McCain to Obama “al Qaeda is already in Iraq”

Are the primaries over already? You would think so the way John McCain and Barak Obama are going after each other.

In a series of back and forth comments on the topic of al Qaeda in Iraq, the two presumptive presidential nominees had no shortage of witty barbs for one another. And while I think both earned high marks for delivery and rhetoric, Mr. Barak’s final statement fell short in the area of true substance and accuracy.

His statement that “there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq” is not entirely accurate.

A 2007 White House Fact sheet on Iraq stated the following about Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who founded Al Qaeda In Iraq and Pledged Allegiance To Osama Bin Laden: “In 2001, Zaraqawi left Afghanistan and eventually went to Iraq to set up operations with terrorist associates after Coalition forces destroyed his Afghan training camp.”


Now in his defense, the same fact sheet also states that it wasn’t until 2004 when “Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined al Qaeda, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and promised to ‘follow his orders in jihad.’” And that “al Qaeda in Iraq is an organization founded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists…”

So maybe there was no official group known as “al Qaeda in Iraq” before the war. However, those who founded it were already running terrorist organizations in Iraq that were in existence well before the beginning of the war. They simply decided to become an al Qaeda franchise.

What does Barak Obama have in common with a former KKK Grand Dragon? Chris Dodd thinks they are great senators

Today, Democratic Senator and former presidential candidate Christopher Dodd officially announced his endorsement of fellow Senator and Presidential hopeful, Barak Obama. Interestingly, this is the same Senator Dodd who once sang the praises of another collegue in the senate who is a former Grand Dragon in the Klu Klux Klan, voted against the nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court and voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In 2004, Dodd spoke in honor of Senator Robert Byrds 17,000th vote stating:

"You would have been a great senator at any moment....you would have been right at the founding of this country, right during the Civil War....I can't think of a single moment in this nation's 220+ year history where you would not have been a valuable asset to this country." Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd 04-05-04

Now while I realize that this is hardly a big deal for most of you on the left, I do find it amusing that someone who recently sang the praises of a Klansman would endorse a black man for president.

I also wanted to bring to your remembrance how the PC police (i.e. Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and the National NAACP) once again gave a liberal a pass on “racially insensitive” comments. Just once I would like to see them hold their fellow liberals to the same standards.

BTW. I esspecially like the photos of each of them in their native garb.

__________________________________________

Senator Dodd’s endorsement of Senator Obama is not surprising, especially when you consider that his one comment about Senator Byrd is the only issue that has been raised regarding Dodd’s stance on race or his relationship to minority interests. According to Ontheissues.org, Dodd is substantively in line with Clinton and Obama:

Additionally, there have been no other indications that Dodd has an ongoing affinity for hood-wearing, cross-burning hillbillies.

As his voting scores attest, Senator Byrd may be an out of step populist compared to the rest of his party, which is slowly dragging itself into the reality of the 21st Century. And no one can “whitewash” his record with the Klan which may be more extensive than Byrd publicly admits to.

That said, Byrd does have the distinction of being the “Dean” of the U.S. Senate, having been elected to more terms (8 full six year terms) and casting more votes (over 17,000) than any other member in history. He has publicly apologized for his association with the Klan (no matter how pro-forma it may appear) and, according to the NAACP staff on the Hill, has been a good partner. The same cannot be said of Trent Lott. As for Thurmond, well, may be rest in peace.

You wonder why some Democrats get a pass while Republicans, by and large, do not? Its because Republicans are consistently voting against the identified and substantive interests of the poor and political minorities. In spite of the rich GOP history as the party founded to end slavery, the modern version is simply a shadow of its former self. Today’s Republican Party in no way aspires to the same grand vision if its founders, yet the Democratic Party - while certainly not transformative in its leadership and vision in its recent history – is at least engaging in some transactional policy making that “Keeps Hope Alive” for many Americans.

__________________________________________

Did I say that I was surprised by the endorsement? I believe that my specific words were, “Now while I realize that this is hardly a big deal for most of you on the left, I do find it amusing that someone who recently sang the praises of a Klansman would endorse a black man for president.”

I was simply amused by the irony.

But as for Republicans, “...consistently voting against the identified and substantive interests of the poor and political minorities.” Let’s take a closer look at this. Shall we?

Republicans support the partial privatization of Social Security, which will take the money once was unlikely to ever be seen again, and place it into lock box, so that they can pass that money on to their children. For many, this will constitute most of the wealth that they will have to pass on to future generations. Additionally, because this money will be invested it will earn far greater return what they are paying into the current failing system. (See Social Insecurity- A Bad Investment For Black America) Democrats are in favor of continuing to rob blacks of this opportunity to pass on this hard earned wealth to their children.

Republicans agree with 72% of black parents in their support of school choice. But it is Democrats who have bought off by teachers unions who continue to force our children to stay in failing public schools (not that all public schools are failing mind you).

Republicans support the end of a practice that has killed twice as many African Americans as AIDS, Violent Crime, Accidents, Cancer and Heart Disease combined- Abortion (See Abortion = Modern Day Genocide!). But thanks to Democrats, Planned Parenthood have accomplished what the Klu Klux Klan could have only dreamed of… GOVERNMENT FUNDED GENOCIDE!

In the end, it is Democrats who for the last 50 years have ruled over the communities with the worst schools, highest crime rates, highest unemployment and poorest quality of life. And many of these communities happen to be largely black.

"Name One Accomplishment": Barrack Obama, Politics and the U.S. Senate

In acts of increasing desperation, opponents of Barrack Obama are asking over and over, "Where's the Beef?", a reference to their belief the Barrack Obama lacks the requisite experience to serve as President. The question is asked over and over again… “Name one accomplishment of Barrack Obama?” Senator Hillary Clinton, once the annointed heir to the Bush/Clinton line of Presidential succession, has been hammering on this point since her loss in Wisconsin capped her streak of losing 10 primaries in a row since Super Tuesday. And septuagenarian Senator John McCain and his party of grumpy old men also got into the act, calling Obama's campaign theme of hope and change "empty".

Do they REALLY want to go there??!!! To ask the question is one thing; to get an answer that neatly supports the stance of the Clinton and McCain campaigns without blowing back on them is another. The fact is, the Senate is NOT simply a body of passing laws – that role belongs to the House of Representatives. The Senate – with its unique rules and customs and significant media attention – is a deliberative body that provides its membership a very public platform. According to the U.S. Senate’s description of its processes:

“… the Senate remains the preeminent legislative forum for protecting political minorities and debating and refining the great issues of the day.”

So in this context, the issue of accomplishments should be viewed in another light. In October 2006, blogger Hilzoy on Obsidian Wings provides some evidence to this point:

“But I do follow legislation, at least on some issues, and I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.”

He goes on to note that Sen. Obama was very active on issues such as Nonproliferation, the Avian Flu epidemic, regulation of genetic testing, reducing medical malpractice lawsuits (the right way), to name a few. Hilzoy also has identified at least one piece of Obama legislation co-authored with Hilary Clinton. Additionally, Obama's first law passed while in the U.S. Senate was co-authored by Republican Tom Coburn to increase accountability the American people regarding how our tax dollars are spent.

Only part of a Senator’s job is to pass legislation; its also largely a job of shaping and influencing public and policy debate on issues that should be important to the American people, to lead on important issues and get the country – and the President and the House of Representatives – to act. Senators have a significant amount of individual influence, and Senator Obama has assumed a prominent role in leading public debate since his election in 2004.

BTW, Senator Clinton's campaign has nerve brining up the question of accomplishments and experience. Last time I checked, the First Lady did not propose, pass or sign a single piece of legislation; as a Senator, she has done an excellent job working on behalf of her constituencies, but no better (or worse) than Obama during a similar stretch of her legislative career. Clinton has been in the Senate since 2000; this is her first elected post, while Obama worked as a state representative in one of the largest, most complex states in the Union (excluding California, of course!!!). My point is simple: Senator Clinton, you are experienced, but so is Senator Obama. You BOTH have meritorious service of which any Democrat can be proud. But this dog don't hunt... to say that Senator Obama does not have the experience to be commander and chief is disingenuous. In fact, I remember a Governor from the small state of Arkansas that did not have comparatively more experience than Obama does now - your own husband and former President, Bill Clinton. So looking back, would you not support your husband to be President, using the same criteria? Are you saying that you'd be more qualified than your husband to serve as President?

As for McCain, he has a significant number of military and legislative accomplishments, but he is still trying to convince his own party that he belongs among them. He is reaching for the mantle of "Conservative Republican", but Republicans hate McCain’s solution to campaign finance reform; they hate his stance on immigration; they even hated his stance on the war. If the Republicans don’t even trust him, how is he going to become president?

__________________________________________

There are Republicans who hate McCain. But Republicans as a whole don’t hate him. Otherwise he would not be winning the nomination so handily. The truth of the matter is that he is not as conservative as many of us would like him to be. But in the end, you can convict him of being a Republican (minus a few leftward lurches I like to call “Policy Terret's Syndrome”.)

As for what Obama has accomplished over most of his career; the answer is not much. But then again, one doesn’t expect a legislator from the minority party to be able to do much. The question is, what has he accomplished in the last two years since they took the majority?

But I do agree with you that Senator Clinton’s record isn’t much more substantive.

UPDATE 3-07-08: I found this video on youtube. It pretty much says it all... not so much about Obama's accomplishments, but about his supporters.

Study shows that contribution limits increased influence of special interests groups

Who knew that limiting the amount of money someone could give to politicians would increase the strangle hold special interests have on our government…. CONSERVATIVES!!!! THAT’S WHO!!!

According to the Sacramento Bee:

The state's campaign finance watch group says independent expenditure committees have given more than $88 million since 2000 to candidates for state offices, raising questions about whether campaign contribution limits have done anything to curtail money in politics.

The Fair Political Practices Commission is holding a hearing today to explore the explosion of independent expenditure spending on candidates. Chairman Ross Johnson says he'd like to find better ways for the public to track spending because it's not always clear who's controlling them. Johnson says even if committees don't coordinate with candidates, candidates can see who's helping them.

Back in 2000, voters approved contribution limits to candidate campaigns under Proposition 34. Since then, the commission found, independent committees have pumped millions into state races on behalf of candidates.

For example, in 2000, independent expenditure committees gave $376,000 to legislative races. Six years later, that figure jumped to $23.5 million.

For statewide candidates, committees gave $526,000 in 2002, but that figure skyrocketed to $29.5 million by 2006.

Here's a list of the top 10 committees that have given to state candidates since 2000:

1. Californians for a Better Government, A Coalition of Firefighters, Police, Deputy Sheriffs, Teachers, Home Builders and Developers - $9,855,582
2. Alliance for a Better California, Educators, Firefighters, School Employees, Health Care Givers and Labor Organizations - $5,245,109
3. First Americans for a Better California Independent Expenditure Committee - $4,256,754
4. JOBS PAC - An Independent Expenditure Committee Sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce - $3,900,501
5. California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) Independent Expenditure Committee - $3,536,698
6. Morongo Band of Mission Indians Native American Rights PAC - $3,378,853
7. Strengthening Our Lives Through Education, Community Action and Civic Participation, A Coalition of Labor Organizations Candidate PAC - $3,306,944
8. Team 2006, Sponsored by California Sovereign Indian Nations -$3,093,391
9. Alliance for Progress and Education, An Alliance of Professional, Employers and Small Business - $2,953,948
10. Working Californians - $2,637,860

It seems that big money always finds a way to get back into the pockets of the politicians. Every time we try to pass a law to limit their influence, it just seems to give them more power. This is why I have always said that the only thing that will remove the influence of money in politics is an informed and engaged electorate. Voters must start to do their own research and stop relying on campaign advertising to be their primary information source on candidates and issues.

But the untold story here is who makes up these “Top 10 Committees”. Liberals would have us believe that Big Business is controlling politics here in Sacramento. The truth is that liberal interest groups have given the most and have given most (if not all) of their money to Democrats. These groups include: Six groups that are controlled by labor, Three by Indian tribes and only one (Jobs PAC) is a business group. But Jobs PAC actually contributed as much (if not more) money to Democrats as they did to Republicans.

So the next time you hear a Democrat proclaim that he/she plans to end the strangle hold that special interests have on Sacramento, remember to check his bank account.

Should the Democratic Party Apologize for Supporting Slavery?

Robert Oliver, the Managing Editor for the San Diego Times wrote a commentary for Black History Month raising the question whether or not the Democratic Party should apologize for supporting slavery.

In his Times commentary “Should the Democratic Party Apologize for Supporting Slavery?” Oliver makes it clear that he is not a Republican.

I’m an African-American political independent. The purpose of this article is not to debate the merits of belonging to a certain political party; nor to pursue political converts. The purpose is to clarify history and to ask does the Democratic Party owe African Americans an apology for
past support of slavery and racism?

He also goes on to present some very specific evidence:


• Look at a portion of the 1860 platform: “That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; That as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that ‘no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,’ it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States….That we brand the recent re-opening of the African slave- trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a shame to (a) crime against humanity and a burning (for) our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.”

•According to the PBS’s American Experience it says of the Democratic Party platform in 1840: “They opposed the government's interference with the spread of slavery.” It also said in 1852: “Democrats also supported the provisions of the Compromise of 1850 and united along pro-slavery lines.” It also said in 1856: “Democrats again united along a pro-slavery platform, endorsing states' rights, the Fugitive Slave Law, and popular sovereignty in the territories.

•The PBS website on “The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow” said: “The Democratic Party identified itself as the ‘white man's party’ and demonized the Republican Party as being ‘Negro dominated,’ even though whites were in control.” Some Democrats formed the terrorist organization the Ku Klux Klan in the 1870’s. An article in the 1992 Encyclopedia Britannica under the “Reconstruction” heading reported: “The Democratic resentment led to the formation of the secret terroristic organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Knights of the White Camilia. The use of fraud, violence, and intimidation helped Southern conservatives regain control of their state governments.” Blacks and White Republicans were the targets of the Klan’s wrath.

• Have the Democrats claimed a victory that they never earned? Here is the historical record that you can look up today on the Internet: In 1964, in a Democratic Congressional majority, in the Senate, 82% of the Republicans voted for the Act while only 69% of the Democrats voted for it. Every Southern Democratic Senator voted against it. In the House of Representatives, 80% of the Republicans voted for the Act, while only 61% of the Democrats voted for it. Ninety-two of the 103 Southern Democrats in the House voted against it. It is all in the Congressional Record. Also the ignored or forgotten 1957 Civil Rights Act (which Senator Strom Thurmond tried to torpedo) and the 1960 Civil Rights Act, designed to protect us from the Southern Democrats, were passed by the majority of Republicans in Congress and signed into law by Republican President Eisenhower. Republicans, not Democrats, historically have been in the majority in support of civil rights legislation from the beginning of their history. Even Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy was no outstanding exponent for civil rights before his presidential bid. Who said, "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!"? It was Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen speaking of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

• In the 1965 Voting Rights Act, in percentages, 73.4% of the Democratic Senators voted for the law and 93% of the Republican Senators voted for the law. 78.4% of the Democratic House Representatives voted for the law and 82.3% of the Republican House Representatives voted for the law.

• Republican Senator Trent Lott was nothing to shout about. (Same for the late Democrat Dixiecrat turned Republican Strom Thurmond). Lott was pilloried by the media after his remarks praising a Thurmond Dixiecrat presidency. However, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd said on national television, “There are white niggers.” I have not heard any cries of protests from recognizable Black leaders and politicians. (You know who they are.) It was reported that Senator Carol Mosely Braun excused him by saying that he was just “an old man.” An older Black man I knew who hated, with venom, White and Black Republicans also defended Byrd! By the way, Senator Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, the "Invisible Empire of the South," years ago. He even recruited for the Klan as a “kleagle.” What if Trent Lott was an ex-Klan member and said “white niggers” on national television? We would have shouted “Crucify! Crucify!” right? We would have tarred and feathered him and ran him out of town. Was it because Byrd is a Democrat that we make excuses for him making racial slurs that no Republican could get away. He can get away with being a ex- Klan member while we tell the Republicans to “come clean”? Is not that “selective outrage” dysfunctional if not hypocritical?

• Rev. Sharpton said we never got our “40 acres and a mule.” Yes, we did, and they were taken away by a Democrat. Reparations to Black slaves were discussed by Republicans after the Civil War. Political activist and researcher M.D. Currington (websites: www.mdcurrington.tripod.com/mdc and http://www.moteandbeam.tripod.com/) writes, “On January 12, 1865, General William Tecumseh Sherman and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton met with twenty Black community leaders in Savannah, Georgia to discuss freedom and reparations for former Black slaves.…on January 16, 1865, General Sherman issued Special Field Order No. 15, which set aside 7,600 square miles in a 30-mile wide tract of land along the Atlantic coast stretching from Charleston, South Carolina to St. John’s River near Jacksonville, Florida, for the exclusive settlement by Blacks…This Field Order also guaranteed former slaves U.S. military protection, 40 acres of tillable land per Black family, other provisions such as a mule or horse in order to work the land, and any other animal that was no longer useful to the military. By June 1865, over 40,000 former slaves were settled on 40-acre tracts of land. Over 400,000 acres were allocated. In September of 1865, Democrat President Andrew Johnson reversed Field Order No. 15, issued special pardons, and returned the land to former slaveowners.” The Republicans gave, yet a Democrat took it away.

None of the information presented here is new to me, or to David. The fact is that the Democratic Party and much of what it stands for have much of its roots in racism against Blacks. Unions were originally founded by northern whites to keep newly freed black slaves from taking their jobs. Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger was a believer in and promoter of eugenics. She spoke to groups like the Klu Klux Kan about the same theories of population control that inspired Adolph Hitler. And the gun control movement that Democrats are so proud of was at its root an effort to disarm African Americans who might demand that their civil rights be honored, by any means necessary.

So the fact that the Democrat Party fought against ending slavery, instituted Jim Crowe laws and fought against the civil rights of blacks should come as no surprise. But I am surprised that Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Julian Bond or any of the other “civil rights leaders” have never publicly demanded that the Democrat Party officially apologize for its support of slavery and racism.

But then again, that would mean that they would have to acknowledge that it happened in the first place. And that would kind of mess up their version of history.

__________________________________________

Should Democrats apologize for its support of slavery and Jim Crow segregation? Unequivecably, YES! But the Republicans should also apologize, because they were the ones who sold out Blacks in the south during reconstruction in 1876 with the "Great Compromise" - the Republicans get the White House while federal troops were removed from the former Confederacy at a critical time - leaving Blacks to suffer in a Jim Crow society for another 100 years. The Republican Party oppose affirmative action. And the Republican Party endorses and utilizes wedge issue politics and questionable practices(e.g. Willie Horton) to win elections.

The problem here in America is that we continue to refuse to address the legacy of slavery and racism that still impacts our nation. If you believe that the past is the best predictor of the future, then African American mistrust of government - regardless of which party is in power - is well founded. BOTH parties have at times supported and opposed the progress of African Americans.

The real issue is that until we sufficiently address the legacy of our past as a nation, the future of African Americans will continue to be in question - regardless of an "apology". Michelle Obama hinted at the quandry facing Blacks in her oft-quoted statement, "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country." Black Americans are indeed patriotic, but as Ms. Obama's comments reveal, there is also an underlying mistrust and frustration with our nation. And until we as a nation address the roots of this mistrust, we (every American) will not get past this discussion.

__________________________________________

You are right about the “Great Compromise”. That is why I fight so hard to not allow our party to compromise our values again, simply to gain or maintain power. But because I do that, you would call me a close minded ideologue.

But let us not forget, it was the Democrats who were the perpetrators of the evils that went on during this time.

On another note: Does saying that re-electing President Bush is akin to dragging a black man to death behind a truck is not promoting a wedge issue? What about calling President Bush “…our Bull Connor”? How about forcing our children to stay in failing schools, calling those who believe in enforcing our immigration laws “bigots” or pushing tax increases on the wealthy? These are all wedge issues that Democrats love to use.