Britain grapples with past on slavery

"Charge of the Buffalo Soldiers, 1863
In 1863, the Union Army began using emancipated slaves and other free black men as soldiers. This was a very controversial move, and one that did not enjoy much support in the North, or among the white troops. Thomas Nast, a visionary of his day, saw beyond the biases of the day, and saw that integration of blacks into the Union Army was a good thing. He created the illustration to your right to show that Negro Buffalo Soldiers could fight bravely alongside white troops. The image appeared in an 1863 edition of Harper's Weekly. "

Political
Britain grapples with past on slavery anniversary
Source: Agence France Presse 03/23/2007
LONDON, March 23, 2007 (AFP) -

Britain marks the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery this weekend with the government proposing an annual commemoration day -- but still refusing to make a full apology.
In contrast the Anglican church has made an unreserved mea culpa, and on Saturday Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams will lead hundreds of people on a "Walk of Witness" marking the bicentenary.

"Some have said they see no need for the apology made last year by the General Synod for the role the Church played in the slave trade," said Williams.

"But when we acknowledge historic injustices inflicted in the name of the Church, this is a vital part of our life as members of the body of Christ," he wrote in a foreword to the programme for the walk.
The walk includes the culmination of the March of the Abolitionists -- a group of walkers who have worn yokes and chains during a 250-mile journey beginning in the northeastern city of Hull.
British merchants are believed to have transported nearly three million black Africans across the Atlantic between 1700 and the early 19th century.

Overall, some 21 million black Africans were transported by Europeans in the Atlantic slave trade from 1450 until 1850, according to historians. British merchants were the biggest participants, followed by the French and Dutch.

The 1833 Slavery Abolition Act outlawed slavery itself throughout the British Empire. However, slaves did not gain their final freedom until 1838.
But despite voicing its regret, the British government has never made a full, formal apology for its role in the trade.

Earlier this month British Prime Minister Tony Blair reiterated that he was sorry for Britain's role in the slave trade Wednesday, labelling it "entirely unacceptable."
On the eve of the anniversary, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott said Britain is to hold an annual commemoration day to remember its role in the slave trade, as well as the fight to end it.

He told The Guardian daily that he expected the day would be sometime in June and said it could provide an opportunity for the country to consider how it could help modern day Africa.
Events are being planned to mark the bicentenary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act here. It was passed on March 25, 1807, imposing a 100-pound fine for every slave found aboard a British ship.
"Like the Holocaust, we are learning to talk about the slave trade more openly and more honestly," Prescott told the daily.

"There is a sense of shock and horror at what went on in our history, and the sheer brutality of it ... We need to get the proper history told, including the good, the bad and the dreadful ...
"The legacy of this 200th anniversary should be a permanent date when we ask whether there is more we could do, so that every year, like (the) Holocaust, we remind people of the horrors."

Clinton promises universal health care

Political
Clinton promises universal health care if elected
Source: Associated Press Newswires 03/26/2007

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Monday to create a universal health care system if elected, saying she "learned a lot" during the failed health care effort of her husband's presidency.

"We're going to have universal health care when I'm president -- there's no doubt about that. We're going to get it done," the New York senator and front-runner for the 2008 nomination said.
Clinton focused on health care issues during an appearance on ABC's "Good Morning America" broadcast from the state where precinct caucuses will launch the presidential nominating season.
Asked how she could improve on her failed effort to reform health care during her husband's presidency, Clinton said pressure for change has built in the last decade and that would make tackling the issue easier.

"I believe the American people are going to make this an issue," said Clinton. "I believe we're in a better position today to do that than we were in '93 and '94. ... It's one of the reasons I'm running for president."

After the televised meeting, Clinton headed to a Des Moines elementary school to receive the endorsement of former Gov. Tom Vilsack and his wife, Christie.

"Hillary Clinton has been tried and tested like no other candidate for president," Tom Vilsack said.
His wife added, "To me, this is not just an endorsement but a commitment."
Clinton said her relationship with the Vilsacks dates to her work in the 1970s with Christie Vilsack's late brother, lawyer Tom Bell.

"We will be crisscrossing Iowa and crisscrossing America," Clinton said.
In her earlier appearance, Clinton argued that health coverage has deteriorated over the last decade, and that's increased public pressure to act.

"The number of uninsured has grown," said Clinton. "It's hard to ignore the fact that nearly 47 million people don't have health insurance, but also because so many people with insurance have found it's difficult to get health care because the insurance companies deny you what you need."
Clinton opened her latest campaign swing with a live broadcast from the Science Center of Iowa, where she spoke to more than 200 activists at a town meeting about health care issues. It's an issue with which she is very familiar. After her husband won the White House in 1992, she headed an effort to put a universal health care system in place. That effort eventually collapsed under pressure in part from the insurance industry.

However, while Clinton said the issue continues to be a high priority for her, she has not offered up a specific plan. One questioner at the town hall meeting held up a copy of a DVD containing a detailed description of Democratic rival John Edwards' plan for universal health care, asking Clinton if she will also offer specifics.

The reason she hasn't "set out a plan and said here's exactly what I will do," Clinton said, is that she wants to hear from voters what kind of plan they would favor.
"I want the ideas that people have," said Clinton. She said any health care plan must deal with the reality that there's a unique climate in the country.

"We are bigger and more diverse and people like their choice," said Clinton.
Edwards, a former North Carolina senator and 2004 Democratic runningmate, has said it's inevitable that taxes would have to go up to finance an expensive health care plan. Clinton disagreed.
"We've got to get the costs under control," said Clinton. "Why would we put more money into a dysfunctional system?"

Clinton sidestepped a question on whether she'd consider Vilsack as a potential runningmate should she win the nomination.

"I am a very big fan of Governor Vilsack," Clinton said, adding that he has "the kind of practical but visionary leadership we need in our country."

Vilsack was the first Democrat to formally enter the 2008 presidential race in November, but he dropped out last month citing the difficulty in raising the tens of millions of dollars necessary to mount a credible bid.

Jennifer Hudson - And I Am Telling You

Damn this girl can sing! (Last music clip for the night - back to politics).

American Idol: Jennifer Hudson

Beyonce Threatens To Kill Jennifer Hudson

Just a little humor on Beyonce. Dream Girls 10 Stars

Beyon'ce

Gotta give it to Beyon'ce for trying. She still has nothing on vocals versus Jennifer Hudson.

JENNIFER HOLIDAY sings

To get off the political beat. For you music lovers Dream Girls is an awsome movie. 10 starts. Back flash Jennifer Holiday sings "I Am Telling You".

State by State 2008 Presidential Update

2008 Presidential Update - State by State

Checks and Balances Blog is predicting these states electoral votes will most likely go to these candidates bearing no “Dean” incidents. This is a non-partisan analysis.

Clinton: Arkansas, California, Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Louisiana

Obama: Illinois

Giuliani: New Jersey

McCain: Arizona

Edwards: (none)

Mitt Romney: (none)

From my research, candidates showing a likely hood of winning 40% + of the vote were awarded that state. States where no candidates currently polling at 40 % or above were not included. I do believe there is a possible Gore factor that could entirely flip these predictions. New York and Connecticut are a toss up between Clinton and Giuliani. I predict the Republican Party would however never nominate R. Giuliani. Their nominee will be a strict conservative or even though a "maverick" a loyal Republican like John McCain. Therefore, predictions for the GOP nominee are less accurate.

-A.T. Brooks

Who Is Hillary Clinton?

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/hillary-clinton/

Resource: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

U.S. HOUSE MOVES TO END WAR

WILL THE U.S. SENATE RESPOND IN KIND?

President G.W. Bush said "These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects," he said. "This is not going to happen."

I say "Its time for President G.W. Bush to listen to the American people".


Political

US House ties Iraq war funding to withdrawal timeline
Source: Agence France Presse 03/23/2007 WASHINGTON, March 23, 2007 (AFP) -

The US House of Representatives Friday voted to impose an August 31, 2008 deadline to pull combat troops out of Iraq, prompting a veto threat and a furious rebuke from President George W. Bush.
In the boldest challenge yet to Bush's war powers, lawmakers voted 218 to 212 to link a 124-billion-dollar war budget to a timeline for withdrawal, significantly raising the stakes in an escalating feud with the president.

"This war is a grotesque mistake," House speaker Nancy Pelosi said, closing a passionate and often acrimonious debate.

"The American people will not support a war without end, and neither should this Congress."
But an infuriated Bush quickly vowed to veto the bill if it reaches his desk, accusing Democratic leaders of second guessing the generals running the war and of abdicating their responsibilities to the US armed forces.

"Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq."

Bush said the bill had no chance of becoming law: "I will veto it if it comes to my desk."
White House spokesman Tony Snow said the bill would put "handcuffs on generals, colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, corporals, privates and everybody else."
Two Republicans broke with their leaders and voted in favor of the bill. Fourteen Democrats voted against their own party's bid to end the war and Bush's surge of more than 21,500 more troops into Iraq.

The legislation funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan presented Republican lawmakers with a dilemma: if they opposed the timetable plan, they risked being portrayed as voting against a bill providing funding for American troops locked in fierce combat.

Democratic Representative John Murtha, a passionate advocate of a US withdrawal from Iraq, said: "We are going to bring those troops home, we are going to start changing the direction of this great country.

"The American people in the last election sent a message, they said we want the Iraqis to solve their own problems in Iraq," he said, in a speech on the House floor greeted by applause and a standing ovation by Democrats.

But Republican Minority leader John Boehner said the bill would send a damning message about the US commitment to fighting global terrorism.

"We are in the midst of a fight with an enemy that is not just in Iraq, that's all over the world," he said.

The 124-billion-dollar emergency supplemental spending package for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would tie the deployment of combat forces to strict standards for rest, equipment and training of troops.

It also would create benchmarks that would hold the Iraqi government accountable for progress toward self-governance and security.

If the Iraqis fail to meet the objectives, a withdrawal of troops would have to begin within months.
No matter how the Iraqi government performs, the bill calls for the withdrawals to begin in March 2008 and for most US combat forces to be out of Iraq by August 31, 2008.

The package passed after the Democrats overcame divisions within their own ranks from lawmakers who had been demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Despite Bush's stand, Democrats saw the bill as part of a concerted political campaign to force the end of US involvement in Iraq and pressure the president's Republican backers.
Separately, a Senate committee on Thursday approved its own draft emergency war funding measure, setting a March 2008 deadline to withdraw most US combat troops from Iraq.
The House and Senate versions must be reconciled, then the president must sign the measure for it to become law. To override a presidential veto, each chamber would have to secure a two-thirds majority.

The Democratic-controlled Senate last week rejected a bid to pass a separate binding resolution that would have called for US troops to be pulled out of Iraq by the end of March 2008.


NPR Report:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9121027

Commentary: Every Senator (Democrat, Independent & Republican) who sponsors or votes for a non-binding resolution specifically in regards to the War in Iraq, in my opinion, should not be re-elected. I believe this because a non-binding resolution has no authority, it is a waist of paper.

U.S. political landscape tilting to Democrats

Political

U.S. political landscape tilts to Democrats; A new poll shows that more Americans are rejecting both the Republican Party and many of its broad conservative ideals. PUBLIC OPINION

Source: The Miami Herald 03/23/2007 WASHINGTON

President Bush's dream of leaving an enduring Republican majority as his political legacy is slipping from his grasp.

A new poll released Thursday confirms that the country's underlying political landscape has turned sharply against Bush's party and toward the Democrats on bellwether issues such as the use of military force, religion, affirmative action and homosexuality.

''It's going in the other direction,'' said Andrew Kohut, the director of the Pew Research Center, which released the survey.

It's not going toward a Democratic majority. But there's no more progress toward a Republican majority.''

''But Democrats shouldn't start popping the champagne yet,'' said Steve Schier, a political scientist at Minnesota's Carleton College. ``This group . . . is still very much up for grabs.''

The idea of a durable political majority -- like the one the Republicans enjoyed for decades after the Civil War or that Franklin D. Roosevelt built for the Democrats in the 1930s and '40s -- might be a quaint notion in an era in which a third of the voters refuse to align with either major party for more than one election.

CONSERVATIVE HOPES
But Bush and his political advisor, Karl Rove, thought they had found the keys to securing what began as the so-called Reagan Revolution and seemed to gain strength with the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.

They called it ''compassionate conservatism,'' a blend of appeals to religious and economic conservatives coupled with a pitch to moderate, suburban independents for education revisions, tax cuts, Medicare expansion.

A solid Republican majority seemed within reach, especially after the country rallied behind Bush after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Bush's Republicans defied history by gaining seats in the 2002 midterm congressional elections, which usually tilt against the president's party.

That year, the Republicans moved into a tie with the Democrats in terms of voters' self-proclaimed party identification, with 43 percent picking each party.

Now that's all gone.

NEW REALITY
Today, 50 percent of Americans call themselves Democrats or lean that way, while 35 percent favor the Republican Party.

''Over the past five years, the political landscape of the nation has shifted from one of partisan parity to a sizable Democratic advantage,'' the Pew analysis said. ``But the change reflects Republican losses more than Democratic gains.''

''That's due to dissatisfaction with the White House,'' Kohut added in an interview.
That dissatisfaction has grown as Americans have turned against the war in Iraq.

At the same time, the country is becoming more amenable to the Democratic view of such divisive issues as God, war and welfare, the Pew survey found:
The ranks of those who completely agree that prayer is an important part of their daily lives dropped from 55 percent in 1999 to 45 percent.

Those who think military strength is the best way to preserve peace dropped from 62 percent in 2002 to 49 percent.More people support affirmative action, up from 58 percent in 1995 to 70 percent today. The percentage of Americans who think the government should help needy people even if it increases the national debt rose from 41 percent in 1994 to 54 percent today.

Commentary: Promising changes for the Democratic Party. This report however lacks data on what parts of the country these shifts are occuring. Larger numbers nationally do not equate to a certainity of control of Congress or the White House.