troops and ourselves over.