Commentary: What President Barack Obama And His DNC Speech Must Do To Win America’s Vote
When President Barack Obama stands before America, DNC delegates, and the world Thursday evening, he has got to deliver the goods. Former President Bill Clinton, like an excellent defense attorney, made a clear cut argument, point by point, why American voters should re-elect President Barack Obama for another term.
The First Lady Michelle Obama hit a major grand slam Tuesday with a speech that will go down in history as one of the most powerful statements that a First Lady can make in behalf of their incumbent spouse. Both President Clinton and First Lady Michelle Obama prepared the ground work for President Obama. All the President needs to do Thursday evening is bring the theme to a climatic conclusion: “Why I Deserve Your Vote of Confidence For Another Four Years.”
President Obama must make and prove his case to the American public. His speech can be as detailed as he would like to prepare it. But the key will be in the deliverance. How will the President deliver his speech? What the President must do is explain, not in his usual laid back way, the core principles and strategies that has made his administration and term successful for middle class America.
As President Obama speaks to America, he needs to appeal to his audience. Make his message conversational, lively, descriptive, but positive. Lay it on the line. He can not be afraid to appear human, but he needs to speak from the heart. Americans will have to feel every last word he says. Like the head coach of a championship team at the Super Bowl or Final Four, President Obama’s speech should motivate, invigorate and inspire everyone that can see him on television and on the radio. Like NFL Hall of Famer Barry Sanders, President Obama should run with that speech like a whole crew of three hundred pound football players are chasing him, fiercely, and with great power, sprinting forcefully into the in zone!
From the moment the President walks out in front of America, he has to grab the attention and wring the life out of it. President Obama can not be scared to stand up for his policies; even the controversial ones like the Affordable Care Act. When President Obama whips it out on America Thursday evening, he has to let his inner Don Cornelius out! Put some SOUUUUUUUUL all the way into that speech. The President needs to put his natural foot in it!
Hopefully, President Obama watched the video of President Clinton’s speech and took some notes because Thursday evening is the night where if he doesn’t make his case for a second term, there might not be one.
Remarks By President Barack Obama And Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama Of Japan In Joint Press Conference
President Obama and Japan's Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama In Tokyo
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
AND PRIME MINISTER YUKIO HATOYAMA OF JAPAN
IN JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE
Kantei
Tokyo, Japan
8:24 P.M. JST
PRIME MINISTER HATOYAMA: (As translated.) President Obama, I would like to welcome you to Japan. I’d like to express my heartfelt welcome to you. It is very hard — despite the tragedy of the mass shooting in your country, that you have taken time out of a busy schedule to come and join us here today. We’re very thankful to you.
And today we have had a 90-minute, very intensive discussion. I’m very happy to have had this opportunity to hold this discussion.
Well, we have come to call each other Barack and Yukio. I think I’ve grown quite accustomed to calling each other by our names. And we did cover a lot of ground today. First, for Japan’s diplomacy, the U.S.-Japan alliance is the cornerstone. And this is one thing I’ve stressed. But as time changes and as the international environment changes, there is a need for us to further develop and deepen the U.S.-Japan alliance to make it even more constructive and future-oriented alliance. This was what I proposed today. //
And the U.S.-Japan alliance — well, actually it so happens that next year marks the 50th anniversary of the revision of the U.S.-Japan security treaty. And starting from today we’ll be starting a year to start a new process of deliberation. And I have made this proposal, and President Obama has given his consent and support towards this idea.
Now, the U.S.-Japan alliance, looking at it from the security front, naturally we have to cooperate in proliferation deterrence, on information protection, missile defense, and the use of other states amongst others. We need to consider these new systems for issuing security. And this is my thinking.
But the U.S.-Japan alliance is not just focused on security — for example, disaster prevention, or health, education. We had many levels — and also environmental issues, as well. We need to cooperate in all these areas so as to cooperate in the Asia Pacific and others so that we can further deepen our bilateral alliance. I believe that we have reached an agreement on these points.
Now, turning our eyes to the global situation, again there are different topics that we’ve covered. From our side, I’ve talked about Afghanistan and our support to Afghanistan. On to Afghanistan; we will not be taking part in the refueling, but instead providing civil assistance, and we are planning to mainly provide civil assistance of 5 billion yen in five years for agriculture, building of infrastructures, schools. So this is the type of assistance we want to provide. And also to improve security, we want to support the police force in Afghanistan. Furthermore, for the former soldiers, we want to provide vocational training. These are the types of things that we want to conduct. //
I have communicated this to the President, and towards this new assistance package, President Obama in principle has stated his gratitude, appreciation for this assistance. And furthermore, when it comes to assistance to Afghanistan, it’s important that we try to directly talk with one another as to the assistance to be provided.
Now, in the area of climate change, again, we have talked on this subject. By 2015, we have set out this goal of an 80 percent reduction. And both Japan and U.S. have agreed on this, and we want to make COP-15 a success, and we agreed to cooperate towards this end.
And including China and others, there are other issues that need to be resolved. And therefore we need to collaborate to address these challenges.
Now, in regards to nuclear disarmament, again, we have agreed to cooperate with one another. Now, in regards to nuclear issues and also climate change, we have issued a joint statement. And I do believe that this is quite innovative in itself, and the fact that we can take up these issues as core issues at the summit meeting is something of vital importance.
Now, on the economic front, well, the economy was not a major issue this time, but again, this might reflect the times in which we’re living. And over dinner, maybe, we hope to be able to discuss the issue of the economy.
Now, in relation to nuclear issues, North Korea, Iran was also discussed from President Obama. And again, we have agreed to closely cooperate with one another. And Special Representative Bosworth will be visiting North Korea — or may be visiting North Korea shortly. But this is on the premise of the six-party talks. And I do endorse this thinking and have stated so to the President. //
And in regards to Iran, again, we have to support — we would like to support the approach to Iran. On the one hand, we want to emphasize our historic relationship, but also, at the same time, I promise to strengthen our alliance vis-à-vis Iran.
And also, again, in Asia, President Obama has stated that we have some — we do have a vital role to play, especially in East Asia. I have set out the concept of East Asian community, and this is because I believe that there is this alliance as the cornerstone on which we can rely.
And in Asia, the fact that the U.S. presence increases is something that has great extension towards at various levels in Asia and East Asia, and Asia on the whole. Both Japan and the United States should deepen, and as a result, in East Asia we hope to bring about peace, stability, and economic prosperity in this region. This is something that we have pledged.
I don’t want to take up all the time myself, and therefore I’d like to conclude. But I do think that this summit meeting was extremely meaningful. And on this note, I’d like to once again say that I am very grateful to Barack, President Obama, to take time to join us here at Japan. And also, I’m thankful that he’s chosen Japan as his first leg to his visit to Asia. And as Prime Minister, representing the Japanese people, I’d like to express my gratitude. Thank you.
And next, President Obama, please.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, good evening. It is a great honor to be making my first trip to Japan as President of the United States. I have fond memories of visiting Japan in my youth. I’ve been looking forward to this trip for some time. I’m only sorry that Michelle and the girls could not join us. The girls have been studying Japan in school, and so they have a great interest in Japanese culture. And hopefully I’ll be able to bring them next time. //
I want to thank the warm welcome that Prime Minister Hatoyama and the Japanese people have extended. I appreciate the graciousness with which you understood the delay that took place as a consequence of the tragedy at Fort Hood, Texas.
Japan is my first stop as President in Asia. I began my trip here in Tokyo because the alliance between the United States and Japan is a foundation for security and prosperity not just for our two countries but for the Asia Pacific region. In a few months we’ll be marking the 50th anniversary of our alliance, which is founded on shared values and shared interests that has served our people so well and has provided peace and security for the region in an unprecedented way.
That anniversary, as Prime Minister Hatoyama pointed out, represents an important opportunity to step back and reflect on what we’ve achieved, celebrate our friendship, but also find ways to renew this alliance and refresh it for the 21st century. Both Yukio and I were elected on the promise of change, but there should be no doubt, as we move our nations in a new direction, our alliance will endure and our efforts will be focused on revitalizing that friendship so that it’s even stronger and more successful in meeting the challenges of the 21st century. It’s essential for the United States, it’s essential for Japan, and it’s essential for the Asia Pacific region.
Throughout my trip and throughout my presidency, I intend to make clear that the United States is a Pacific nation, and we will be deepening our engagement in this part of the world. As I said to Prime Minister Hatoyama, the United States will strengthen our alliances, build new partnerships, and we will be part of multilateral efforts and regional institutions that advance regional security and prosperity. //
We have to understand that the future of the United States and Asia is inextricably linked. The issues that matter most to our people — issues of economic growth and job creation, non-proliferation, clean energy — these are all issues that have to be part of a joint agenda. And we had very productive discussions about these issues this evening.
It’s true that because of the strength of our economic ties, that was not the first item on our agenda, but we are fortunately going to have the opportunity to spend a lot of time discussing that in Singapore in the coming days. As the world’s two leading economies, we have spent a lot of time working together in the G20 to help bring the world back from the brink of financial crisis, and we’re going to continue to work to strengthen our efforts so that we can expand job growth in the future. And we will be discussing with our APEC partners how to rebalance our deep economic cooperation with this region to strengthen our recovery.
The Prime Minister and I discussed our cooperation on Afghanistan and Pakistan. And I did thank the people of Japan and the Prime Minister for the powerful commitment of a $5 billion over the next five years to support our shared civilian efforts in Afghanistan, as well as the commitment of a billion dollars to Pakistan.
This underscores Japan’s prominent role within a broad international coalition that is advancing the cause of stability and opportunity in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And I shared with the Prime Minister our efforts in refining our approach to make it more successful in the coming year.
We discussed our shared commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and ultimately seeking a world without them. Since I laid out a comprehensive agenda in Prague to pursue these goals Japan has been an outstanding partner in those efforts. And together we passed a historic resolution in the Security Council last September. We are building a new international consensus to secure loose nuclear materials and strengthen the nonproliferation regime. //
And to that end, we discussed both North Korea and the situation in Iran, recognizing that it’s absolutely vital that both countries meet their international obligations. If they do, then they can open the door to a better future. If not, we will remain united in implementing U.N. resolutions that are in place and continuing to work in an international context to move towards an agenda of nonproliferation.
Finally, we discussed our partnership on energy issues and climate change. The United States and Japan share a commitment to developing the clean energy of the future and we’re focused on combating the threat of climate change. This is an important priority for us; I know it’s an important priority for the people of Japan. And we discussed how we can work together to pave the way for a successful outcome in Copenhagen next month.
So I believe that we are off to a very successful start. I’m looking forward to continuing the conversation during dinner, as well as as we both travel to Singapore. And I am confident that we will continue to strengthen the U.S.-Japan alliance so that it serves future generations.
Thank you very much.
PRIME MINISTER HATOYAMA: Thank you very much. Now I’d like to proceed to questions. I will appoint the person, and once you are appointed, please come to the microphone, state your name and affiliation, and also to whom — please state to whom you want to pose your question.
On behalf of the Japanese press, please.
// Q Fuji Television. Matsuyama is my name. I’d like to ask both leaders — first to Prime Minister Hatoyama. You have stated that you would like to see Japan enjoy a more equal relationship with the United States in talks about Afghanistan and also the ending of the refueling operations and global warming and nuclear disarmament. Do you think that you’re able to talk as equal partners and gain understanding on this point, especially on the Futenma relocation? There is the observation that this will be a difficult issue to resolve, but how did you explain about how to resolve the timeline for resolving this issue?
And to President Obama, you are a proponent of a nuclear-free world, and you’ve stated, first of all, you would like to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki while in office. Do you have this desire? And what is your understanding of the historical meaning of the A-bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you think that it was the right decision?
And also considering the North Korean situation, how do you think the U.S.-Japan alliance should be strengthened, and how should both countries cooperate in the field of nuclear disarmament?
And also on the Futenma relocation issue, by when do you think the issue needs to be resolved? And should it be that Japan carry over the discussion — decision to next year, or decide on something outside of what is being discussed? How would you respond?
PRIME MINISTER HATOYAMA: Let me start. I was asked a great deal of questions to — especially President Obama, but I’d like to talk about the equal relationship. But before I state so, the President himself has said naturally that we are equal partners and should be equal partners. So in this context we have talked about the assistance to Afghanistan, climate change, and furthermore, nuclear abolishment. And I think you can ask him, but I do believe that he has regarded us, Japan, as an equal partner. I have raised a number of issues on my side, and I think this is proof of our equal partnership. //
On the issue of the relocation of the Futenma air station, in regards to this issue, well, to give you the conclusion, there is the high-level working group — we’ve set up this group so as to be able to resolve the issue as early as possible. And we stated this and my commitment was also expressed during our talks.
But before that, I have explained why we have this discussion, and under the previous government, the U.S.-Japan agreement needs to be regarded seriously. During the election campaign, especially to the Okinawans, I’ve stated that we would consider relocation outside of Okinawa and outside of the country. It is a fact that we did campaign on this issue, and the Okinawans do have high expectations.
It will be a very difficult issue for sure, but as time goes by, I think it will become even more difficult to resolve the issue. Especially the residents in the Futenma district will find it even more difficult to resolve the issue as time goes by.
So we do understand we need to resolve the issue as soon as possible, and we’ll make every effort to resolve the issue as quickly as possible within the working group.
And we hope that this will lead the way to strengthening our alliance, and I sincerely hope that such discussions will take place within the working group. And this is something I have communicated to the President.
President, please.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I am impressed that the Japanese journalists use the same strategy as American journalists — (laughter) — in asking multiple questions. //
Let me, first of all, insist that the United States and Japan are equal partners. We have been and we will continue to be. Each country brings specific assets and strengths to the relationship, but we proceed based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and that will continue.
That’s reflected in the Japan-U.S. alliance. It will be reflected in the resolution of the base realignment issues related to Futenma. As the Prime Minister indicated, we discussed this. The United States and Japan have set up a high-level working group that will focus on implementation of the agreement that our two governments reached with respect to the restructuring of U.S. forces in Okinawa, and we hope to complete this work expeditiously.
Our goal remains the same, and that’s to provide for the defense of Japan with minimal intrusion on the lives of the people who share this space. And I have to say that I am extraordinarily proud and grateful for the men and women in uniform from the United States who help us to honor our obligations to the alliance and our treaties.
With respect to nuclear weapons and the issues of non-proliferation, this is an area where Prime Minister Hatoyama and I have discussed repeatedly in our meetings. We share, I think, a vision of a world without nuclear weapons. We recognize, though, that this is a distant goal, and we have to take specific steps in the interim to meet this goal. It will take time. It will not be reached probably even in our own lifetimes. But in seeking this goal we can stop the spread of nuclear weapons; we can secure loose nuclear weapons; we can strengthen the non-proliferation regime.
// As long as nuclear weapons exist, we will retain our deterrent for our people and our allies, but we are already taking steps to bring down our nuclear stockpiles and — in cooperation with the Russian government — and we want to continue to work on the non-proliferation issues.
Now, obviously Japan has unique perspective on the issue of nuclear weapons as a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And that I’m sure helps to motivate the Prime Minister’s deep interest in this issue. I certainly would be honored, it would be meaningful for me to visit those two cities in the future. I don’t have immediate travel plans, but it’s something that would be meaningful to me.
You had one more question, and I’m not sure I remember it. Was it North Korea?
Q Whether or not you believe that the U.S. dropped a nuclear weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki — it was right?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, there were three sets of questions, right? You asked about North Korea?
Q I have North Korea as well, yes.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yes. With respect to North Korea, we had a extensive discussion about how we should proceed with Pyongyang. Obviously we were disturbed by the testing that took place, some of the belligerent actions that had taken place in an earlier period of this year. We have continued to say that our goal is a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula. That’s vital for the security of East Asia.
// And the United States and Japan, with the other members of the six-party talks, will continue to work to show North Korea that there is a pathway, a door, for them to rejoin the international community that would serve their people well and I believe enhance their security over the long term. They have to walk through that door. In the meantime, we will continue to implement the sanctions that have already been put in place, and we will continue to coordinate closely with Japan and the other six-party members in helping to shape a strategy that meets our security needs and convinces Pyongyang to move in a better direction.
MR. GIBBS: Jennifer Loven with AP — questions fewer in number. (Laughter.)
Q Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister. President Obama, how can you assure the American people that a trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now that your administration has now decided will take place in a civilian court in New York, will be safe and secure, but also not result in an innocent verdict for him?
And on Afghanistan, if I might, can you explain to people watching and criticizing your deliberations what piece of information you’re still lacking to make that call?
And if I could add one to the Prime Minister, please. Can you explain your country decided not to continue refueling ships going to Afghanistan?
PRIME MINISTER HATOYAMA: Mr. President?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: With respect to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, I believe that the Attorney General is going to be making an announcement this morning in the United States, this evening here. I don’t want to preempt his news conference. This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision. //
Here’s the thing that I will say. I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice. The American people will insist on it and my administration will insist on it. And I’m sure we’ll have additional things to say after the Attorney General’s press conference.
With respect to Afghanistan, Jennifer, I don’t think this is a matter of some datum of information that I’m waiting on. It’s a matter of making certain that when I send young men and women into war, and I devote billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money, that it’s making us safer, and that the strategies that are placed not just on the military side but also on the civilian side are coordinated and effective in our primary goal, which is to make sure that the United States is not subject to attack and its allies are not subject to attack by terrorist networks, and that there is a stability in the region that helps to facilitate that larger goal.
And I recognize that there have been critics of the process. They tend not to be folks who I think are directly involved in what’s happening in Afghanistan. Those who are recognize the gravity of the situation and recognize the importance of us getting this right.
And the decision will be made soon. It will be one that is fully transparent so that the American people understand exactly what we’re doing and why we’re doing it and what it will entail. It will also I think send a clear message that our goal here ultimately has to be for the Afghan people to be able to be in a position to provide their own security, and that the United States cannot be engaged in an open-ended commitment. //
So I am very pleased with how the process has proceeded. And those who participated I think would acknowledge that it has been not a academic exercise, but a necessary process in order to make sure that we’re making the best possible decisions.
PRIME MINISTER HATOYAMA: I thank you for keeping it to just one question, having come all the way to Japan. Now, your question was about why we ended the refueling in the Indian Ocean. And we believe that Japan’s assistance to Afghanistan will — in the larger context, terms should be considered. And as for antiterrorism, in order to eradicate terrorism, there is a need to take certain measures, but we have to consider what Japan should be doing in terms of antiterrorism. I think that it’s important that we extend civilian support so as to eliminate terrorism from its roots. And I do believe that this is appropriate for Japan, and this is the first point that I want to communicate to you.
And also, the refueling support, I’ve looked at the activities. Compared to the beginning recently, the refueling support is declining. Last month, in one month, there was only one — refueling for one ship. And we wonder how much effect we are bringing about. And so I think that we have to consider the meaning of this logistic support, and we’ve come to think that there is another type of assistance that is more appropriate for Japan.
We understand that the Afghans are suffering from poverty and we have to save them from poverty. Also security is something of a challenge, and we need to take new activities. And also, to the former soldiers, we have to provide vocational training so that they do not have to rely on their guns; they can lay down their guns and seek a more fulfilling life. //
And I believe that for Japan it is more appropriate, desirable, that we provide such civilian assistance. And as a result, conclusion, we have decided that instead of providing refueling, we provide an alternative package.
MODERATOR: Thank you very much. With this, we would like to conclude the joint news conference. And reporters please stay in your seats while the leaders leave the room. We thank you for your cooperation.
Press Briefing With Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: Transcript
PRESS BRIEFING
BY
PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:55 P.M. EDT
MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon. I hope everyone had a good weekend.
One thing I want to call to your attention before we start — and we’ll make copies of this available; I believe part of this was released from the Secretary of Health and Human Services Office last week to — (interruption) — that happens every time I have a good idea. (Laughter.) A letter released April 30th, last week, to Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley, applauding their leadership as the Finance Committee continues to work in a bipartisan fashion toward the shared goal of enacting meaningful health care reform legislation this year.
They outlined a series of principles, including promoting primary care and prevention, realigning incentives to promote high quality care, increasing transparency to empower patients and providers, and reducing waste, fraud and abuse. So we will make that all available to you as a good start in progress on health care reform.
And with that, Mr. Feller.
Q Thank you, Robert. Two topics, please. Back to the Supreme Court. There’s been a lot of talk as the nomination process begins that the President’s nominee should either be a woman or someone who is Hispanic. To what degree — what’s the President’s message to those who want that to be the case?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President obviously is going to take the time to look at all of those that are qualified, to find the most qualified person in his estimation, whether it’s a he or a she; to find somebody, as the President described in this room on Friday — somebody that respects precedent, tradition and rule of law, but also understands that decisions have to be made using common-sense and understanding people’s everyday lives. I think that’s most of all what he’s looking for in a nominee. I know he’s made some calls today to — I don’t have readouts on these yet, but I will get them — in discussing the upcoming pick with Senator Hatch and Senator Specter.
Q So to the question of — in the context of diversity, gender and ethnicity, how important are those –
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think the President described that there should be a diversity of experience. I am sure he will look at candidates with a diversity in background. But again, I think the President is looking for somebody with a record of excellence, somebody with a record of integrity, somebody who understands the rule of law, and somebody who understands how being a judge affects Americans’ everyday lives.
Q I also wanted to ask quickly about a health issue. Mexican officials are saying that the swine flu, H1N1 epidemic is waning. Global health officials are saying that countries shouldn’t let their guard down. What’s the level of concern at the White House about the flu right now? Is it as high as it was last week?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the White House continues to be vigilant in preparing for whatever we see as a result of the H1N1 flu virus. The President continues to get updates several times a day from Homeland Security Council. The advice the President and others gave last week about being vigilant in your individual responsibilities and staying home if you’re sick continues to be important. Certainly you’re always hopeful that what you might plan for never comes to fruition, but I think the key is understanding and planning for any outcome and being ready to address it. And I think that’s the — those are the steps that this administration to date has taken and will continue to take in order to prepare.
Yes, ma’am.
Q I have a question about the Supreme Court, to follow up on Ben’s question, but then I also have a question about the offshore tax announcement the President made. On Supreme Court, can you give us an update on where things stand with the process? When is he going to be ready to start interviewing people? What is he doing now to prepare for the process and lay the groundwork?
MR. GIBBS: You know, it’s — basically the process is as I outlined it Friday. The process has begun and began some time ago to go through prospective and potential candidates, to begin to review the history and the background and their experience. But I don’t have a specific timeline, as I said on Friday, for when that might happen, except to say that this is something the President believes must be done before the Court starts its work again in October — which means we’re on a fairly tight timeline to probably get something done before Congress gets out of town in August.
Q Okay. And on the announcement he made today about international tax policy, several big corporations are lined up against it, the deferral provision — Pfizer, Oracle, Microsoft and trade associations like the Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable. And I’m just wondering how you think you’re going to overcome that opposition and if you think this faces a big fight in Congress.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t think change is ever easy and I think whenever you’re taking on some bigger interest that mountain gets a little bit steeper.
But the President strongly believes that the policy that he outlined, the steps that we have to take to close tax loopholes and ensure some fairness in this process is the right policy for America and the right policy for American business. By closing these loopholes and replacing these tax advantages with fairness, using a portion of the money that’s recouped to make or to fund research and development and experimentation tax credit for the next 10 years is an important investment for American business.
Since 1981 the R&D tax credit has expired on 13 separate occasions. So providing business with some certainty for research and development we think is important. And as the President said throughout the campaign, we have — our tax code has an incentive that provides — an incentive that rewards companies that are investing overseas at the expense of investing here in America. We know we’re going to take on some tough interests in that, but the President believes this is a fight we should have and one that we can win.
Q Can you respond to their criticism that these policies would make them less competitive? They point out that in a lot of countries you don’t pay taxes on overseas earnings, you only pay taxes on what you earn domestically, and so that puts them at a disadvantage because they’re paying taxes twice.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think if you look at and compare the huge tax benefits that they get in this country for deferral, the huge benefits that they get for accelerated depreciation — I think it’s important that the American people and businesses understand that this is — fairness is not something that will put them at a competitive disadvantage.
Yes, sir.
Q Thanks, Robert. The situation in Pakistan seems to be getting worse and worse and the President obviously has some important meetings this week with Presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan. What does he hope to get at this critical stage from these meetings?
MR. GIBBS: Well, Ed, as you know, the President throughout the campaign, for much of the past two years, has discussed the fact that we have neglected this region of the world and particularly we have not focused our resources enough on the challenges that are presented by these countries and in these two countries.
The President ordered at the beginning of the administration a review of our policy and instituted the beginning of regular trilateral meetings to ensure that there were open lines of communication between the Afghan government, the Pakistani government, and the American government about where we can coordinate our efforts to make a better difference. This is the second such meeting. The President I think, as you said, is concerned about this situation. You’ve seen administration officials talk about their concern.
So this is an opportunity to discuss with them the process and open up those lines of communication — because we want a strong relationship with each of these two countries; we want an understanding that not just the United States faces security concerns, but each individual government has security concerns about extremists in the area; and this is the beginning of a long process to coordinate our strategy.
Q A quick question on the Boston Globe today, the news that they may have 30 to 60 days to live. What’s the White House’s thinking on the newspaper industry right now and whether or not it may need a bailout, since there are a lot of jobs at stake just as with the auto industry; a lot of people talking about the impact on communities like Boston, Seattle, and places that are losing newspapers? How do you evaluate all that?
MR. GIBBS: I have not asked specifically about assistance. I don’t think — I think that might be a bit of a tricky area to get into given the differing roles. Obviously the President believes there has to be a strong free press. I think there’s a certain concern and a certain sadness when you see cities losing their newspapers or regions of the country losing their newspapers. So it’s certainly of concern. I don’t know what, in all honesty, government can do about it. I would note that looking at some of the balance sheets, I wondered how you guys didn’t think $100 million meant a lot a few weeks ago, but looking at some of the balance sheets $100 million seems to me a lot.
Yes, sir.
Q A couple questions. One, on this tax announcement that you made today, what is the legislative calendar on this? Is this actually going to happen — is it going to be a separate, stand alone piece of legislation that’s going to get debated and voted on, or is this going to get lost in some sort of bigger thing with the tax code?
MR. GIBBS: I think the President believes that what he announced today is basically a down payment on longer-term tax reform. The President doesn’t anticipate that this will get in any way lost. Obviously, Senator Baucus, Congressman Rangel, Congressman Doggett, Senator Levin, have all pushed for elements of this over the years. Whether or not this is –
Q But when is this going to happen?
MR. GIBBS: We expect it to happen in the near term.
Q A couple months? Next legislative session?
MR. GIBBS: I would think probably that. Whether or not this is — it’s hard for me to peer into the crystal ball and figure out whether this gets added to something at the end of the process or whether two financial things get put together, I don’t know. But obviously — I think there’s a lot of support for extending this research and development tax credit and giving business certainty in their investments. So I think this is something –
Q Is it designed to happen this year?
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q With budget reconciliation or outside of this –
MR. GIBBS: I don’t think it has to happen in reconciliation. It certainly could be a part of it. But I also think that the President and the team believe that this could easily work its way through Congress. I mean, I guess we could have a spirited debate about the efficacy of tax havens — if that’s something that people want to have, I’m sure the President is happy to have it.
Q To follow up on Ed’s question on Pakistan. So this first meeting is more of a — I want to say it’s more of an, okay, what are your concerns, what are your concerns, here are our concerns, and let’s start the dialogue? Or is there going to be some tangible –
MR. GIBBS: Look, this is the beginning of the President seeing each of these two leaders at the White House. Obviously there is funding in front of Capitol Hill in the supplemental to deal with both Afghanistan and Pakistan. I’m sure that will be part of it.
I think there is a growing recognition — there’s a growing recognition coming more to where the White House has been that the threat that are posed by these extremists — not just, again, to us, but inside each of these two countries. So I think this is an important first step.
Q Is India at all going to be consulted on this? Because it seems that part of the frustration that I know that you guys have had with the Pakistani government is that they have so many troops on the border of India that they’re not able to combat the Taliban in the way that they should, and they pulled some troops. Is there any way you can still play mediator on this?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think obviously some of those conversations are being had. I think the President spoke pretty clearly to this last week in underscoring where the threat lies in Pakistan and where it doesn’t.
Q And the President is going to make that clear to Pakistan, that there’s not threat from India?
MR. GIBBS: I think he will reiterate what he said to you guys last week.
Yes, ma’am.
Q What is the President’s chief objection to single payer for universal health care when it works so many places?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think among many is I think it is not likely to be workable. I think –
Q Why do you say that? We have Medicare, we have Social Security.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I say that because, Helen, we’ve been debating health care reform for 30 or 40 years. I think if that were the magic silver bullet, then you guys would be asking me why we were taking on something else to our agenda because health care –
Q Why are you afraid of universal health care by a single payer?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t think anybody is afraid of universal health care. We’re trying to get — our objectives are to cut costs for families that are watching their premiums and their co-payments and their deductibles skyrocket.
Q Single payer is supposed to cut costs.
MR. GIBBS: We are looking to cover more of those that aren’t lucky enough to have health insurance. And equally as importantly, you cannot tackle the long-term costs that are being borne by this government without tackling health care reform. The President is adamant about that. And he looks forward to working with Congress to find a workable solution that can get through Congress.
Q But Social Security works, and Medicare works. Why do you think it couldn’t work for universal health care?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think there are — I would point you to — there’s, I’m sure, down the street about 535 opinions on this.
Yes.
Q Robert, just to clarify, the President has not interviewed anyone for the Supreme Court?
MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of.
Q And what about the counsel? Has he talked to anyone?
MR. GIBBS: I will check. Not that I’m aware of, no.
Q Given the fact that, through the years, these sit-downs that Presidents have had with potential Supreme Court nominees have been make-or-break, when do you think that’s going to happen, given the tight time –
MR. GIBBS: You guys didn’t get the pool notification?
Q Pardon me?
MR. GIBBS: You didn’t get the pool notification?
Q No. (Laughter.)
Q He’ll do a press conference right after.
Q We know there will be full coverage at the top and bottom.
MR. GIBBS: Right, we’ll do cameras and stills in separate — (laughter.)
I don’t know that there’s a direct timeline. Obviously there’s work to be done. I think the President will likely conduct this process in a way that — not unlike he did the vice presidential search. It won’t be one that is overly public.
Q Announce it by text message?
MR. GIBBS: What?
Q Announce it by text message?
MR. GIBBS: Maybe so. (Laughter.) Maybe I didn’t take the analogy all the way to the end.
Obviously the President understands, as he said here last week, just how important a decision and a nomination like this are. I think he understands the gravity of that. And I think — look, I think the President I think was defined this weekend as a pragmatist in a lot of these ideas, and I think that’s the case. I don’t doubt that there will be a debate in this town, as there has been for several decades, about one view or the other.
I think the vast majority of the American people are not on either end of this, but instead somewhere in the middle looking for the very same requirements that the President is looking for: somebody that understands the rule of law, somebody that has a record of excellence and integrity, somebody who also understands how these opinions affect everyday lives, and will exercise some common sense.
Yes, sir.
Q One of the criticisms from business about change in tax policy is that the unintended consequence could be to lose jobs. Has there been any study done of that before this proposal was –
MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, obviously — I don’t think the President would offer up something that would set our economic recovery efforts backwards. I think that’s why the President dismisses the argument that’s made and believes in the fairness of closing tax loopholes, cracking down on tax havens, and rewarding instead companies that are creating jobs right here in America.
Q And he dismisses the argument because –
MR. GIBBS: He doesn’t believe it quite honestly holds a lot of merit.
Yes, ma’am.
Q Two questions. One is, on the tax issue, did the G20 meeting have any influence on the shape of his proposal? This is something that our European allies were pushing for at the time.
MR. GIBBS: No — I mean, obviously it was something that the President agreed with our European allies. Our support for these individual things are something that I’ve heard the President talk about, in all honesty, going back to his Senate race in 2004. So while I think it is in line with what the G20 did, the President’s belief about closing tax havens, his belief about instituting fairness and rewarding companies that are creating jobs here is something he’s talked about for five years.
Q I just meant, did the actual particulars of the proposal at all or –
MR. GIBBS: Oh, not that I’m aware of. I can certainly see if there’s any — if anything changed on that, but I don’t believe it did.
Q And on the Supreme Court, you mentioned a variety of criteria, diversity in all sorts of different ways. Is one of the things you would put on that list age; that you would be looking for somebody who’s younger, who would have a longer term on the Court?
MR. GIBBS: Look, I think –
Q Older? (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: Ed, just remember, just e-mail me your opinions and we’ll have the President — (laughter.)
Look, instead of getting into certain age brackets or different requirements, I think the President obviously — I think you always assume, rightly so, that whomever you choose is going to have a significant impact on the Court for quite some time. I mean, this is one of nine. And I think you have to assume that whomever you pick is somebody that you believe will have great weight on the Court for a long time to come.
Q But it’s remarked on that previous Republican Presidents have seemed to specifically gone out of their way to choose people in their 40s and 50s who will have a mark for even longer.
MR. GIBBS: I think the President looks for somebody who is the best qualified and hopes they do make an impact on the Court.
Major.
Q Pakistan and then taxes. On Pakistan, there were several reports this weekend that the government doesn’t know what happened to $100 million allocated to Pakistan to better secure its nuclear facilities. Does the administration have any concrete plans to find out what happened to that $100 million, if it in fact has brought any more security to these facilities, and will this be part of the conversation this week?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know about the specific news that you mentioned. Obviously — and I wouldn’t add a ton to what the President said on this last week — but obviously the security of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and the security of nuclear materiel throughout the world is something that the President thinks is of the highest priority. I don’t doubt that that will be mentioned, yes.
Q I mean, this is U.S. tax dollars for a specific purpose and the government represented it would be used for this purpose and this purpose only. And right now, it doesn’t appear anyone knows where the money went or if it went to this purpose at all.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has sufficiently weighed in — well, let me rephrase that. I think the President’s views on our policy relating to a Musharraf-only policy, our policy that provides resources but no accountability — I think on both of those accounts the President has been clear that that hasn’t worked and that part of the review was to determine how moving forward we can best appropriate our resources to ensure the safety and security of those weapons and of everyone involved.
Q When the President had a Q&A session with the Business Roundtable, this idea, the tax proposals he’s introduced today, came up. And one of the questioners said, Mr. President, would you consider, as you evaluate this policy, reducing corporate income tax rates — because there is an economic argument that one of the reasons these tax havens flourish is to avoid higher corporate income tax rates around the globe, particularly in the U.S. The President said he would take it under consideration. It’s not here today. Can we therefore assume we’re not going to see any proposals from this White House on lowering corporate income tax rates anytime soon?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think what the President has laid out here would lower corporate taxes because for 10 years we are instituting certainty in the research and development tax credit. Businesses will pay less taxes by taking advantage of that.
But as I said a minute ago, the President believes this is a down payment on tax reform and I think the President would be — I think the reason the President said he would take that under advisement is the President believes that closing loopholes and using that to bring down the corporate tax rate is exactly what he has in mind. But what that requires is a closing of the loopholes and the tax havens that you talk about that companies are taking advantage of to put money elsewhere to avoid paying taxes here.
Q Chairman Baucus said that this needs further study to assess the impact on the plan — of the plan on U.S. businesses. Mitch McConnell said, I can’t endorse a plan that gives preferential treatment to foreign companies at the expense of U.S.-based companies and the 52 million people they employ. At least at this level of bipartisanship, there appears to be some more that Congress would like to learn about this than it presently knows. How do you answer that?
MR. GIBBS: Well, we are fortunate that Congress has to the power to call hearings and investigate the topic, but we’re happy to have a long discussion about the fairness of tax havens and tax loopholes that let companies avoid paying the taxes — taxes like you and I pay each day — and instead reward companies that are investing right here and creating jobs in America.
Yes, sir.
Q Two things. First, on tax havens, at the Summit of the Americas, a lot of Caribbean leaders raised a lot of concerns about what these sorts of measures would do to their financial sectors, which account for large parts of their economy. Can you tell us about any steps, any diplomatic steps in advance of today’s announcement that might have been taken?
MR. GIBBS: I can check on that. I know there was a discussion about this, but at the same time while the administration understands the — may understand the viewpoint of why a country would take that position, it doesn’t change the administration’s viewpoint that, for fairness purposes, these tax havens have to be dealt with.
Q And on Israel, the meeting tomorrow with President Peres, he shares President Obama’s view that a two-state solution is the way to go to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian situation. He represents a government that has yet to embrace that. What does President Obama hope to tell him tomorrow to take back to Prime Minister Netanyahu?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think, much like the meeting that will happen on Wednesday, the President — this is of the utmost priority for the President. It is something that he believes will only be advanced and moved forward by a sustained effort by this administration, in conjunction with the Palestinians and the Israelis, to make progress. Obviously this President spent time the very first day he worked in the Oval Office on Middle East peace and I think this is the beginning of many steps. Obviously Mr. Netanyahu will visit the White House later in the month, as will — as others have and others will over the course of the next few weeks as we start this long process.
Q You mentioned just a second ago some of President Obama’s criticisms of the Bush administration’s Musharraf-only policy. Does that mean that the Obama administration does not have a Zardari-only policy, particularly given the concerns we’ve heard about the survivability of the Pakistani government?
MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously the Pakistanis are in charge of electing their own government. It’s a democratically elected government. This President wants to work with the government, but I think the criticism that this President had was that our Pakistani policy didn’t include the people of Pakistan; that we have to coordinate our actions and have the government, the people, and any political party understand what’s at stake. And what is at stake is the role of extremism and the impact and the effect that it’s having.
I’ve said this before — I don’t think you have to explain in great detail the role of extremism to this government, because it’s in power because extremists assassinated somebody else. But obviously this is of great concern to the President, and he’ll spend a lot of time on Wednesday trying to get the steps that we take moving forward right as it relates to Pakistan and Afghanistan, to finally have a regional approach and ensure that the time that is spent and the resources that are spent go toward making a difference in this region of the world.
Mark.
Q Robert, can I ask about the bank stress tests? I know that we haven’t laid out the formal results of all the tests; I realize there are a couple of pending appeals on them. But clearly several banks already are in a position where they need more capital, according to the stress test. Has the administration decided whether or not it’s going to go back to Congress and ask for more money?
MR. GIBBS: Well, Mark, I’ve said this and so have others, that — well, let me — these stress tests were designed so that regulators, the administration, and all those involved could get a realistic assessment in a severe — even more severe economic downturn what capital cushion would be required.
There will be — there undoubtedly will be banks that need more capital. There have been banks in the last few weeks that have sought more capital, and I think we believe and banks believe that the first and best place to get that is through the private sector.
The administration doesn’t believe that we need to go to Congress right now looking for more money. But first and foremost, I think everyone involved will be looking for banks to raise this through either private means or the selling of some assets that they have or that they control.
Q Does that mean that after they make that attempt, if they don’t have any luck in the private sector, that they would come back to you folks and say, sorry, we couldn’t do it, we need more?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think it’s — as the plan is laid out — and I think one thing that we’ve maintained and I think you’ll see this on Thursday, I think you’ll be pleased with the amount of transparency with which these tests will be released by the regulators. But the steps that each of these individual banks take will be determined not by us but by them. They’ll have a certain amount of time to put together a plan that meets the test of regulators to ensure that stability.
Q But the point is, you’ve been saying for some weeks now that once we get these stress tests done, we will know whether we need to go back to Congress. And you’ve decided that at least as of now, we don’t need it?
MR. GIBBS: Let me start by saying, I haven’t seen all the results. But I think the administration believes we have in hand what is needed.
Mara.
Q Just want to follow up on Mark, and then I have a question about Pakistan. In the past you’ve been very candid when you think there are things that the President is for but the Congress wouldn’t approve it, like the assault weapons ban. Do you feel that in this case, Congress basically wouldn’t have any appetite to give you more money for the banks, even if you wanted it?
MR. GIBBS: I think in many ways that might ultimately be — I think it’s hard to — it’s hard for me to look into the crystal ball to — I don’t know what the circumstance by which you might make a request.
Q You know how many votes it passed by the last time, which was a hair.
MR. GIBBS: I watched the President make a lot of these before a lot of this. So, yes. No, I don’t — look, I don’t doubt that this is unpopular. It’s unpopular here. The President didn’t come here to, as he said, run auto companies or bail out banks.
But I think what’s important about this process is getting a genuine understanding of what’s out there. We have no doubt that there will still be — there are still going to be toxic assets on the books that have to and will be dealt with as part of other plans that the administration has outlined.
Q On Pakistan, my question is, the reports today that the U.S. doesn’t know where all of Pakistan nukes are. And in the press conference President Obama didn’t express a high level of confidence about how secure they were, and he just said, “I’m confident we can make sure that their nuclear arsenal is secure.” I mean, how secure does he actually think it is at the moment?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I’m, not surprisingly, not going to get into a detailed conversation about this up here, except to point you to what he said in that press conference.
Q I mean, is the message from that press conference that he isn’t very confident about their security, because he didn’t say –
MR. GIBBS: That’s not what I suggested.
Q Well, could you just explain what the message should be?
MR. GIBBS: I would read his — what he said. I think it’s rather clear.
Jon.
Q I had a question on the flu, but I did want to clarify what you said about getting the Supreme Court nominee done before August, basically. When you say done, does that mean confirmed?
MR. GIBBS: Well, let me amend if only to say I think obviously in order to get somebody seated by the first Monday in October you’re at least going to have to be a decent ways through the process, or through the beginning of this process. Obviously September is going to be a busy time. I guess let me amend what I said only to say that we understand that looking at the calendar from here until that first Monday in October, you’ve got four weeks in August, or August and maybe even the first part of September, where Congress is not going to be here.
So instead of saying they should be done and through the Senate and what have you by the end of July, obviously this process has to be a decent ways down the field. I guess what I’m saying is this isn’t going to all happen in September; I think this process has to make some progress in order to get somebody seated for the first Monday.
Q All right. And then on the flu, are you guys starting to look towards the fall flu season — assuming that this current trend of the swine flu kind of ratchets down a bit, are you starting to look towards the fall and a flare-up again of maybe a more virulent strain of this? What are you doing to prepare for that also?
MR. GIBBS: I mean, I think there’s several different things here. One, obviously we continue to remain very vigilant with what’s going on right now, understanding that obviously it’s still very much out there, there are still cases that we’re dealing with and preparations that we’re making to ensure that states and localities both have the guidance and part of the — our national stockpile of antivirals.
As I said last week, they’re beginning to undertake the very initial steps in the development of vaccines by creating a seed stock. I think –
Q Would that seed stock be good if it mutated in the fall?
MR. GIBBS: Well, that I think is — I will check with the scientists on this. Obviously I think some consideration is being taken into account, and in all honesty they’re continuing to evaluate each and every day the scientific evidence that they get from what they’re seeing in the virus.
As I said last week, Jon, I do think there is a concern and the need for us to remain vigilant throughout the summer in preparing for what might happen in the fall. The timing in which this occurred happened in a period in which the normal end of the flu season was happening. So in that way we’re fortunate. We will continue to see scientifically what the virus does, the strength of the strain, whether or not there’s any mutation, in preparing for what we would assume would be a ramp-up in the beginning of flu season in the fall.
Q A ramp-up of regular flu or this flu?
MR. GIBBS: Well, that’s — we will prepare for both in looking at and understanding the science to see if additional steps have to be taken in the interim to prepare for that.
But in terms of getting our public health system ready, they’ve already made preparations to add to the stockpile for antivirals. We’ve discussed the beginnings of vaccine; the money that was requested by our administration as part of the supplemental to address having the resources that are needed both in the short term here to move equipment and things throughout the country, as well as to address that over the long term throughout the fall.
Richard.
Q I wanted to ask a budget question, but just quickly on the Supreme Court, is one of your concerns about September that the whole Supreme Court process could interfere with — I don’t mean the President’s time now; I mean Congress’s — with health care, the budget, and everything else?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think instead of sort of hypothetically figuring out what might be — what might constitute a traffic jam in September, I think largely what I’m saying is we should begin to make progress starting here and then eventually down the street to ensure that we don’t — we’re not all caught having to do several things in September. You know, I think we’ll make progress and I think Congress will too. I don’t think there’s any — I don’t think anybody in this process wants to see the process delayed.
Q Quickly on the budget, I think Thursday is your date on the full budget now. Are the figures from the earlier budget locked in or are we likely to see changes, minor or major, in deficit numbers, economic forecasts, and all those numbers that came out in, what was it, February or March?
MR. GIBBS: Yes, I will double-check on that. I don’t have a good readout yet on that, but I will get something on that.
April.
Q Robert, on two issues, on the Court and also on Pakistan. On the Court situation, you said before this administration came into office they understood that there could be a possibility of two justices that you could be picking, and as you said, that this is something that you’ve been working on for a while. Is there an A-list for the first Supreme Court justice and then a second list, possibly, for the next? What is the criteria for that first list, if there is a first and a second list?
MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously we have made preparations to fill judicial — to make appointments for judicial openings at all levels of the federal court, and the transition began identifying a long time ago candidates for what we assumed might be an eventual pick for the Supreme Court. I think I laid out the qualifications: somebody that respects the rule of law and understands the role of tradition and precedent, somebody with a record of excellence and integrity, and someone who understands how laws and decisions affect people’s daily lives.
Q So there are two lists, are you saying?
MR. GIBBS: No, no, I don’t — I honestly don’t know if there’s an A, B, or C list. I don’t — I think right now there’s a collection underway for a pool of very qualified candidates to replace Justice Souter.
Q And also on the issue of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, U.S. military officials are saying that extremists are leaving that border and going into East Africa; they’re also in Somalia. And there is a major concern; a former U.S. defense secretary said that this is a real problem. What concrete steps are being taken right now to address those issues as al Qaeda is leaving that border and going to Africa now?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think — I haven’t seen the specific comments, but obviously the President has long been concerned about areas throughout the world, whether they are in that region of the world, Pakistan and Afghanistan, whether they’re in Africa, of the rise and the prevalence of extremist groups in territories that lack strong governments; that lawless spaces tend to provide breeding grounds for extremists.
I think that’s why the President has talked about, in his budget, an increased role in resources for governments in places like Africa that are experiencing or have long experienced trouble in controlling their physical borders. The President obviously was involved as a senator in efforts throughout Africa and particularly in the Congo to address the threat that’s posed by ungoverned spaces. So I think that’s something that the President and his team are very mindful of.
Q Thank you, Robert.
MR. GIBBS: Thank you, guys.
The Obama Administration Announces The “Kingpin Act!” The War On Drug Traffickers Has Intensified!
FACT SHEET
Overview of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act
Introduction
The Administration has released the names of three Mexican organizations against which the President has decided to impose sanctions pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (the “Kingpin Act”) (21 U.S.C. 1901-1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182). Kingpin Act targets, on a worldwide basis, significant foreign narcotics traffickers, their organizations, and operatives.
Background
The Kingpin Act became law on December 3, 1999. Its purpose is to deny significant foreign narcotics traffickers, their related businesses, and their operatives access to the U.S. financial system and to prohibit all trade and transactions between the traffickers and U.S. companies and individuals. The Kingpin Act authorizes the President to take these actions when he determines that a foreign person plays a significant role in international narcotics trafficking. Congress modeled the Kingpin Act on the effective sanctions program that the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) administers against the Colombian drug cartels pursuant to Executive Order 12978 issued in October 1995 (“Executive Order 12978”) under authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”).
Implementation
The Kingpin Act requires that the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency coordinate to identify drug kingpins and propose them to the President for sanctions. The Department of Homeland Security and the Directorate of National Intelligence are also included in the process. The Act calls for the President to report to specified congressional committees by June 1 of each year on those “foreign persons [he] determines are appropriate for sanctions” and stating his intent to impose sanctions upon those Significant Foreign Narcotics Traffickers pursuant to the Act. While previous Presidential determinations have been tied to the statutory June 1 timetable, the President may also identify Significant Foreign Narcotics Traffickers at any other time pursuant to the Act.
Under the Kingpin Act, the President may identify foreign entities as well as foreign individuals as Significant Foreign Narcotics Traffickers, or “kingpins”: a foreign person is defined in the Act as “any citizen or national of a foreign state or any entity not organized under the laws of the United States, but does not include a foreign state.” Likewise, the President is not required to designate Colombian persons exclusively under Executive Order 12978, and may impose sanctions on a Colombian individual or entity under the Kingpin Act, which is intended to be global in scope.
The long-term effectiveness of the Kingpin Act is enhanced by the Department of the Treasury’s authority (in consultation with appropriate government agencies and departments) under the Act to make derivative designations of foreign individuals and entities that provide specified types of support or assistance to designated traffickers, or that are owned or controlled by such traffickers, or that act on their behalf. This authority broadens the scope of application of the economic sanctions against kingpins to include their businesses and operatives. Including this year’s action, the President has named a total of 78 Significant Foreign Narcotics Traffickers since the first set of kingpins was announced on June 1, 2000. The Department of the Treasury’s OFAC has issued a total of 496 derivative designations pursuant to its authorities under the Kingpin Act; these entities and individuals are subject to the same sanctions that apply to kingpins.
Individuals who violate the Kingpin Act are subject to criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison and/or fines pursuant to Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Entities that violate the Act face criminal penalties in the form of fines up to $10 million; officers, directors, or agents of an entity who knowingly participate in a violation of the Kingpin Act are subject to criminal penalties of up to 30 years in imprison and/or a $5 million fine. The Kingpin Act also provides for civil penalties of up to $1.075 million against individuals or entities that violate its provisions.
Foreign Narcotics Traffickers Identified for Sanctions
The foreign persons that the President has identified today as appropriate for sanctions pursuant to the Kingpin Act are:
Sinaloa Cartel
Los Zetas
La Familia Michoacana
These names are being added to the list of kingpins first announced in June 2000 and updated every year since then. A complete list of individuals and entities sanctioned under the Kingpin Act can be found at www.treasury.gov/ofac.
President Barack Obama’s Weekly Address: Transcript
President Barack Obama
Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
Saturday, April 11, 2009
I speak to you today during a time that is holy and filled with meaning for believers around the world. Earlier this week, Jewish people gathered with family and friends to recite the stories of their ancestors’ struggle and ultimate liberation. Tomorrow, Christians of all denominations will come together to rejoice and remember the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
These are two very different holidays with their own very different traditions. But it seems fitting that we mark them both during the same week. For in a larger sense, they are both moments of reflection and renewal. They are both occasions to think more deeply about the obligations we have to ourselves and the obligations we have to one another, no matter who we are, where we come from, or what faith we practice.
This idea – that we are all bound up, as Martin Luther King once said, in “a single garment of destiny”– is a lesson of all the world’s great religions. And never has it been more important for us to reaffirm that lesson than it is today – at a time when we face tests and trials unlike any we have seen in our time. An economic crisis that recognizes no borders. Violent extremism that’s claimed the lives of innocent men, women, and children from Manhattan to Mumbai. An unsustainable dependence on foreign oil and other sources of energy that pollute our air and water and threaten our planet. The proliferation of the world’s most dangerous weapons, the persistence of deadly disease, and the recurrence of age-old conflicts.
These are challenges that no single nation, no matter how powerful, can confront alone. The United States must lead the way. But our best chance to solve these unprecedented problems comes from acting in concert with other nations. That is why I met with leaders of the G-20 nations to ensure that the world’s largest economies take strong and unified action in the face of the global economic crisis. Together, we’ve taken steps to stimulate growth, restore the flow of credit, open markets, and dramatically reform our financial regulatory system to prevent such crises from occurring again – steps that will lead to job creation at home.
It is only by working together that we will finally defeat 21st century security threats like al Qaeda. So it was heartening that our NATO allies united in Strasbourg behind our strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and contributed important resources to support our effort there.
It is only by coordinating with countries around the world that we will stop the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons. That is why I laid out a strategy in Prague for us to work with Russia and other nations to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons; to secure nuclear materials from terrorists; and, ultimately, to free the world from the menace of a nuclear nightmare.
And it is only by building a new foundation of mutual trust that we will tackle some of our most entrenched problems. That is why, in Turkey, I spoke to members of Parliament and university students about rising above the barriers of race, region, and religion that too often divide us.
With all that is at stake today, we cannot afford to talk past one another. We can’t afford to allow old differences to prevent us from making progress in areas of common concern. We can’t afford to let walls of mistrust stand. Instead, we have to find – and build on – our mutual interests. For it is only when people come together, and seek common ground, that some of that mistrust can begin to fade. And that is where progress begins.
Make no mistake: we live in a dangerous world, and we must be strong and vigilant in the face of these threats. But let us not allow whatever differences we have with other nations to stop us from coming together around those solutions that are essential to our survival and success.
As we celebrate Passover, Easter, and this time of renewal, let’s find strength in our shared resolve and purpose in our common aspirations. And if we can do that, then not only will we fulfill the sacred meaning of these holy days, but we will fulfill the promise of our country as a leader around the world.
Somali Pirates Ready To Negotiate A Deal! If The Price Is Right!
Somali pirates have restarted negotiations for the release of U.S. ship captain Richard Phillips Saturday. A Somali pirate has said that the captain will be released in exchange for an undisclosed amount of ransom money and safe passage.
Two U.S. warships are currently monitoring the Somali pirate situation off the coast of East Africa. Somali pirates say that one of their sources has revealed a plot by the U.S. to stage a raid. If this happens, Somali pirates claim that they will execute Phillips. Previously, Somali pirates stated that they would not harm the U.S. captain.
Somali pirate Da’ud said that “negotiations failed yesterday, but still there is another hope to begin again.”
John McCain: Please Issue A Presidential Pardon For Jack Johnson, President Obama!
Wednesday former Presidential candidate John McCain, Rep. Peter King, filmmaker Ken Burns and the great niece of the first African American Heavy Weight Champion of the world, Jack Johnson, announced a resolution urging President Barack Obama to grant Johnson a presidential pardon. Jack Johnson was convicted in 1913 of violating the Mann Act that prohibited African Americans from having a consensual relationship with Caucasian Americans. Johnson was known to have had liaisons with Caucasian women and in fact had three Caucasian wives: Etta Terry Duryea, Lucille Cameron, and his widow, Irene Pineau.
Johnson ran from the law but later surrendered to Federal authorities on July 20, 1920 and spent one year in Leavenworth.
Jack Johnson was the best professional boxer of his era and endured tremendous racism for his athletic abilities. Johnson fought and masterfully won countless boxing matches against Caucasian peers to the chagrin of the boxing world and the press. This led to calls for “a great white hope” that would put “the nigger ape” back in his “rightful place.” The search for the “great white hope” ended with a so-called hero named James Jeffries. The match was called “the fight of the century.”
On July 4, 1910, “the fight of the century” was won by a knock out that left Jeffries teeth embedded in Johnson’s glove. Because of the Caucasian communities anger and frustration at Johnson’s win, “race riots” occurred across the U.S. leaving 23 African Americans dead and numerous others injured. Johnson held on to the Heavy Weight Championship title from 1908-1915. Jack Johnson was also the first celebrity athlete. Johnson endorsed various products in print and radio ads. Jack Johnson also made several movie appearances.
Jack Johnson endured and fought against racist attitudes all his life. The day of his death, Johnson argued with a North Carolina diner owner over not being served because of his cultural identity. So enraged by this injustice, Jack Johnson left the diner angered and lost control of his car, crashed and died in 1946 at the age of 68.
President Barack Obama’s Statement On Auto Industry Bailout: Transcript
Remarks of President Barack Obama—As prepared for delivery
Announcement on the Auto Industry
March 30, 2009
Washington, DC
One of the challenges we have confronted from the beginning of this administration is what to do about the state of our struggling auto industry. In recent months, my Auto Task Force has been reviewing requests by General Motors and Chrysler for additional government assistance as well as plans developed by each of these companies to restructure, modernize, and make themselves more competitive. Our evaluation is now complete. But before I lay out what needs to be done going forward, I want to say a few words about where we are, and what led us to this point.
It will come as a surprise to no one that some of the Americans who have suffered most during this recession have been those in the auto industry and those working for companies that support it. Over the past year, our auto industry has shed over 400,000 jobs, not only at the plants that produce cars but at the businesses that produce the parts that go into them, and the dealers that sell and repair them. More than one in ten Michigan residents is out of work – the most of any state. And towns and cities across the great Midwest have watched unemployment climb higher than it’s been in decades.
The pain being felt in places that rely on our auto industry is not the fault of our workers, who labor tirelessly and desperately want to see their companies succeed. And it is not the fault of all the families and communities that supported manufacturing plants throughout the generations. Rather, it is a failure of leadership – from Washington to Detroit – that led our auto companies to this point.
Year after year, decade after decade, we have seen problems papered-over and tough choices kicked down the road, even as foreign competitors outpaced us. Well, we have reached the end of that road. And we, as a nation, cannot afford to shirk responsibility any longer. Now is the time to confront our problems head-on and do what’s necessary to solve them.
We cannot, we must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish. This industry is, like no other, an emblem of the American spirit; a once and future symbol of America’s success. It is what helped build the middle class and sustained it throughout the 20th century. It is a source of deep pride for the generations of American workers whose hard work and imagination led to some of the finest cars the world has ever known. It is a pillar of our economy that has held up the dreams of millions of our people. But we also cannot continue to excuse poor decisions. And we cannot make the survival of our auto industry dependent on an unending flow of tax dollars. These companies – and this industry – must ultimately stand on their own, not as wards of the state.
That is why the federal government provided General Motors and Chrysler with emergency loans to prevent their sudden collapse at the end of last year – only on the condition that they would develop plans to restructure. In keeping with that agreement, each company has submitted a plan to restructure. But after careful analysis, we have determined that neither goes far enough to warrant the substantial new investments that these companies are requesting. And so today, I am announcing that my administration will offer GM and Chrysler a limited period of time to work with creditors, unions, and other stakeholders to fundamentally restructure in a way that would justify an investment of additional tax dollars; a period during which they must produce plans that would give the American people confidence in their long-term prospects for success.
What we are asking is difficult. It will require hard choices by companies. It will require unions and workers who have already made painful concessions to make even more. It will require creditors to recognize that they cannot hold out for the prospect of endless government bailouts. Only then can we ask American taxpayers who have already put up so much of their hard-earned money to once more invest in a revitalized auto industry. But I am confident that if we are each willing to do our part, then this restructuring, as painful as it will be in the short-term, will mark not an end, but a new beginning for a great American industry; an auto industry that is once more out-competing the world; a 21st century auto industry that is creating new jobs, unleashing new prosperity, and manufacturing the fuel-efficient cars and trucks that will carry us toward an energy independent future. I am absolutely committed to working with Congress and the auto companies to meet one goal: the United States of America will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars.
But our auto industry is not moving in the right direction fast enough to succeed. So let me discuss what measures need to be taken by each of the auto companies requesting taxpayer assistance, starting with General Motors. While GM has made a good faith effort to restructure over the past several months, the plan they have put forward is, in its current form, not strong enough. However, after broad consultations with a range of industry experts and financial advisors, I’m confident that GM can rise again, provided that it undergoes a fundamental restructuring. As an initial step, GM is announcing today that Rick Wagoner is stepping aside as Chairman and CEO. This is not meant as a condemnation of Mr. Wagoner, who has devoted his life to this company; rather, it’s a recognition that it will take a new vision and new direction to create the GM of the future.
In this context, my administration will offer General Motors adequate working capital over the next 60 days. During this time, my team will be working closely with GM to produce a better business plan. They must ask themselves: have they consolidated enough unprofitable brands? Have they cleaned up their balance sheets or are they still saddled with so much debt that they can’t make future investments? And above all, have they created a credible model for how to not only survive, but succeed in this competitive global market? Let me be clear: the United States government has no interest or intention of running GM. What we are interested in is giving GM an opportunity to finally make those much-needed changes that will let them emerge from this crisis a stronger and more competitive company.
The situation at Chrysler is more challenging. It is with deep reluctance but also a clear-eyed recognition of the facts that we have determined, after a careful review, that Chrysler needs a partner to remain viable. Recently, Chrysler reached out and found what could be a potential partner – the international car company Fiat, where the current management team has executed an impressive turnaround. Fiat is prepared to transfer its cutting-edge technology to Chrysler and, after working closely with my team, has committed to building new fuel-efficient cars and engines here in America. We have also secured an agreement that will ensure that Chrysler repays taxpayers for any new investments that are made before Fiat is allowed to take a majority ownership stake in Chrysler.
Still, such a deal would require an additional investment of tax dollars, and there are a number of hurdles that must be overcome to make it work. I am committed to doing all I can to see if a deal can be struck in a way that upholds the interests of American taxpayers. That is why we will give Chrysler and Fiat 30 days to overcome these hurdles and reach a final agreement – and we will provide Chrysler with adequate capital to continue operating during that time. If they are able to come to a sound agreement that protects American taxpayers, we will consider lending up to $6 billion to help their plan succeed. But if they and their stakeholders are unable to reach such an agreement, and in the absence of any other viable partnership, we will not be able to justify investing additional tax dollar to keep Chrysler in business.
While Chrysler and GM are very different companies with very different paths forward, both need a fresh start to implement the restructuring plans they develop. That may mean using our bankruptcy code as a mechanism to help them restructure quickly and emerge stronger. Now, I know that when people even hear the word “bankruptcy” it can be a bit unsettling, so let me explain what I mean. What I am talking about is using our existing legal structure as a tool that, with the backing of the U.S. government, can make it easier for General Motors and Chrysler to quickly clear away old debts that are weighing them down so they can get back on their feet and onto a path to success; a tool that we can use, even as workers are staying on the job building cars that are being sold. What I am not talking about is a process where a company is broken up, sold off, and no longer exists. And what I am not talking about is having a company stuck in court for years, unable to get out.
It is my hope that the steps I am announcing today will go a long way toward answering many of the questions people may have about the future of GM and Chrysler. But just in case there are still nagging doubts, let me say it as plainly as I can – if you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired, just like always. Your warrantee will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it’s ever been. Because starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warrantee.
But we must also recognize that the difficulties facing this industry are due in no small part to the weakness in our economy. Therefore, to support demand for auto sales during this period, I’m directing my team to take several steps. First, we will ensure that Recovery Act funds to purchase government cars go out as quickly as possible and work through the budget process to accelerate other federal fleet purchases as well. Second, we will accelerate our efforts through the Treasury Department’s Consumer and Business Lending Initiative. And we are working intensively with the auto finance companies to increase the flow of credit to both consumers and dealers. Third, the IRS is today launching a campaign to alert consumers of a new tax benefit for auto purchases made between February 16th and the end of this year – if you buy a car anytime this year, you may be able to deduct the cost of any sales and excise taxes. This provision could save families hundreds of dollars and lead to as many as 100,000 new car sales.
Finally, several members of Congress have proposed an even more ambitious incentive program to increase car sales while modernizing our auto fleet. Such fleet modernization programs, which provide a generous credit to consumers who turn in old, less fuel efficient cars and purchase cleaner cars have been successful in boosting auto sales in a number of European countries. I want to work with Congress to identify parts of the Recovery Act that could be trimmed to fund such a program, and make it retroactive starting today.
Let there be no doubt, it will take an unprecedented effort on all our parts – from the halls of Congress to the boardroom, from the union hall to the factory floor – to see the auto industry through these difficult times. But I want every American to know that the path I am laying out today is our best chance to make sure the cars of the future are built where they’ve always been built – in Detroit and across the Midwest; to make America’s auto industry in the 21st century what it was in the 20th century – unsurpassed around the world. This path has been chosen after consulting with other governments that are facing this crisis. We have worked closely with the Government of Canada on GM and Chrysler, as both companies have extensive operations there. The Canadian Government has indicated its support for our approach and will be announcing their specific commitments later today.
While the steps I am talking about will have an impact on all Americans, some of our fellow citizens will be affected more than any others. And so I’d like to speak directly to all those men and women who work in the auto industry or live in the countless communities that depend on it. Many of you have been going through tough times for longer than you’d care to remember. And I will not pretend the tough times are over. I cannot promise you there isn’t more pain to come. But what I can promise you is this – I will fight for you. You are the reason I am here today. I got my start fighting for working families in the shadows of a shuttered steel plant and I wake up every single day asking myself what I can do to give you and working people all across this country a fair shot at the American dream.
When a community is struck by a natural disaster, the nation responds to put it back on its feet. While the storm that’s hit our auto towns is not a tornado or a hurricane, the damage is clear, and we must respond. That is why today, I am designating a new Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers to cut through red tape and ensure that the full resources of our federal government are leveraged to assist the workers, communities, and regions that rely on our auto industry. Edward Montgomery, a former Deputy Labor Secretary, has agreed to serve in this role. Together with Labor Secretary Solis and my Auto Task Force, Ed will help provide support to auto workers and their families, and open up opportunity in manufacturing communities. Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and every other state that relies on the auto industry will have a strong advocate in Ed. He will direct a comprehensive effort that will help lift up the hardest hit areas by using the unprecedented levels of funding available in our Recovery Act and throughout our government to create new manufacturing jobs and new businesses where they are needed most – in your communities. And he will also lead an effort to identify new initiatives we may need to help support your communities going forward.
These efforts, as essential as they are, will not make everything better overnight. There are jobs that cannot be saved. There are plants that will not reopen. And there is little I can say that can subdue the anger or ease the frustration of all whose livelihoods hang in the balance because of failures that weren’t theirs.
But there is something I want everyone to remember. Remember that it is precisely in times like these – in moments of trial, and moments of hardship – that Americans rediscover the ingenuity and resilience that makes us who we are. That made the auto industry what it once was. That sent those first mass-produced cars rolling off assembly lines. That built an arsenal of democracy that propelled America to victory in the Second World War. And that powered our economic prowess in the first American century.
Because I know that if we can tap into that same ingenuity and resilience right now; if we can carry one another through this difficult time and do what must be done; then we will look back and say that this was the moment when America’s auto industry shed its old ways, marched into the future, and remade itself, once more, into an engine of opportunity and prosperity, not only in Detroit, and not only in our Midwest, but all across America.
The Rihanna / Chris Brown Official Police Report! It Might Be A Wrap For Brown’s Music Career! But The Start Of A Promising One As A Woman Beater!
For those of you who still believe that Chris Brown was innocently “defending” himself against an “Angry Black Woman,” here is the police report that details exactly what happened, as told to officers by “Robyn F,” the victim. AKA as Rihanna:
“Brown was driving a vehicle with Robyn F. as the front passenger on an unknown street in Los Angeles. Robyn F. picked up Brown’s cellular phone and observed a three-page text message from a woman who Brown had a previous sexual relationship with.
“A verbal argument ensued and Brown pulled the vehicle over on an unknown street, reached over Robyn F. with his right hand, opened the car door and attempted to force her out. Brown was unable to force Robyn F. out of the vehicle because she was wearing a seat belt. When he could not force her to exit, he took his right hand and shoved her head against he passenger window of the vehicle, causing an approximate one-inch raised circular contusion.
“Robyn F. turned to face Brown and he punched her in the left eye with his right hand. He then drove away in the vehicle and continued to punch her in the face with his right hand while steering the vehicle with his left hand. The assault caused Robyn F.’s mouth to fill with blood and blood to splatter all over her clothing and the interior of the vehicle.
“Brown looked at Robyn F. and stated, ‘I’m going to beat the s–t out of you when we get home! You wait and see!’”
The detective said she then used her cell phone to call her personal assistant, Jennifer Rosales, who did not answer.
“Robyn F. pretended to talk to her and stated, ‘I’m on my way home. Make sure the police are there when I get there.’
“After Robyn F. faked the call, Brown looked at her and stated, ‘You just did the stupidest thing ever! Now I’m really going to kill you!’
“Brown resumed punching Robyn F. and she interlocked her fingers behind her head and brought her elbows forward to protect her face. She then bent over at the waist, placing her elbows and face near her lap in [an] attempt to protect her face and head from the barrage of punches being levied upon her by Brown.
“Brown continued to punch Robyn F. on her left arm and hand, causing her to suffer a contusion on her left triceps that was approximately two inches in diameter and numerous contusions on her left hand.
“Robyn F. then attempted to send a text message to her other personal assistant. Brown snatched the cellular telephone out of her hand and threw it out of the window onto an unknown street.
“Brown continued driving and Robyn F. observed his cellular telephone sitting in his lap. She picked up the cellular telephone with her left hand and before she could make a call he placed her in a head lock with his right hand and continued to drive the vehicle with his left hand.
“Brown pulled Robyn F. close to him and bit her on her left ear. She was able to feel the vehicle swerving from right to left as Brown sped away. He stopped the vehicle … and Robyn F. turned off the car, removed the key from the ignition and sat on it.
“Brown did not know what she did with the key and began punching her in the face and arms. He then placed her in a head lock positioning the front of her throat between his bicep and forearm. Brown began applying pressure to Robyn F.’s left and right carotid arteries, causing her to be unable to breathe and she began to lose consciousness.
“She reached up with her left hand and began attempting to gouge his eyes in an attempt to free herself. Brown bit her left ring and middle fingers and then released her. While Brown continued to punch her, she turned around and placed her back against the passenger door. She brought her knees to her chest, placed her feet against Brown’s body and began pushing him away. Brown continued to punch her on the legs and feet, causing several contusions.
“Robyn F. began screaming for help and Brown exited the vehicle and walked away. A resident in the neighborhood heard Robyn F.’s plea for help and called 911, causing a police response. An investigation was conducted and Robyn F. was issued a Domestic Violence Emergency Protective Order.”
Beyonce: Michelle Obama Says I’m A Role Model For Her Daughters! Oh, Really?
Reports from various media outlets are reporting a strange and highly suspect quote given by Beyonce Knowles to a British publication concerning a conversation that allegedly took place between herself and First Lady Michelle Obama.
The suspect quote comes from a conversation about Beyonce’s ‘role model’ status in the Obama girls’ lives. Check this quote out folks:
“She {Michelle Obama}told me that she was very happy that her children had an artist like myself and — I don’t even feel right saying this – she said she was happy they had me to look up to.”
Now, what is really suspect and creepy about this statement is that out of all the women that First Lady Michelle Obama could have selected as a role model for her daughters, she chose Beyonce? How in the world can that be? If we are to half-way believe Beyonce, is it possible that Michelle Obama was humoring her? You know, trying to be nice? It has to be that because it is very hard to believe that an Ivy League graduate such as Michelle Obama would be hard-pressed in finding suitable role models for her growing daughters.
This is not a Beyonce bashing commentary. But this is an interesting study in what and who are role models for African American girls. Beyonce is quite beautiful and talented. She is a decent entertainer. But is she a role model? In conflicting interviews over the years, it can be rightly assumed that Ms. Knowles does not have a high school diploma or a GED. If this is not true, Beyonce fans, I stand corrected. Some interviews she say she was homeschooled and never attended high school. In other interviews, she says she attended high school. However, with a career that has grown in leaps and bounds since the late 1990′s, it is understandable that Beyonce wouldn’t have had the time for a formal education.
Has Beyonce sought secondary education? Like a college or university education? No. Yet, some can say that she doesn’t need one. Perhaps. But what about young African American women coming up who won’t see the superstardom or money that Beyonce does? As a role model, does Beyonce exemplify and re-enforce this fundamental ideology that is essential to uplifting young African American girls out of poverty and single motherhood?
If we are to believe this quote, then it would definitely dim the historical and philosophical sense of accomplishment that African Americans and people of color all over the world experienced the moment President Obama accepted the oath of office. Why? Simply because it is highly unlikely that President Barack Obama became the man that he did by using Fred Williamson, Dolemite, Iceberg Slim, Jim Brown, Richard Roundtree and Ron O’Neal as role models. Not that some these weren’t fine specimen of sexy, talented African American men. Not that each didn’t contribute in some way to the African American canvas. Just that it is unlikely.
Same with First Lady Michelle Obama. It is hard to even swallow that Beyonce would be on a list of African American women that she would hold as a role model for her girls. It is plausible that the First Lady has come in contact with some pretty educated and successful African American women. Oprah. Maya Angelou. The sista that read a poem at the inauguration. How about widening the net to include educated and successful women period. What a pool to draw from!
Honestly speaking, are we to believe that the President and First Lady foresee in their precious daughters future a career dancing in front of millions of people, barely clothed, dressed provocatively, sexually gyrating for salivating hot, horny men (and Lesbians)? Especially if they are not ballerinas? Sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it?
That is why that quote is suspect. It doesn’t make sense that the Obamas wouldn’t hold their daughters to the same high standards and principles that propelled them beyond their wildest dreams! It is safe to bet that Barack Obama does not want see his daughters on MTV or BET shaking it and saying “if you like it, put a ring on it!” To be completely blunt, I think that President Barack Obama will have that conversation personally with any gentleman caller coming to court his girls. Not the other way around.
In conclusion, why in the world would Michelle Obama call Beyonce a role model in the first place for her daughters when the real, hard core role model is the very one that birthed them? So, either Beyonce is embellishing or somebody in the UK should get their quotes right because there is no way that we are going to believe that the Obamas have ear-marked her as a bonified role model for their daughters!
Thank You, Media Take Out!
The Washington Review & Commentary
Recent Comments