Press Office of Orenda Naaz Jackson-Cortez

[Orenda Naaz Jackson-Cortez]

This is the press office of Congresswoman Orenda Naaz Jackson-Cortez, republican representative of the New York 19th district. This will provide both news information related to Congresswoman Jackson-Cortez as well as being open for letters and questions directed to the congresswoman.

[Orenda Naaz Jackson-Cortez]

Following the recent attack ad from the Democratic party on Republican attitudes to immigrants, minorities and terrorism I sought out one of the more outspoken of the minority members of the Republican party for her views.

Q: Congresswoman Jackson-Cortez, thank you for agreeing to speak with me. By now, you must have heard of the Democrats add “Leading the Way to a Better America.” I was wondering if you, as a leading Black Republican had a response.

A: Thank you for asking me to talk with you. Since this is an attack ad about how we Republicans treat all non-white groups, I would like to make it clear that I am not just a Black Republican though. I am quarter African American, quarter Hispanic, quarter Iroquois and quarter Indian. I have seen the ad – who hasn’t. Frankly, it’s disheartening that the Democrats rely on such deception and fraud to try to trick people into voting for them. After all these years of Democratic attack ads, it makes you wonder if they are capable of running a campaign on a platform other than “We’re not Republican.”

Q: You describe the ad as merely an attack ad, but could you answer some of the accusations made in it? For instance, what of the speech by William Power – Keeping your Kinsmen Clean.

A: Obviously, Mr. Power and I disagree on some issues. We are both Republicans, we both speak for our own electorates, and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that we are different. Mr. Reynolds, however, appears to take the standpoint that if he can find one Republican who holds an opinion that he dislikes then that Republican speaks for all. I’m sure that with research I could find Democrats who have supported groups such as NAMBLA or received funding from the international drugs trade – but would it be logical to assume that meant ALL Democrats were like that? Of course not. Perhaps more worrying is the question of what other groups Mr. Reynolds feels should all be treated as though they are one: does he, for instance, think all African Americans are like Sean John Combs? Does he treat all Native Americans as if each were a modern Pocahontas? And does he presume a Saudi Arabian such as Osama Bin Laden is just the same as the law-abiding citizens in our country who have Saudi ancestry? When people begin to describe groups according to any one member it is problematic. When a congressional leader does so, it is dangerous.

Q: What about the border fence, and the “Seal the Border” initiative of RNC leader McLaughlin?

A: Living in the New England area I do not feel that I have gained sufficient expertise to comment on those proposals specifically. That is a major border, however, and a major entry point for illegal aliens. Again, Mr. Reynolds argues that as this country was originally built on immigration – like most others if you go far enough back in time – all immigrants should be treated as people who will be beneficial for the nation. That is blatantly ridiculous. He claims to have a sensible plan on immigration, but all that he describes is an open-border which would let anyone in. Not only would that be a boon to terrorists, but the rise in international crime such as drug trafficking and the commercial sexual exploitation of children would find the USA easy pickings under such a policy. Is that what anyone would call a sensible policy?

Q: It sounds as though you are angry at the DNC leader.

A: Frustrated, certainly, and sadly not just at him. Repeatedly several Democrats have used attack ads and slur campaigns such as this to try to trick people into voting for them rather than convince them by laying out a real plan for the future. They either conveniently ignore history or deliberately hide it: history such as the fact that lynchings after the civil war were supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans; history such as the fact that the recent administration to have two African American members of the cabinet was the Bush Republican administration who had Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell; even the recent history of their own party where two African Americans primaried the Presidency late last century – Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson – and both were blocked at the primary. Now having met Mr. Reynolds in the house, I can tell you he is not an uneducated man. That being the case, we can only assume his omissions are ones of deceit and not ignorance.

Q: I know it is getting late, Congresswoman, so I will just ask if you have any closing remarks?

A: Yes. Some people ask me how I can be a member of ethnic minority groups and a Republican, but consider the implication of recent Democratic party behavior towards racial minorities, including the apparent message underlying this most recent attack ad, and you’ll see that it is difficult to be an intelligent member of any minority and not be Republican. I do not want to assume all Democrats are as duplicitous as this attack ad suggests, and certainly I have met some Democrats who seem more reasonable and less deceitful, but the number of times things like this have come out of the Democratic party’s offices in recent years makes me wonder if there has not been a covert return to racism and lawlessness by the party hierarchy. Oh and in conclusion, given the apparent stance on opening the border to international crime that is suggested by the ad… do we truly know who all of Mr. Reynolds’ supporters and financers are?

[Orenda Naaz Jackson-Cortez]

I spent over two hours on the phone trying to get through to Congresswoman Jackson-Cortez following the statements leading Democrats Jenkins and Reynolds made in response to her earlier interview. It is hardly surprising that the phones of her mobile office have been ringing so solidly since then. By the time I got through it was nearly midnight, but after a day travelling to her next campaign stop, a day of constant conversations with callers, the congresswoman was still happy to respond to my questions.

Q: Congresswoman, I know by now you must be tired of having to answer the phone...

A: <an exhausted chuckle> Not tired of, just tired. Yes, it's been an exhausting day, but there comes a time when you just have to speak out.

Q: If I might have a moment of your time, I wanted to ask what your response is to Jenkins and Reynolds who openly laughed at your interview and ridiculed you as lacking historical understanding.

A: Sadly, it doesn't surprise me. This is politics, not a high-school. You would hope that leading speakers for the political parties would respect one another no matter how much they disagree. When I spoke out against the omissions of the materially empty attack ad produced by the Democratic leader, I refrained from insult and ridicule. I admitted frustration, but stuck to the issues. They, however, seem to feel that laughing at someone who disagrees with them is the mature response... You know, I want to take back my comparison to high schools. With education being so important I have spoken to children and parents at several and I can honestly say that most of the children I have spoken to have acted more maturely than their recent outbursts. Sad, but true.

Q: Perhaps you can address the attitude of disbelief many have expressed about your characterization of a black man as rascist.

A: It is not popular to talk about, but you need to understand that racial prejudice does exist within minority groups. If we're honest, very few African Americans can say they have not been called "too black" or "not black enough" by other African Americans. There are similar terms among Latinos, among Native Americans and so forth. The origins of that are historical oppression and to deny that it exists is to support that oppression. In my experience, and in the experience of anyone who hasn't lived a life with a blinkered attitude about people based on their race, people of all kinds exist in all races. Heroes and villains, activists and oppressors. It is obvious given that race is a social construct and that whatever race we are, we are all human. However, what is most ironic is that Mr. Reynolds ridiculed the idea of a racially prejudiced African American and then proceeded to characterize any African American who disagrees with him, for instance myself and Dr. Rice, as being a white man in a black woman's body. Just exactly what is that if not racial prejudice?

Q: What about the accusation that you are misinformed about history - Congressman Jenkins even waved a history book in the air to indicate you need schooling in it.

A: Frankly I was incredulous when I heard the suggestion that I research the origins of the parties. It barely needs research - the information is out there for anyone to read. It may be that he is confusing the current Republican party with the Republican party that existed in the first years of the 19th century - whether deliberately or not. That Republican party took the name Democratic Republicans and then dropped the Republican title in the 1850s with the birth of the Republican party as it is now. After that, it was simply the Democratic party. The Democratic party who were in power at the time were strong among the slave-holding South and opposed ending slavery, opposed free labor, opposed the 14th amendment and early civil rights legislation. The Republicans fought for such rights. The information is readily available. I wonder if Mr. Jenkins can really be unaware of it.

Q: That was the 19th century though. What about more recent times? I am thinking, for instance, of Republican Strom Thurman's record-breaking filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

A: At that time he was a Democrat. He had not been convinced of the wisdom of Republican party politics. It is strange that some Democrats love to quote that filibuster and fail to state that it was done on the Democratic ticket. Besides, if we have to get into "outting" prejudiced members of each party I suggest you look at Senator Roberty Byrd. He was at one time a member of the Klan, he tried to retract that position in the latter part of the 20th century but even then decribed it merely as "a mistake" and in 2001 was still using racial epithets at times. I've spoken to my own headquarters staff and asked them to liaise with GOP headquarters to ensure that as much information as possible is available on party history via our websites. I've also asked that it be made available in a format accessible to our children so that they can receive a broader education of civil rights and party politics. You'll also find that we were leading the charge to equality for women...

<she chuckled softly>

You know, if Mr. Reynold's definition of a "white man" is anyone who supports equal rights regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion etc maybe I am one. I'm not sure which dictionary he's using however since the normal definition is unrelated to an equal rights stance.

Q: That just leaves the most difficult accusation they seem to be making about your interview - that in saying any member of a minority who is not republican is stupid you were yourself being prejudiced.

A: That isn't what I said, though it is how Mr. Reynold's decided to twist it. What I said was actually a question: how can an intelligent member of a minority be anything but Republican. I was, perhaps, naive to leave such open for discussion when the Democratic leader has already shown he is ready to attack rather than debate. Let me provide a few possible answers to you.

Some Democrats feel a loyalty to that party despite the fact that their lifestyles and attitudes are Republican in nature. Just as people are loyal to their family even when they disagree, some very intelligent members of minorities within the Democratic party stay there for loyalty reasons and hope to improve it.

I mentioned before the harrassment suffered by some minorities, such as not being "black enough". I hate to say it but that is a powerful motivating force to belong to the party which itself has spurred on such harrassment at times. Statements such as "90% of African Americans vote Democrat" are not given for statistical purposes but rather to suggest that that is how a "real" African American should vote. What makes me so sure - variation in that statistic, and it has varied, are seldom reported.

Finally, the information that the Democratic party puts out - the claims that Strom Thurman was a Republican who opposed the civil rights act - tends to be misleading. We in the Republican party tend to look to the future more than the past. Therefore we speak about our plans for the future and information about all we have done that is supportive of equal rights does not get out so well. Even the most intelligent of us can only make decisions based on the information they have received. With that in mind, that is why I am pushing for more historical and educational material to be added to the GOP website. Our plans for the future are essential, our history also needs to be known.