The Racist Right

What were two Republicans thinking, calling Obama 'tar baby' and 'boy'?
Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado and commentator Pat Buchanan, a former candidate for president, both apologized Wednesday for using racially charged terms to refer to Obama.

By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer / August 3, 2011
Atlanta --Christian Science Moniter--

The specter of two national Republican figures apologizing for calling President Obama, the first African-American president, alternately a "tar baby" and "boy" gave new fuel to speculation on the left that, underneath much of the criticism of the president and his policies, lurks the shadow of racism.

Last week, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R) of Colorado, on a Denver talk radio show, said, “Even if some people say, ‘Well the Republicans should have done this or they should have done that,’ they will hold the president responsible. Now, I don’t even want to have to be associated with him. It’s like touching a tar baby and you get it, you’re stuck, and you’re a part of the problem now and you can’t get away.”

The term tar baby comes from the 19th century Uncle Remus stories, where B'rer Fox uses a doll made of a lump of tar to trap B'rer Rabbit, who gets more stuck the more he pummels and kicks the tar baby. In more recent parlance, tar baby is widely considered racial slur.

Other Republicans, including Sen. John McCain and Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, have in recent years apologized for using the phrase "tar baby," although in reference to various government policies and projects, not a black man.

And then Tuesday night, former GOP presidential candidate and MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan, in a tête-à-tête with the Rev. Al Sharpton, referred to Obama as "your boy." “My what?” Sharpton shot back. “My president, Barack Obama? What did you say?”

Mr. Buchanan hinted that he was using a boxing analogy, replying that the president was "your boy in the ring."

Lamborn, who apologized to Obama in a letter, said in a separate statement Wednesday that he shouldn't have used a term "that some find insensitive" and meant to criticize presidential policies that have "created an economic quagmire for the nation, and [which] are responsible for the dismal economic conditions our country faces."

“Some folks took what I said as some kind of a slur,” Buchanan said on Wednesday. “None was meant, none was intended, none was delivered.”

Nevertheless, to some critics, the gaffes are illuminating bits of evidence to underscore what many believe is an essentially racist view of Obama by some in America's conservative circles.

Given that language is the primary purveyor of our deepest thoughts, as well as the fact that language use is often unconscious, "even a slip of the tongue can reflect the kind of prevalence of racism that still exists within our culture," says Shawn Parry-Giles, director of the Center for Political Communication and Civic Leadership at the University of Maryland in College Park. "Progressives would say it's part of a larger conspiracy to target voters to use Obama's race as a means to help defeat him."

For especially conservative critics of the president, on the other hand, the gaffes hint how the shifting sands of language and perception have become intensified in the not-quite-post-racial Obama era, where some attempts to criticize the president have far overshot the lines of political correctness.

Progressives and tea party members, moreover, continue to be embroiled in a war of words and images where liberals charge tea partyers with latent racism for some depictions of Obama, and tea party folks say their critics use derogatory terms tied to social class.

"You talk about intent and reception in politics, where intent does matter, but reception is everything," says Professor Parry-Giles. "In an ideal world, when these situations happen ,they can be a source of productive discussion about how language can harm and hurt, and that what may have been appropriate 20 years ago or part of the vernacular is no longer there. Oftentimes, though, it just ends up being a partisan moment on either side."

Dem lawmakers to Obama: Use executive tools to aid immigrants
By Mike Lillis - 05/25/11 01:19 PM ET
A group of liberal Democrats is urging President Obama to put his money where his mouth is regarding immigration reform. The lawmakers, led by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), say the president has prioritized the issue in sound but not in action.

While acknowledging that Congress has failed to enact any meaningful immigration reforms in recent years, the Democrats say the White House has similarly failed to use its own tools to ease the hardships on those affected. They're asking Obama to scale back his aggressive deportation policy, particularly in cases when children are seeking an education or families would be split apart. "While we must work to pass comprehensive immigration reform to fix our broken system, we must also stop needlessly deporting the parents and the spouses of U.S. citizens — and others who are here, who are studying and working and raising families and contributing to our country," Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) told reporters Wednesday outside the Capitol.

"We are asking the president — who we know is on the side of the immigrants — to use his power now to stop these deportations," she said.

Gutierrez, who in March launched a national tour to bring the stories of illegal immigrants to 20 cities, announced Wednesday that he's adding 10 more cities to the tour. The purpose, he said, is "to have their stories heard until they finally penetrate the White House and we finally penetrate the consciousness of the president."

Naming steps the White House could take immediately, the Illinois Democrat promoted deportation deferrals for roughly 1 million illegal-immigrant students who would have been eligible under the DREAM Act, a Democratic bill creating a pathway for legal status for some college students and military personnel.

The DREAM Act bill passed the House in December, but failed in the Senate, not having the support to defeat a GOP filibuster.

The Democrats are also urging Obama to clarify the parameters of "extreme hardship" cases, a designation allowing those targeted for deportation to remain in the country. Current immigration law has no specific definition for extreme hardship.

"The president should define extreme hardship today," Gutierrez said. "He has the power. We don't need any more legislative action here [on that issue]."

Brittney Babo, a registered nurse living in Ridgeley, W.Va., said Wednesday that she recently filed for the extreme hardship waiver on behalf of her husband of more than four years, Serge, who was deported to his native Cameroon last August. Appearing with their two young children, Babo urged Obama to meet with families like hers who have been torn apart by current immigration laws.

"You're moving in the right direction," she said to Obama, "but it's not enough."

The Democrats said cases like Babo's are clear indications that current immigration laws are harming the country more than improving it.

"Are we better off for snatching the father of these children away from his family?" Schakowsky asked. "What sense does this make?"

It's not that Obama has ignored the issue; earlier this month, the president visited El Paso, Texas, where he delivered a headline-grabbing speech calling on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform, including the DREAM Act.

"There is a consensus around fixing what’s broken," he said. "Now we need Congress to catch up to a train that’s leaving the station."

The president in recent weeks has also met with lawmakers, business leaders and religious figures in search of an immigration-reform solution that's eluded presidents of both parties for years.

Gutierrez said he was "happy and delighted" that Obama has the issue on his radar, but also charged that there's much more the White House could be doing.

"Do we really need a courtroom to prove that this mother is going to live in extreme hardship?" Gutierrez asked, referring to Babo. "The administration can do something right away."

Last month, Gutierrez warned that he could withhold support for Obama next year if the White House doesn't fight harder for immigration reform.

Since taking over the White House more than two years ago, Obama's Department of Homeland Security has cracked down aggressively on illegal immigrants, with deportations approaching 400,000 annually under his watch, according to Schakowsky.

In El Paso, the president defended the tough enforcement.

"Regardless of how they came, the overwhelming majority of these folks are just trying to earn a living and provide for their families," Obama said. "But they’ve broken the rules, and have cut in front of the line. And the truth is, the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are trying to immigrate legally."

Critics, including the Democrats who spoke out Wednesday, said he needs to pay more attention to the human toll of his deportation policies.

"These are families, they are not criminals," said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.). "The laws are broken, but it doesn't mean that we continue to break up families."

Reps. Jim Moran (D-Va.) and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) also appeared at Wednesday's event.

Nine percent of Americans blame President Barack Obama and the U.S. government for this year's spike in gasoline prices, according to a new Washington Post/Pew Research Center poll.

DAN BERMAN | 5/6/11 9:04 AM EDT
--politico--

An additional 5 percent cited "not drilling enough" as an answer to the poll's open-ended question of who or what is to blame for high prices. By contrast, 30 percent blamed a combination of greed, profit and speculation. Nineteen percent pegged unrest in the Middle East and North Africa. As of Friday morning, the average price of a gallon of regular gas was $3.984, down a tenth of a cent from Thursday, according to AAA. The poll was conducted by phone with 1,006 respondents from April 28 to May 1, with a sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

2011 Readout of the President's Meeting with Stakeholders on Fixing the Broken Immigration System

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release April 19,

In a meeting in the State Dining Room this afternoon, the President and members of his Cabinet and senior staff met with a broad group of business, law enforcement, faith, and former and current elected leaders from across the political spectrum to hear their ideas and suggestions on how to tackle our shared challenge of fixing our nation’s broken immigration system in order to meet our 21st century economic and security needs.

The President reiterated his deep disappointment that Congressional action on immigration reform has stalled and that the DREAM Act failed to pass in the U.S. Senate after passing with a bipartisan majority in the U.S. House in December. The President listened to stakeholders describe a variety of problems that result from the broken system, including: educating the best and brightest but then shipping that talent overseas; concerns over the ability of businesses to reliably hire and retain a legal workforce; and the need to level the playing field for American workers by ending the underground labor market. In addition, local law enforcement officers expressed concern that without reform, enforcing federal immigration laws is a distraction from their important public safety and crime fighting mandates to keep their local communities safe, and faith leaders highlighted the damage to families and communities when families are separated, including parents who are taken away from their U.S. Citizen children.

The President reiterated his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform that both strengthens security at our borders while restoring accountability to the broken immigration system, and pointed out that perpetuating a broken immigration system is not an option if America is to win the future.

The President made it clear that while his Administration continues to improve our legal immigration system, secure our borders, and enhance our immigration enforcement so that it is more effectively and sensibly focusing on criminals, the only way to fix what’s broken about our immigration system is through legislative action in Congress. The President noted that he will continue to work to forge bipartisan consensus and will intensify efforts to lead a civil debate on this issue in the coming weeks and months, but also noted that he cannot be successful if he is leading the debate alone. The President urged meeting participants to take a public and active role to lead a constructive and civil debate on the need to fix the broken immigration system. He stressed that in order to successfully tackle this issue they must bring the debate to communities around the country and involve many sectors of American society in insisting that Congress act to create a system that meets our nation's needs for the 21st century and that upholds America's history as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. The President further committed that his Cabinet and White House team will follow up with each participant to maximize the outcome of this meeting in order to elevate the immigration debate.

State ignorance confused for State rights
--politico--
SCOTT WONG | 4/27/11 3:13 PM EDT Updated: 4/28/11 12:38

“It is a mistake for states to try to do this piecemeal. We can’t have 50 different immigration laws around the country,” Obama said Tuesday in an interview with Atlanta-based WSB-TV. “Arizona tried this and a federal court already struck them down.”

The ACLU, one of a handful of groups that sued Arizona last year to block the law from taking effect, has vowed to legally challenge attempts by states to pass so-called “copycat” immigration legislation. And other SB 1070 opponents are warning cash-strapped states that they’ll have to dig deep into their coffers to defend the laws.

Boehner gas gaffe creates opening
By: Jonathan Allen and Darren Goode
April 26, 2011 07:45 PM EDT

Democrats think Speaker John Boehner stepped in a tar pit when he tried to dance around a question about taxing Big Oil, and now a White House concerned about its own vulnerability to rising gas prices is working overtime to make sure he's stuck.

The Ohio Republican left the door open to hiking taxes on oil and gas companies during a Monday night interview with ABC’s Jonathan Karl, saying Congress “certainly ought’ to take a look at it.” By midday Tuesday, the Democratic communications machine was pumping out an easily refined message: Agreed.

"It is almost too good to be true, but gas hitting $4 per gallon seems to have finally caused Speaker Boehner to see the light on the insanity of providing subsidies to profit-soaked Big Oil companies," New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic message maven in the Senate, said in a statement.

It's little wonder that Democrats were ready to pounce when they saw an opportunity to box Boehner into either defending oil companies or adopting Democratic-backed subsidy cuts. President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill already know they face serious voter backlash if gas prices don't settle down before the 2012 election.

Obama has addressed that vulnerability in the past, and a new Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests he's right to be worried. Sixty percent of independents who are feeling pain at the pump say they definitely will not back Obama for reelection, the survey found.

As Republicans prepare a series of hearings and votes intended to put heat on Obama over gas prices during the spring and summer months, Democrats hope the Boehner slip-up will give them a more even playing field on the issue. But Democrats still haven't explained how cutting profits would lead to lower — rather than higher — prices for consumers, and there's little chance that Boehner's half-dodge of an answer will turn the tables in the president's favor if gas prices remain high.

"Everybody's entitled to have a bad day. And he had a bad day," GOP strategist Mike McKenna said of Boehner's remark.

If nothing else, it turned Tuesday into a field day for Democratic politicians.
"I was heartened that Speaker Boehner yesterday expressed openness to eliminate these tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry," the president wrote to Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Republicans, worried about losing their advantage on an issue they have been hammering away on, sought Tuesday to make clear that they're not a bit interested in eliminating the tax breaks — which they say would lead to higher gas prices because oil companies would simply pass on their higher costs to consumers paying at the pump.


"The president's latest call to raise taxes on U.S. energy is as predictable as it is counterproductive," McConnell said in a statement. "If someone in the administration can show me that raising taxes on American energy production will lower gas prices and create jobs, then I will gladly discuss it. But since nobody can, and the president’s letter to Congress today doesn’t, this is merely an attempt to deflect from the policies of the past two years."

Tuesday's partisan blow up did nothing to lower the price of a gallon of gas, but it did reinforce two political realities of which both parties are well aware: There's almost nothing Washington can do to affect short-term gas prices, and voters become furious when a dollar doesn't get them as far as it used to.

Boehner's camp says the speaker won't raise taxes and that his intentions were misconstrued when he tried to avoid being pinned into defending oil companies. It's a sensitive topic for Republicans: Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) took bipartisan criticism after apologizing to BP in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill last year.

"The speaker made clear in the interview that raising taxes was a nonstarter, and he’s told the president that. He simply wasn’t going to take the bait and fall into the trap of defending Big Oil companies," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said. "Boehner believes, as he stated in the interview, that expanding American energy production will help lower gas prices and create more American jobs. We'll look at any reasonable policy that lowers gas prices. Unfortunately, what the president has suggested so far would simply raise taxes and increase the price at the pump.”

But the transcript shows that Boehner was open to the idea of raising taxes on oil companies. Asked whether he would favor eliminating some of the subsidies, he replied, "We certainly oughta take a look at it. ... We're in a time when — when the federal government is short on revenues. We need to control spending but we need to have revenues to keep the government movin'. And they oughta be payin' their fair share."

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and the likeliest source to take on any Republican who seeks to raise taxes, told POLITICO that he's satisfied that Boehner would not approve of a net tax increase.
It won't be long before Republicans are back on offense on energy policy. They are expected to bring a bill to the House floor next week that would require the Interior Department to decide within 30 days whether to grant offshore drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico. For permits that weren't approved before a moratorium was imposed last year, Interior could extend the window by 15 days twice.

Two more energy bills approved by the House Natural Resources Committee could be considered as early as the following week.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 7:33 p.m. on April 26, 2011.

The View about President Obama

The Daily Show - Moment of Zen - Tooth Fairy's Birth Certificate
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Tea Party Republicans May Crack Party Discipline: Ralph Nader
By Ralph Nader - Jan 9, 2011 9:00 PM ET --Bloomberg--

Five conflicts on corporate policies that likely will divide Republicans are:

No. 1. Curbing the Federal Reserve. Here Ron Paul of Texas, the new chairman of the House subcommittee overseeing the Federal Reserve, is straining at the bit to lead the way. Last year he had more than 300 House members signed on to a bill to audit the central bank. Paul has far more ambitious goals as his book, “End the Fed,” outlines.

The central bankers are anxious about his growing influence. Paul has a demonstrated ability to articulate Fed issues. There is rising anger around the country against the central bank and its many secret bailouts. Moreover, there are a number of Democrats, including Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent, who have significant agreement with Paul’s determination to overhaul this giant regulator and debt juggernaut whose budget is funded not by Congress but by banks.

No. 2. Watch for heightened criticism of corporate welfare programs -- numbering in the hundreds -- that feed companies subsidies, handouts and special protections from markets. The huge corn ethanol subsidy will probably be among the first to be challenged.

No. 3. After many years, the swollen, waste-ridden military budget, with its over-reaching corporate contractors operating in two unpopular wars, will receive bipartisan examination (with the help of libertarian think tanks such as the Cato Institute). The coalition building around the alliance of Representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Ron Paul will start exposing this taboo subject. Defense contractors are bracing for a new pushback on procurement deals.

No. 4. The World Trade Organization, the North American Free Trade Agreement and proposed bilateral extensions will receive Tea Party scrutiny, especially as China continues to de- industrialize America, all with the eager cooperation of American companies and their compromising of U.S. sovereignty.

No. 5. Whistleblower protection inside government and corporations strikes fear and consternation among both bureaucrats and corporate executives. Long-time Republican senatorial champions of expanding whistleblower rights against waste, fraud and abuse, led by Charles Grassley of Iowa, will have many new allies and support from progressive Democrats. The new financial reform law’s whistleblower recovery rights, expanding on the federal False Claims Act, will force this issue to the forefront, judging by the early mobilization of corporate lobbies to weaken or repeal that provision.

During the four-year domination of Congress by Democrats, Republicans were able to put party unity ahead of principle. With their ascension to the House majority and having within their ranks independent freshmen and Tea Party-backed incumbents in both Houses, the Republican caucuses may now have legislators putting principle above party discipline.

US will back UN on rights of native peoples
MATTHEW DALY
AP News
Dec 16, 2010 17:43 EST

President Barack Obama said Thursday that the United States will reverse course and support a United Nations declaration defending the rights of indigenous peoples. The U.S. voted against the declaration when the General Assembly adopted it in 2007, arguing it was incompatible with existing laws. Three other countries, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, also opposed the declaration, but have since announced their support.

The declaration is intended to protect the rights of more than 370 million native peoples worldwide, affirming their equality and ability to maintain their own institutions, cultures and spiritual traditions. It sets standards to fight discrimination and marginalization and eliminate human rights violations.

Obama on FOX
--associated press--
updated 1/7/2011 8:50:51 AM ET 2011-01-07T13:50:51
WASHINGTON— President Barack Obama will
sit for an interview with Fox News Channel
host Bill O'Reilly on Super Bowl Sunday.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest says it's
in keeping with the president's custom of
granting a pre-game interview to the network
that is broadcasting the Super Bowl. Last year,
it was with Katie Couric on CBS.

The Super Bowl will be played in the new
Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas, on
Sunday, Feb. 6. The interview will be taped at
the White House.

Obama to Philadelphia Eagles: Thanks for hiring Michael Vick
President Obama praised the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles for giving Michael Vick a second chance, a media report says. For Michael Vick, the comments add to a charmed season.
--christiansciencemoniter--
By Mark Sappenfield, Staff writer / December 27, 2010

What has been a fairy tale year for Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick has now apparently received a presidential seal of approval.

In a National Football League season that has repeatedly intrigued with the unexpected, perhaps nothing has been so astonishing as Vick’s rehabilitation both as a person and a football player.

He is on the short list of most valuable player candidates, and he has been equally lauded for what is by all reports earnest contrition for his part in running an illegal dog-fighting ring.

Are you smarter than an NFL quarterback? Take the quiz.

Now, Vick has received indirect praise from President Obama. In his column on Sports Illustrated’s website Monday, Peter King reports that Mr. Obama called Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie to thank the team for giving Vick a chance.

Obama was "passionate about it," Mr. Lurie told Mr. King, adding that the president said "it's never a level playing field for prisoners when they get out of jail. And he was happy that we did something on such a national stage that showed our faith in giving someone a second chance after such a major downfall.''

Vick served 18 months in federal prison, and there was only tepid interest among NFL teams when he was released before last season. When the Eagles signed him in 2009, it was to backup to starting quarterback Donovan McNabb, who vowed to mentor Vick.

Even this year, when McNabb left for Washington, promising youngster Kevin Kolb was named the Eagles' starting quarterback, but Vick did not complain. To the contrary, he and Kolb reportedly struck up a cordial friendship, and all Vick's comments about the situation were unequivocal in their support for Kolb.

It was not until Kolb was injured early in the season that Vick got his chance, and his performances have turned the Eagles from a team scrapping to make the playoffs into a legitimate threat to reach the Super Bowl.

Vick credits his ordeal with making him a better player. Arguably the best running quarterback in the history of the NFL, Vick has now added patience and better passing to his repertoire, making him a complete pro quarterback for the first time in his career.

Obama’s comments come at a time when Vick is stressing the sincerity of his reformation. He recently said he would like to own a dog. He is currently prohibited form owning a dog, given that dogs in his fighting ring were maimed and killed.

Latinos May Have Saved Senate For Democrats
by INA JAFFE --npr.com--
November 5, 2010


Amid of a wave of Republican victories on Tuesday, Democrats may have Hispanic voters to thank for their narrow majority in the Senate. Polls show Latinos' overwhelming support for Democrats made the difference in at least three Senate races in the West.
(cont...)

Fear is a joke. Sanity restored!

Bush vs Obama Unemployment

support obama

The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association
President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment--the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

Activists Arrested For NYC Protest Calling Obama to Fulfill Global AIDS Promises
Friday, may 14. 2010
--passportmagazine.com/blog--

Last night, eight activists were arrested for lying down in Madison Avenue to protest President Barack Obama’s unfulfilled promises on global AIDS funding. While campaigning, Obama pledged to commit at least $50 billion toward the global fight against HIV/AIDS by 2013, as well as double the number of HIV positive people receiving treatment. According to The New York Times, Obama’s promises have not kept up with inflation, much less increased to the level he promised. The flat-funding of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is causing some people who test positive for HIV under US-sponsored programs to be turned away from treatment.

While the protest took place, President Obama was attending a $15,000 per person fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee at the St. Regis Hotel not too far away. Protester and ACT UP Philadelphia member Henry Benett commented, “While they are inside sipping Chamagne and eating caviar, Obama’s broken promises for global AIDS funding mean people will die because they cannot afford a ‘cocktail’ of HIV/AIDS medication.” (cont...)

President and 2009 World Series Champions

Obama- March Madness and Opening Day 2010

Black lawmakers say 'tea party' protesters used racial epithets
--washingtonpost--
By Paul Kane
Saturday, March 20, 2010; 6:12 PM

Black lawmakers said Saturday that "tea party" protesters outside the Capitol hurled racial epithets at Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a former civil rights leader who was nearly beaten to death during a 1965 march, as he headed out of the building on his way to President Obama's final health-care rally.

Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.), walking next to Lewis after the Obama speech, told reporters that protesters yelled "kill the bill," then used a racial epithet to describe Carson and Lewis, who is a revered figure on both sides of the aisle. By the time the president spoke, thousands of protesters had gathered south of the Capitol.

Carson told reporters from Roll Call and other media outlets that the protesters were shouting racial slurs. "It was like a page out of a time machine," he said. Lewis's office has not yet commented on the matter.

The episode happened as the House concluded a set of votes mid-afternoon before heading to the Obama speech, and it came after an earlier tea party protest had ended on the west side of the Capitol. After that more than 100 protesters moved to the south entrance of the House, whose members held a series of votes throughout the day as a prelude to Sunday's showdown. On the first day of spring, most lawmakers walked across the street -- rather than using the underground tunnels connecting their office buildings to the Capitol -- exposing themselves to hundreds of protesters who lined each side of the walkway leading into the House.

Some protesters cursed at lawmakers and at one point -- when Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) wanted to walk across the street to an office building -- he was ushered into a car by his security detail and driven a couple hundred feet through the screaming crowd.