“Let me say, today there are several issues I that I want to address. And I want to get quickly to them. I have not announced or decided on a presidential run, so I am not announcing a platform to run. But I am announcing concerns that should be addressed by anyone that intends to run and intends to solicit the votes of people that are concerned about the progress of this nation. First, I am outright insulted as well as offended by the silence that we’ve heard in Washington by some of what is going on in the Middle East conflict. In October of last year, I went to the Middle East. I went and met with Shamon Peres, the Foreign Minister. I met with Mr. Yasir Arafat, the President of the Palestinian Authority. I said at that time that the United States should move forward to (A) deal with the security of Israel but deal with the Palestinian State and deal with what was going on in terms of terrorism against those that were non-military civilians. It took, in my judgment, too long for the Bush administration to directly engage in what was going on there. The trip by Secretary [Colin] Powell, which was appropriate and ended up breaking the stalemate at the compound, in my judgment could have happened long ago. But I rise today to say that there must be real and genuine effort to also break the stalemate that is occurring as I speak, in Bethlehem, at the Church of the Nativity. I do not think that we can stand or sit in a world that allows certain places to even become engulfed in war. The birthplace of Jesus should be off grounds to all engaged in any military operation. And both sides that have engaged—it doesn’t matter who starts it—both sides should be denounced for having engaged in violent activity in this place. I think that we should have the same position in Mecca, the same position [at] the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, and there should be an effort around the world to say that some things should remain sacred and some places should be untouchable—even as we engage in war. I have asked the Reverend W. Franklin Richardson who co-chairs the Board of the National Action Network, to head an ecumenical group to go and meet with both the representative of the Palestinian Authority here in the United States and the representatives of Israel to begin a moral appeal to them to commit to back off of the Church of the Nativity. I think that it is imperative that the White House today help to lead the charge to say that they will do whatever is necessary within their powers to remove those forces on either side that have now engaged in activity that puts blood in the birth site of Jesus. It is interesting to me, that we are in the midst of an Administration that claims so much faith, but ignores the birthplace of Jesus Christ—who, I would have the same position if it was the birthplace of any central figure of any religion in the world—I cannot understand those that become selectively religious or engage in selective respect of those of us that have faith.

“Secondly, I am concerned as I read of the intentions of this Administration to engage in war or invasion in Iraq. According to last Sunday’s New York Times, the United States under the Bush Administration is planning to go into Iraq with 70 to 250 thousand troops. I think that the Congress has a responsibility to call this Administration before it and to question what is the rational and the implications of such an act. What will it mean to those efforts to try and make allies in the Arab world? What will it mean to those that will be expose to all kinds of danger around the world? What will it mean to those of us that are concerned about military buildup, rather than intelligence gathering and the issue of diplomacy being limited to parts of the world? Are we going into the President trying to finish his father’s term, or are we engaged in intelligent and necessary military strategy? I think that it is important that I note my utter concern and my utter disappointment with many of the people of the Democratic Party that have sat in the Congress in silence and allowed the Bush Administration to intimidate us into saying nothing about very critical issues, which brings me to concerns [on] the domestic agenda.

“I attended the Senate judiciary hearings where John Ashcroft came to deal with anti-terrorist legislation and the PATRIOT ACT. And he, in effect, raised the notion that if one disagreed them, the inference was that one was unpatriotic. In fact, he said, “Are you with them or us?” Never clearly defining who “them” were and who “us” was. And the suggestion has become, in my opinion, that patriotism now is, are you a Right Wing Republican that supports Bush, not whether you believe in doing what is good and what is protective of America. Let me say from the outset, there is nothing that I would support to harm this country, because we are an intricate part of this country. We fought in the Civil Rights Movement because we wanted rights in the nation and we fought to make this a more perfect Union. But not questioning foreign or domestic policies does not make one patriotic. In my judgment, it makes one unpatriotic—because to submit to the kind of mindless type of behavior that we are being asked to now, is to validate those that are around the world saying that America does not represent what it should represent in terms of free thought and the electoral process and democratic views. I think to have a nation that stifles questioning and punishes dissent is to justify those that have given this nation a bad name all over the world… So we are now where we cannot even argue on behalf of the Constitution in the United States. And the Democratic Party, that I think should be leading the opposition in this, has come down with a bad case of political laryngitis. There has been utter silence in many of these cases and in fact, if I did choose to run, or do choose to run, some of those that are flirting with running have in fact sat in the Senate and voted for some of the same proposals that I am questioning.

“In the same line, I’m very concerned about legislation that is now pending that will call for photo i.d. for new voter registrars. As we have embarked upon voter registration with many concerns, including the announced Truth-Hamer Initiative of registering women, including those that are registering in other communities. I think that it is, in my judgment, a very sad day if we allow legislation to go in that will in fact stifle and deter many people from registering to vote if they are required to come with photo id and in many ways intimidated and these things are used as deterrents rather than used to encourage people to engage in the voting process. I might say as an aside, that it is very interesting to me that, while we have yet to pass in the House serious election legislation, we still can preach democracy all over the world. It must be ironic to some that we, after Florida, could talk about sending election observers anywhere. I think we need election observers in Tallahassee and in Miami, and in many other parts of the world. But again, my concern is the lack of those that have even raised a voice of concern.

“…I want to make it very clear that in the present atmosphere, that it is in my deepest thoughts that [neither] the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party can continue in the present relationship it has with people of color in this country and others that have sought to be treated as full American citizens. We have been basically taken for granted by one Party and ignored by the other Party and I think that we must, in 2004, renegotiate those relationships. I do not think that it is in the interest of any community to be in the back pocket of one that will sit down on you or to be left on the counter by the other that tries to marginalize your value. No one should have the comfort of feeling that they can play push off politics in 2004. What am I talking about? In the [19]80’s, there was a progressive movement that rose in the national Democratic Party and…helped to define that Party as a pro-workers, pro-peace, pro-working class as opposed to pro-business type of Party that stood for the principles that made it attractive in the first place… The Party of today is not the Party of Roosevelt, or of Linden Johnson, or of Adam Clayton Powell, or of Fannie Lou Hamer. There are those that hold too much sway in the Party that are pro-death penalty, pro-military build-up, pro-tax cut, pro-cut social programs, pro-silence on social justice; and I think that they must be challenged because the formation of these ‘right of Center’ parts of the Democratic Party have not sufficiently been challenged. They will be challenged in 2004, because the results are that we have seen a loss in many of the political gains that were made and we have seen an erosion in some of the principles and policies that protect us. …As I speak today, we are in a nation that no person of color sits in the United States Senate; no person of color is Governor. After the 80’s, we did elect Carol Moseley-Braun to the US Senate, we did elect Doug Wilder to the governorship of Virginia, we did increase those that were in the Congress. I think that one would have to ask when we stopped national mobilization, and stopped questioning at a presidential level where we were going, we did not gain politically—we lost. Then there are those that will come and say, ‘Well, Reverend, there’s a different time now. The issues that…necessitated a movement in the 60’s are no longer there.’ Well, I would beg to differ. Today: the Institute of Medicine released a report, a little under 600 pages about five weeks ago, saying that healthcare for Blacks was marketably different than healthcare for Whites with the same income, same education, same…insurance. We see in today’s papers the same is true for people of color with AIDS research… We see infant mortality in communities of color double of that of other communities. [In] the Criminal Justice System we still see data from government that clearly states that if you’re Black or Latino, you’re prone to go to jail longer than a White with the same criminal background and the same charge against them. So, it is easy for those that do not suffer inequality to act like it is better than it was when it wasn’t bad for them in the first place. It is, as Malcolm X used to say, if someone sticks a knife in your back six inches and you take two inches out, it’s easy for the guy with the knife to say he’s made progress. But if it is your back, you still are fighting to get it all the way out. And I think that we are challenged to deal with that, and deal with it in a very dramatic and effective and poignant way.

“We at National Action Network at our recent Convention came out with several ways that we are specifically going to address some of these matters. One, we continue to have a problem of racial bias in the Advertising Industry. …If we do not have the use of minority media, we cannot impact upon public opinion and we certainly cannot approach a real national debate. …In this present world that not only are we seeing a withdrawal of advertising dollars, but we’re seeing a consolidation of media entities that has really brought us to where several people will control how we get public information in this country—which, I believe is undemocratic and unhealthy for the country—it is more important than ever to protect those entities in the so-called minority community (Black and Latino and Asian), that their entities are supported by those corporate advertising dollars and those public tax payer dollars that these companies enjoy consumption from. So we announced at our Convention, that we are going to court to enforce the President’s Executive Order that requires that public funds that are given to ad agencies, that a large percentage of that be concentrated with minority entities. The fact is that President Clinton signed the Order and the Order has been ignored by those on Madison Avenue and by those corporations that engage those agencies on Madison Avenue, but more troubling, by the government agencies themselves that are spending public tax payer dollars in violation of a President’s Order. We’re not asking for a reissuing of the Order. We’re going to court to sue for noncompliance with the Order. And no advertising agency on Madison Avenue that handles public funds that has not complied will be exempt from our coming after them. And no department of government should be exempt. Clearly, I’m sure President Bush would agree that if he is talking about using young men and women in this country for war that the Army’s budget and the Navy’s budget should at least comply with the President’s Executive Order. Isn’t it a contradiction to tell young people that you can ‘be all that you can be in the Army’ but you can’t be all that you can be in business, in the media world? So, at one level, you can be great and another level, we can discriminate. We are going after that with all we can muster. Attorney Johnnie Cochran, Attorney Louis Myers, Attorney Michael Hardy will be leading in that class action suit.

“And the registration drive that we announced at our Convention to register 1 million women by 2004 is a drive to make sure that not only are women held accountable, but there must be a direct initiative to deal with mobilizing and energizing those became marginalized by efforts in the past. The idea of going in women’s shelters, the idea of going in our churches and our community centers and getting those that have been left out of the process is more important now than it ever was because it’s time that we hear from all of America, not just the America of some.

“I think that as we embark on the next two years, that it is important that the debate be honest, the debate be open and that we not have four of five people that we question whether they can say the same thing better than the other. We have reduced presidential contests to who can say the same thing best, rather than who is saying the best thing. We have reduced it to who can put the best spin, rather than who can tell the most truth. And we’ve reduced public service to a title, rather than to service...

“I think that it is important that we, in this time in American history be very clear that the civil rights movement and the civil rights needs of a movement are far from over. Because of the data I’ve said and other things, there will be those that say, ‘Is it divisive to raise the issue of race?’ I say it’s divisive not to raise it, until you solve it. It is absurd to act as though the way to bring the nation together is not to honestly discuss our differences. It is much more polarizing to ignore people that are in pain or ignore people that are being treated in an unequal and unfair way than it is to engage it and deal with it. The Republicans act like it’s not there. The Democrats act like we’d rather not talk about it. Hence, the policies of both must be impacted and dealt with in the coming elections.

“Lastly, the question of patriotism is a question near and dear to us. And I raise it because I was questioned recently in Los Angeles by a …journalist who said to me, ‘Reverend Sharpton, I don’t think African Americans are as patriotic as other Americans.’ And I said, ‘why would you say that?’ He said, ‘well, I was riding around [an] African American community the other day, and I didn’t see as many flags there as I saw in other communities. I said, ‘I understand. So, you took your one ride through the ‘hood and you didn’t see as many flags as you see other places. So your conclusion is that we are not as patriotic as others. If you hung around our community longer, you would have noticed there are a lot of things we don’t have that they have in other communities.’ But the fact of the matter is that no one has been more patriotic than the African American community because we fought for America when America would not fight for us. We’ve defended a flag that would not defend us. Imagine how patriotic it is to go into a foreign nation and fight against enemies that could come to your nation and enjoy rights that you could not enjoy, that could eat in restaurants that you could not eat in, that could sleep in hotels that you couldn’t sleep [in]. To preach to us about patriotism to me is an absolute offense. And to tell me, ‘Reverend, let’s wave one flag’—weren’t these some of the same people that defended the use of the Confederate Flag just a few months ago? When did you have a one flag philosophy? We are the ones that always believed in trying to make this country what it should be. We are the ones that put our lives on the line, when we were looked upon by law to be less than what we are. So, if anyone can teach Americans about patriotism, it’s those that believed in America when America didn’t believe in them. I guess that’s why President Bush named the campaign against terrorism at first the ‘We Shall Overcome’ campaign—because he probably knew that if we were going to have the spiritual and character strength to survive this ugly and despicable act of September 11th, that we should remember those that walked against police dogs and against irons and cattle prods, and spent nights in jail in the south. Some kind of way, Richard Nixon’s song didn’t apply then. Barry Goldwater’s song wouldn’t have inspired the nation. Maybe ‘We Shall Overcome’ reminded the nation about moral strength and about facing the odds, and about making it when it seems hopeless. Maybe that’s why he thought about the song ‘We Shall Overcome.’ I just hope one day he will join me in singing it. Thank you very much.”