Liz Cheney, Steele: "Democrats Have Double Standards On Racism"

As a guest this morning on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" Liz Cheney said "Democrats have a double standard on Racism".

Was she right?

Are Democrats Hypocrites when it comes to addressing Racism?

Do Democrats prefer Light-Skinned Leaders over Darker-Skinned Leaders?

Is this "Harry Reid Racism" issue just more Partisan politics?

Check out the videos and commentary below then judge for yourself.




Check out Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace interview: Michael Steele and Tim Kaine.

Steele says Democrats have a double standard on Racism too.







On this morning's segment of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, RNC Chairman Michael Steele and DNC Chairman Tim Kaine were guests.

The program was extremely interesting (as always) however if you missed it never fear, I have it embedded below for your viewing pleasure.

Chris asked both Party Chairmen about Sen. Harry Reid's recent apology stemming from his Racist "No Negro Dialect" comments uttered during the 2008 Presidential race.

No one asked why Harry Reid waited an entire year (an election year) to apologize but that's another blog post.

Tim Kaine tried to brush it off as if Reid's comments were acceptable just because Pres. Obama stated on Saturday "the book is closed".

Well of course Michael Steele jumped right on Kaine's response by stating the Democrats seem to have a Double Standard when it comes to how inappropriate remarks are handled.

Steele mentioned how harshly Trent Lott was handled.

Trent Lott should have most certainly been punished but wait a minute!

How about the way Rep. Joe Wilson was treated?

Last Fall Joe Wilson was formally rebuked by the entire U.S. House 240-179 for his rallying "You Lie!" shout during Pres. Obama's Joint Session Of Congress Address On Health Care Legislation.

Even after Wilson apologized (somewhat) he was still formally rebuked.

Yet Harry Reid's comments are overlooked with a simple apology??

So because Harry Reid pushed forth the Dems' Health Care Reform agenda (without a much needed Public Option) and because Pres. Obama still doesn't want to have a conversation about Racial Discrimination (again), the entire Black Race is supposed to ignore Reid's disturbing comments?

Something is wrong with this picture and I don't think so!!

For Tim Kaine to think that what Harry Reid said wasn't that bad suggests he too believes Lighter-Skinned Black people are Superior to Darker-Skinned Black People.

Let me take it deeper, does Harry Reid and Pres. Obama also believe Lighter-Skinned Black people are Superior to Darker-Skinned Black People??

That type of Stereotypical Mentality was taught to slaves by a Slave Owner centuries ago by the name of Willie Lynch and kept the Black Race divided until this day.

My Mother is extremely Light-Skinned, with Brown eyes and hair that isn't kinky but wavy because her great, great father was Caucasian. (Yes it was a forced sexual experience probably akin to deceased SC U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond's situation)

My Father who is now deceased as of 2003, was part Native American Indian and Black.

Due to my Father's Indian heritage his hair was almost as straight as Caucasian hair but....he was Dark-Skinned.

This "hodge podge" of Genes, Races and Cultures caused me to be born with a Medium-Brown complexion, Wavy, Curly Hair (NOT Kinky) which requires NO Chemicals, Nor a Straightening Comb to smooth it out and light-brown colored eyes.

Do these physical features make me "Superior" to Black people who are very Dark-Skinned, have Black eyes or Kinky hair?

I am now the Mother of two handsome sons.

My eldest son is Brown-Skinned, has Black eyes and almost Kinky hair.

My youngest son is Light Brown-Skinned, with Brown eyes and Straight hair.

Does that make my youngest "Superior" to my eldest son?

In addition I was born in Brooklyn, New York but now reside in Charlotte, NC

Does this mean I'm "Superior" to Blacks who were born in the South?

NO of course NOT!!

Yet this type of "Superior" Racially Divisive thinking is what Willie Lynch taught Slaves to believe.

Such Ignorance has created barriers within the Black race to this day and has caused some Blacks to be treated more so favorable by White America.

You know like how favorable Pres. Barack Obama has been treated by White America and the press.

Let's be real if Barack Obama were Darker-Skinned (like Michelle) and wasn't half-White, he would NOT have been nominated or elected whether anyone else in the Democratic Party wishes to be real on this matter or not.

Sometimes the truth hurts but it will set you Free!


When Harry Reid made those Racist comments, he made them NOT just to President Obama but his comments were made against an entire Ethnic group whether any Democrat Congressional member wishes to admit it or not.

On the flip side while I don't believe Senator Harry Reid is a Racist at heart and should not resign, he STILL made those comments.

This serious issue is NOT and should NOT be about Partisan politics.

Reid's negative, Racist comments largely affected an entire Ethnic group (Black People) who are STILL being largely Oppressed in a Free Country!

Even Pres. Obama himself recently admitted during an interview with April Ryan of American Urban Radio Network, that "Blacks are usually the last hired and first fired".

In fact if Harry Reid were NOT a member of Congress but instead were just a regular employee on a regular job and made such Racist comments, he would have been fired or sued by the EEOC!

How was Reid able to make those comments and remain in his role as Senate Majority Leader while Trent Lott and Joe Wilson were harshly disciplined?

I believe that Trent Lott, Joe Wilson and Harry Reid should ALL have been harshly reprimanded!

This unresolved situation is all Pres. Obama's fault.

How so?

1) When U.S. A.G. Eric Holder said Americans are "Cowards" when it comes to conversations about Racism, Pres. Obama publicly denounced Holder's statements and brushed Racism under the rug.

2) When Harvard Professor Henry "Skip" Gates was arrested last year (due to Racial Profiling), it was the perfect time for Pres. Obama to address Racial Discrimination in America and for U.S. A.G. Eric Holder's Office to re-examine Equality laws.

Instead Pres. Obama chose to once again brush everything under the rug and have a "Beer Summit".

Furthermore I don't think any White Voters would have practiced "White Flight" if his administration decided to really enforce Equality laws or address Racial Profiling.

What happened?

Because Pres. Obama as a Leader has never handled the issue of Racism correctly, it once again reared its ugly head.

This time in the form of Sen. Reid apologizing a year later for his Racist comments.

So there you have it.

Michael Steele was correct when he said that Democrats have a Double Standard when it comes to handling Racist Remarks.

When GOP Lawmakers practice Racism they are crucified.

When Democrat Lawmakers do it they receive a slap on the wrist.

Democrats need to do better. Much better!

However here's the $64M remaining question I'm posing...

Why does Pres. Barack Obama appear to be afraid to address the destructive issue of Racial Discrimination in America?

If Obama is afraid of losing his White Voters, too late!

Most of Obama's White Voters are already jumping ship because during his first year in Office he focused on pleasing Wall Street instead of creating Job Growth for Middle Class, Less Educated and Lower Income Voters.

You know the "Common Folk" who went to the Polls for him back in November 2008.

The Democrats are now preparing to address Illegal Immigration.

How can Democrats enact effective Illegal Immigration Reform legislation if Pres. Obama is afraid to tackle Racial Discrimination?

Looks like Pres. Obama needs to stop listening to Mayor Richard Daley, Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner for advice and follow his own heart if....

He wants the Democrats to remain in control

That's right I said Stop listening to Mayor Richard Daley, Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner!

Their footprints are all over Obama's first year Administration decisions, from catering to Wall Street, his Stimulus Package, the "Beer Summit", his 2016 Olympics Bid, handling Foreclosures, Health Care Reform, Education, "Green Jobs", etc.,

Three Million Americans lost their jobs in 2009 and the best Obama's Administration can come up with is a "Green Jobs" program that ONLY creates about 17,000 Jobs!

Please!

What about creating Jobs for Huge Infrastructure projects too?

Like re-building old, rotten Bridges, etc.,



Joe Wilson's rallying "You Lie!" shout.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

View Larger Map

Sources: ABC News, Huffington Post, Politico, MSNBC, NY Time, CNN, TPM, Youtube, Google Maps

US Military Plea For More Troops Grows Louder As Soldier Death Toll Rises....Another Wasteful, Senseless War Or No?

MSNBC, Washington Post----


(With 52 U.S. troop killed last month in Afghanistan, August was the deadliest month in the deadliest year yet in the Afghan war. NBC's Brian Williams reports.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

KABUL - The commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan called Monday for a new strategy against the Taliban in an assessment of the 8-year-old conflict, saying the situation is serious but victory was achievable.

NATO officials disclosed that Gen. Stanley McChrystal is expected to separately request more forces to fight an increasingly deadly insurgency.

Explosions killed two more U.S. troops, raising the record death toll in August to 47 — the deadliest month of the eight-year war for American forces.

Boosting the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan is a hot-button issue that could ignite furious debate in Washington on the U.S. military's future in an increasingly unpopular war. Some Democratic senators have increased calls for a timeline to draw down troops.

McChrystal sent his strategic review of the Afghan war to the Pentagon and NATO headquarters Monday. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ordered the 60-day review to size up the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan as Taliban attacks rise and U.S. deaths spiral upward.

"The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort," McChrystal said in a statement Monday.

Request for more troops forthcoming?

A NATO statement said McChrystal's assessment seeks to implement President Barack Obama's strategy "to reduce the capability and will" of insurgents and extremists, including al-Qaida, and support the growth and development of Afghan security forces and Afghan governance.

McChrystal did not ask for more troops but is expected to do so in a separate request, two NATO officials told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter.

The United States already has some 62,000 troops in Afghanistan — a record number — and will have 68,000 by the end of the year. In total there are more than 100,000 U.S. and NATO troops in the country.

Thousands of U.S. forces moved into the Afghan south this summer after Obama ordered 21,000 more troops to the country this year,

forces who helped protect the country's Aug. 20 presidential election. McChrystal, who took over command in Afghanistan on June 15, delayed the release of the review so that it would not interfere with the vote.

Karzai leads vote tally

New vote tallies released Monday showed President Hamid Karzai with a strong lead over top challenger Abdullah Abdullah. Karzai had 45.8 percent of votes counted, while Abdullah had 33.2 percent. Ballots have been counted from almost half of the country's voting stations, meaning results could still change dramatically. Karzai will need 50 percent of the votes to avoid a two-man runoff.

Hundreds of allegations of fraud and voter intimidation threaten to mar the election, and female turnout was low. Voters who cast ballots faced retaliatory attacks from militants who told Afghans not to vote. Results are not expected to be finalized until mid- or late September, after officials work through the fraud allegations.

Extreme Danger

In an example of the extreme threats that voters faced, an Afghan man said Monday that Taliban militants cut off his nose and both ears as he tried to vote.

"I was on my way to a polling station when Taliban stopped me and searched me. They found my voter registration card," Lal Mohammad said from a hospital bed in Kabul. He said they cut off his nose and ears before beating him unconscious with a weapon.

"I regret that I went to vote," Mohammad said, crying and trying to hide his disfigured face. "What is the benefit of voting to me?"

Bolstering troop levels

The U.S. strategy in Afghanistan hinges on increasing the number of Afghan soldiers and police so U.S. forces can one day withdraw. Some 134,000 Afghan troops are to be trained by late 2011, but U.S. officials say that number will need to be greatly increased, an expansion that will be paid for by U.S. funds.

Afghanistan has long been seen as the "good" war by many in the United States, especially in comparison with U.S. efforts in Iraq, where U.S. troops are now drawing down. But some Democratic senators are beginning to question whether U.S. goals in Afghanistan are achievable, and when U.S. troops will be brought home.



Time to Get Out of Afghanistan

"Yesterday," reads the e-mail from Allen, a Marine in Afghanistan, "I gave blood because a Marine, while out on patrol, stepped on a [mine's] pressure plate and lost both legs." Then "another Marine with a bullet wound to the head was brought in. Both Marines died this morning."


"I'm sorry about the drama," writes Allen, an enthusiastic infantryman willing to die "so that each of you may grow old." He says: "I put everything in God's hands." And: "Semper Fi!"

Allen and others of America's finest are also in Washington's hands. This city should keep faith with them by rapidly reversing the trajectory of America's involvement in Afghanistan, where, says the Dutch commander of coalition forces in a southern province, walking through the region is "like walking through the Old Testament."

U.S. strategy -- protecting the population -- is increasingly troop-intensive while Americans are increasingly impatient about "deteriorating" (says Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) conditions. The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant and often risible.

The U.S. strategy is "clear, hold and build." Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state.

Military historian Max Hastings says Kabul controls only about a third of the country -- "control" is an elastic concept -- and " 'our' Afghans may prove no more viable than were 'our' Vietnamese, the Saigon regime." Just 4,000 Marines are contesting control of Helmand province, which is the size of West Virginia. The New York Times reports a Helmand official saying he has only "police officers who steal and a small group of Afghan soldiers who say they are here for 'vacation.' " Afghanistan's $23 billion gross domestic product is the size of Boise's. Counterinsurgency doctrine teaches, not very helpfully, that development depends on security, and that security depends on development. Three-quarters of Afghanistan's poppy production for opium comes from Helmand. In what should be called Operation Sisyphus, U.S. officials are urging farmers to grow other crops. Endive, perhaps?

Even though violence exploded across Iraq after, and partly because of, three elections, Afghanistan's recent elections were called "crucial." To what? They came, they went, they altered no fundamentals, all of which militate against American "success," whatever that might mean. Creation of an effective central government? Afghanistan has never had one. U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry hopes for a "renewal of trust" of the Afghan people in the government, but the Economist describes President Hamid Karzai's government -- his vice presidential running mate is a drug trafficker -- as so "inept, corrupt and predatory" that people sometimes yearn for restoration of the warlords, "who were less venal and less brutal than Mr. Karzai's lot."

Mullen speaks of combating Afghanistan's "culture of poverty." But that took decades in just a few square miles of the South Bronx. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, thinks jobs programs and local government services might entice many "accidental guerrillas" to leave the Taliban. But before launching New Deal 2.0 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration should ask itself: If U.S. forces are there to prevent reestablishment of al-Qaeda bases -- evidently there are none now -- must there be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other sovereignty vacuums?

U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck's decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen's, is squandered.



View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Google Maps