Thursday, January 31, 2008

ABC News Uncovers Walmart Video Tapes
Exposes Hillary Was ANTI-UNION while on Board

After recently gaining the endorsement of the United farmworkers Union of California, Brian Ross of ABC News is uncovering hidden videos acquired from the Walmart Business Meeting archives which show that Hillary was anti-union and complicit with other members of the Walmart Board to do everything to make certain that Walmart remained anti-union. The videos have just become available to ABC News and will be exposed and broadcast. The videos show Hillary in board meetings absolutely silent on the subject of union formation at Walmart while stating that she was pleased with Walmart's stance in every way. Wonder how the Farmworkers Union is taking this news ? Look for more on this coming soon. To see more visit ABC News. Also, read ABC News FULL REPORT.

Visit: Blacks4Barack Official Site(A Multi-Racial Organization)

Monday, January 28, 2008

Clintons Extremely Upset With Kennedys
For Endorsing Obama
From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro

Ted Kennedy Is All In: The New York Times front-pages the news of Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama, which occurs today at 12:15 pm ET at American University in DC. "Both the Clintons and their allies had pressed Mr. Kennedy for weeks to remain neutral in the Democratic race, but Mr. Kennedy had become increasingly disenchanted with the tone of the Clinton campaign… He and former President Bill Clinton had a heated telephone exchange earlier this month over what Mr. Kennedy considered misleading statements by Mr. Clinton about Mr. Obama, as well as his injection of race into the campaign. Mr. Kennedy called Mr. Clinton Sunday to tell him of his decision.” Did we read that correctly? Ted Kennedy called Bill Clinton -- and not Hillary -- to tell him of the decision? Anyway, the Clinton camp trotted out a statement from Kathleen Kennedy Townsend as a counterpunch to the endorsements from Teddy and Caroline Kennedy (and, per NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Patrick Kennedy will also be endorsing Obama). Umm, not quite the same impact...

Where Kennedy Helps Obama: The thing about a Kennedy endorsement is that once he's in, HE'S ALL IN. Ask Al Gore or John Kerry. Kennedy loves campaigning and when he hits the stump, he gets fired up. And as the Times reports, Kennedy is going to head West and then back to the Northeast to campaign for Obama. He could be particularly helpful for Obama in wooing rank-and-file, blue-collar Democrats as well as Latinos, two parts of the Democratic coalition Obama's under-performed with. Of course, Obama -- as this YouTube clip shows -- hasn’t always had kind words for Kennedy…

Visit: BLACKS 4 BARACK Official Site (A Multi-Racial Organization)

Clintons Block Airing of Hillary Movie !

Republicans Hope Hillary Wins Nomination

So GOP Can Win Presidency

You may have noticed that all of the media seems to be pushing Hillary and you've wondered why. Fact is, almost all of the cable news channels and press are owned and controlled by Republicans....and the Republicans want to win. They will do everything they can to help Hillary win the Democratic nomination because they know without doubt that the Republican nominee, whoever it is, will definitely defeat Hillary. (They're totally afraid of Obama).

The Republican Party has such an arsenal of scandalous facts on the Clintons that their mouths are just watering for the chance to tear them down. Scandal after scandal. Flip-flops. Lies, lies lies....and more lies. By the time the Republicans finish with Hillary, Chelsea won't want to vote for her own mom. One of the weapons that the Republicans have 'on the ready' is a new documentary entitled ' Hillary The Movie' which has so much information on the Clintons that they filed a law suit against the producers disallowing it to be advertised.

In a recent interview on CNN, the producer simply stated that if Hillary is the nominee, they're airing the movie one way or another. Do America a favor and don't waste your vote on Hillary. If she wins the nomination it will be your fault when the Republicans are back in the White House. Guaranteed !

Visit: BLACKS 4 BARACK Official Site (A Multi-Racial Organization)

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Kerry Blasts Clinton for 'abusing truth'

WASHINGTON (CNN) — John Kerry, the Democratic Party's 2004 nominee for president, took aim at Bill Clinton Friday, telling the National Journal the former president does "not have a license to abuse the truth."
The Massachusetts senator, who endorsed Barack Obama's White House bid earlier this month, said Clinton's criticisms of the Illinois senator have been "over the top," and suggested the former president is getting "frantic."

Targeting Clinton's recent spate of attacks on Obama, Kerry said, "I think you had an abuse of the truth, is what happened. …I mean, being an ex-president does not give you license to abuse the truth, and I think that over the last days it's been over the top.

"I think it's very unfortunate, but I think the voters can see through that," Kerry added. "When somebody's coming on strong and they are growing, people get a little frantic, and I think people have seen this sort of franticness in the air, if you will."

The former president has faced criticism for aggressively interjecting himself into the race between his wife and Obama of late. On Monday, Obama said he feels as if he is running against both Clintons, a charge the New York senator’s campaign said was borne out of frustration. The former president himself later dismissed Obama's comments, saying “I thought he was running against me.”
Campaigning in South Carolina Friday, Obama said the Clinton campaign has stepped up its attacks since his Iowa win, and joked that it's good practice for him, so "when I take on those Republicans I'll be accustomed to it."

Kerry formally endorsed Obama on January 10, saying then that Obama "isn't just going to break the mold….Together, we are going to shatter it into a million pieces."
The endorsement was seen as a blow to both John Edwards — Kerry's running mate in 2004 — and both Hillary and Bill Clinton, who had campaigned on behalf of Kerry's presidential bid.

Visit: Blacks 4 Barack Official Site (A Multi-Racial Organization)

NEWSFLASH: Hillary WAS A Slumlord and
Predatory Lender With Her Whitewater !

… Then consider the Whitewater investment. Forget for a minute about all the scandal associated with the word and the convoluted financing arrangements. Look at it for a minute as a pure investment—the biggest business venture that the Clintons had ever been involved in prior to the presidency.

Back in 1978, Bill Clinton was a popular Arkansas attorney general running for governor. He was campaigning as a reformer, an advocate of “consumer protection” and “rights for the elderly.” Like Hillary, he was concerned about unscrupulous “private corporations.” And as he has so often done in his public career, he made a point of claiming the moral high ground over his opponent.

An old friend and political operative, Jim McDougall, came to Bill and Hillary with an investment idea. He wanted to purchase 230 acres of land situated along the White River in the Ozark Mountains of north Arkansas and subdivide it to sell lots as vacation sites. McDougall promised huge returns, on the order of 20 percent a year. The Clintons thought it sounded like a great plan. Hillary in particular had high hopes for the property. While publicly criticizing Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts, she wrote McDougall in 1981: “If Reaganomics works at all, Whitewater could become the western hemisphere’s Mecca.”

The Clintons put no money into the investment. But Hillary, as an attorney in private practice, played an important role in establishing and running the venture. And what a venture it was meant to be. Whitewater was not designed as a regular real estate company. The plan was to sell lots, mainly to elderly retirees and middle-class families, by advertising in small-town newspapers. (They advertised several times in Mother Earth News.) Ordinarily, of course, when you buy a piece of land and finance the purchase, you receive a copy of the deed. If you start missing payments and can’t work things out with the finance company, they will eventually repossess the property. After paying off fees and debts, you will get back any remaining equity.

But the Clintons and McDougall did things differently. When customers wanted to buy a lot, they signed a simple purchase agreement. But this was no ordinary real estate contract. The small print at the bottom read: “In the event the default continues for 30 days … payments made by the purchaser shall be considered as rent for the use of the premises.” In other words, the buyers did not actually take ownership of their property until the final payment was made. If a buyer missed just one monthly payment, all their previous payments would be classified as rent and they would have no equity in the land at all.

This sort of contract was illegal in many other states, because it was considered exploitative of the poor and uneducated!’ One look at the experience of those who bought into Whitewater and you can see why.
Clyde Soapes was a grain-elevator operator from Texas who heard about the lots in early 1980 and jumped at the chance to invest. He put $3,000 down and began making payments of $244.69 per month. He made thirty-five payments in all—totaling $11,564.15, just short of the $14,000 price for the lot. Then he suddenly fell ill with diabetes and missed a payment, then two. The Clintons informed him that he had lost the land and all of his money. There was no court proceeding or compensation. Months later they resold his property to a couple from Nevada for $16,500. After they too missed a payment, the Clintons resold it yet again.

Soapes and the couple from Nevada were not alone. More than half of the people who bought lots in Whitewater—teachers, farmers, laborers, and retirees—made payments, missed one or two, and then lost their land without getting a dime of their equity back. According to Whitewater records, at least sixteen different buyers paid more than $50,000 and never received a property deed. The Clintons continued this approach up until the 1992 election, when they tried to quietly get out of the investment.

I say “the Clintons” did these things because Hillary was at the center of it all. Monthly payment checks were sent to the Whitewater Development Corporation in care of Hillary Rodham Clinton. In 1982, Hillary herself sold a home to Hillman Logan, who went bankrupt and then died. She took possession of the home and resold it to another buyer for $20,000. No one was compensated (and she didn’t report the sale on her tax return).

Hillary has always very indignantly maintained that she and her husband “did nothing wrong” with regard to Whitewater. After all, they lost money in the deal. But they have always avoided discussions about how the business was structured, and how it exploited the very people they have often professed to help. In the meantime, Sen. Hillary Clinton has gone on to champion the cause of going after banks and other lenders for “predatory mortgage lending practices.” In an amazing feat of moral dexterity, she cosponsored the Predatory Consumer Lending Act, claiming that mortgage fees are too high. (No, the law does not outlaw the type of financing scheme she was involved in.) …

Just bear this in mind when you hear Hillary shedding her crocodile tears about predatory lenders and unfair mortgage foreclosures — or even “slumlords.” (Peter Schweizer)

Visit: Blacks 4 Barack Official Site (A Multi-Racial Organization)

Friday, January 25, 2008

Photo of Clintons with
slumlord' Rezko Surfaces
Means Clintons, Rezko have been friends for years !
(Rezko Raised Millions for Bush in 2003)

Hillary Clinton forgets that she has met and took a picture with Chicago slum lord, Tony Rezko. Hillary Clinton condemned Obama for the other night during a debate in regard the law firm's relationship with Tony Rezko in which Obama worked as a lawyer. Looks like the Clintons have never met a slum lord they never didn't like either.

Hillary Clinton injected the indicted developer’s name this week in heated debate with Obama: ‘I was fighting against those ideas when you were practising law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago’… Clinton tells NBC ‘TODAY’ show on Friday: ‘I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. I don’t know the man. I wouldn’t know him if he walked in the door’… Developing…
I guess Hillary Clinton forgot about this meeting also when she referenced Barak Obama’s ties with Chicago slum load, Tony Rezko. With all the excuses that Hillary Clinton comes up with that she can’t remember and cannot recolect when its convenient for her … do we really need such a forgetful person as president?

Hillary Rodham Clinton dropped the name of Barack Obama’s Chicago patron into the South Carolina debate Monday night, putting front and center a tangled relationship that has the potential to undermine Obama’s image as a candidate whose ethical standards are distinctly higher than those of his main opponent.

Visit: Blacks 4 Barack OFFICIAL SITE (A multi-racial organization)

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Barack Obama's


Plan to Strengthen Civil Rights
“The teenagers and college students who left their homes to march in the streets of Birmingham and Montgomery; the mothers who walked instead of taking the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry and cleaning somebody else's kitchen — they didn't brave fire hoses and Billy clubs so that their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren would still wonder at the beginning of the 21st century whether their vote would be counted; whether their civil rights would be protected by their government; whether justice would be equal and opportunity would be theirs. . . . We have more work to do.”
— Barack Obama, Speech at Howard University, September 28, 2007

The Problem
Pay Inequity Continues: For every $1.00 earned by a man, the average woman receives only 77 cents, while African American women only get 67 cents and Latinas receive only 57 cents.
Hate Crimes on the Rise: The number of hate crimes increased nearly 8 percent to 7,700 incidents in 2006.
Efforts Continue to Suppress the Vote: A recent study discovered numerous organized efforts to intimidate, mislead and suppress minority voters.
Disparities Continue to Plague Criminal Justice System: African Americans and Hispanics are more than twice as likely as whites to be searched, arrested, or subdued with force when stopped by police. Disparities in drug sentencing laws, like the differential treatment of crack as opposed to powder cocaine, are unfair.

Barack Obama's Plan
Strengthen Civil Rights Enforcement
Obama will reverse the politicization that has occurred in the Bush Administration's Department of Justice. He will put an end to the ideological litmus tests used to fill positions within the Civil

Civil Rights Division.
Combat Employment Discrimination
Obama will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. Obama will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes
Obama will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.

End Deceptive Voting Practices
Obama will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote.

End Racial Profiling
Obama will ban racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies and provide federal incentives to state and local police departments to prohibit the practice.

Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support
Obama will provide job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling to ex-offenders, so that they are successfully re-integrated into society. Obama will also create a prison-to-work incentive program to improve ex-offender employment and job retention rates.

Eliminate Sentencing Disparities
Obama believes the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.

Expand Use of Drug Courts
Obama will give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior.

Barack Obama's Record
Record of Advocacy: Obama has worked to promote civil rights and fairness in the criminal justice system throughout his career. As a community organizer, Obama helped 150,000 African Americans register to vote. As a civil rights lawyer, Obama litigated employment discrimination, housing discrimination, and voting rights cases. As a State Senator, Obama passed one of the country's first racial profiling law and helped reform a broken death penalty system. And in the U.S. Senate, Obama has been a leading advocate for protecting the right to vote, helping to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and leading the opposition against discriminatory barriers to voting.

Visit: Blacks4Barack Official Site (A Multi-Racial Organization)

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Prominent Democrats Upset With Bill Clinton

Tell Him To 'Pipe Down'
By Jonathan Alter NEWSWEEK
Jan 28, 2008 Issue

Prominent Democrats are upset with the aggressive role that Bill Clinton is playing in the 2008 campaign, a role they believe is inappropriate for a former president and the titular head of the Democratic Party. In recent weeks, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, both currently neutral in the Democratic contest, have told their old friend heatedly on the phone that he needs to change his tone and stop attacking Sen. Barack Obama, according to two sources familiar with the conversations who asked for anonymity because of their sensitive nature. Clinton, Kennedy and Emanuel all declined to comment.
On balance, aides to both Bill and Hillary still see Bill as a huge net plus in fund-raising, attracting large crowds and providing a megaphone to raise doubts about Obama—even if some of those doubts are distortions. But there's concern that in hatcheting the Illinois senator and losing his temper with the news media (last week he thrashed a San Francisco TV reporter for asking about a lawsuit filed by Clinton-backing teachers union members to limit the number of Nevada caucuses), Clinton is drawing down his political capital and harming his role as a global statesman. "This is excruciating," says a member of the Clintons' circle, who asked for anonymity. "But the stakes couldn't be higher. It's worth it to tarnish himself a bit now to win the presidency."
During a December taping with PBS's Charlie Rose, a frustrated Clinton called Obama "a roll of the dice," as aides tried to end the interview. Then, in New Hampshire, he argued angrily that the story of Obama's principled position on the Iraq War was a "fairy tale," a charge few reporters bought. Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the top-ranking African-American in Congress and officially neutral, found Clinton's tone insulting and said so publicly.
When the former president called Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat gave Clinton an earful, telling him that he bore some blame for the injection of race into the contest. In any event, both Hillary and Obama made peace on the race issue at the Las Vegas debate. The Clinton camp now fears that Kennedy is leaning toward Obama, according to the Clinton source, though Kennedy's office says he is making no endorsement "at this time."
Clinton aides admit the boss sometimes goes off script. Obama officials say this itself should be a campaign issue. Greg Craig, who coordinated Clinton's impeachment defense in 1998 and is now a senior Obama adviser, argues that "recent events raise the question: if Hillary's campaign can't control Bill, whether Hillary's White House could."
There is little precedent for a former president's engaging in intra-party attacks. In 1960, Harry Truman criticized the idea of a Roman Catholic president and tried briefly to stop John F. Kennedy's nomination. "I urge you to be patient," he told JFK publicly. But in 2000, former president George Bush declined to attack his son's GOP primary opponent, John McCain.Clinton is undeterred by the criticism and will likely keep hammering Obama if he thinks it helps Hillary. "History will judge the impact on the Clinton legacy, not daily or weekly political reporters," says Matt McKenna, Bill Clinton's press secretary.
© 2008 Newsweek, Inc.
Visit: Blacks4Barack Official Site
BEWARE !!! Republican Controlled Media
Pushing Hillary So They'll Win !!!
By: Greg Jones

I must admit, I'm a news and political junkie and I have been since 9/11. I'm one of those who literally watches every cable news show always with the remote in hand and I have learned a lot in doing so which I feel everyone should know. First of all, the news is no longer the's the views. Always keep that in mind. The average person who tunes in occassionally, when time allows during their busy day, is totally mislead when watching only short portions of cable news. All of the news networks know this and they work it in a somewhat masterminded manner. But anyone who is able to watch for a regular duration can see through their tactics which seem not only elementary but are so obvious and blatant that there needs to be regulation by the FCC. Fact number one. The cable news and most newspapers are all Republican controlled. That is an absolute fact. But they like to falsely tell viewers that the media is liberal in case viewers catch any information that they don't want us to know, they blame it on the non-existent liberal media. From CNN, MSNBC to Fox, viewers are being manipulated by the Republican machine 24 hours per day.

CSPAN is one network that is most neutral and when viewed through a knowledgable eye, one can weed through enough to get to some truth. The other night I watched the Republican National Committee meeting headed by Chairman Mike Duncan. Held in a huge auditorium filled with hundreds of republicans it became obvious that this was a meeting that discussed the Republican strategy to win the Presidency in 2008. The first speaker was the one and only Karl Rove, the mastermind behind the Bush Regime. I sat there listening and found myself in a bit of shock. Here it was, on CSPAN, the Republicans literally spelling out exactly how they will attack Hillary Clinton should she become the Democratic nominee. It was amazing! They broke out a bunch of charts of all kind of wrong doings, then lists of how she voted on different issues, then pre-produced video footage of crazy statements she's made over the years plus all kind of flip-flop footage. It was incredible. They had everything totally together and super packaged. The program aired for 2 hours filled with 'attack on Hillary' methods.....and wow....what an arsenal. Toward the last 10 minutes they addressed Barack Obama and what their attack will be against him. They mentioned the fact that he voted 'present' a number of times while in the Illinois Senate and the level of his experience. That was it !!!

I learned a lot from this viewing. Firstly, there is no way Hillary will win the presidency. ABSOLUTELY no way !!! The Republicans have soooooooo much on her that by the time they finish with her, Chelsea might not vote for her. But they have little to nothing to use against Obama. Now, back to the news programs.

The Republican controlled news networks KNOW that if Hillary is the nominee it is certain that McCain (who they are now pushing in hopes that their number one choice Guiliani finally wakes up) or Romney (if they are forced to take him) are certain to beat her in the general election. THEY WANT HILLARY TO WIN THE NOMINATION !!! As one sits with remote in hand a number of tactics become obvious. The news constantly does everything they can to show Hillary as the underdog (which is a joke....she's the president's wife running against a mixed race man named Barack). The news lowers her expectations leading up to each primary or caucus, in other words says she's not expected to do well as in their reasoning in South Carolina which is since there are so many blacks there Obama should automatically win, instead of concentrating on the fact of how she is steadily losing black support. This way if she loses South Carolina they can minimize the loss while if she wins they can call it the great upset. They lowered Hillary's expectations in New Hampshire claiming that Obama should automatically win since he had won Iowa, then called her win a great come-back. It's crazy(like a fox). Another tactic is to pound the message in our minds that Obama is not experienced enough when in fact he has held an elected position for twice as long as Hillary. Then there's Bill, who the media is giving more air time than Hillary or Obama portraying Obama as the attacker when in fact Hill and Bill have done nothing but constantly attack and lie about Obama, not to mention their black attackers they've recruited. Obama is forced to answer to these lies and the media wants to portray that he's now 'off his message', while if he had not answered, they would have called him weak. It has been pitiful to watch what we claim to be 'the news. The bottom line is, we are being manipulated.....totally so the Republicans can win. Then there's the news that they don't give us. Did you know that the Democratic nominee will be determined by who has the most delegate votes at the end. Not who wins what state. It's all about the delegate count, and that's it ! Did you know that right now, following Nevada, Obama is winning in the race by 2 delegate votes (Obama 38, Hillary 36, Edwards 18). McCain is actually in third place with Romney in the lead but you'd think McCain already had the whole thing wrapped up based on the (lack of) news. Also, take note of how the news constantly talks about how the squabbling between Hillary and Obama are ruining the democratic side but never mention that the republican side is so ragged that they don't even have a true Republican running which marks the end of the party as they have known it.

Another tactic which is so see through that it is an insult, is for the networks to have their so-called 'experts' analyzing everything. They always have the very same experts....and they always portray Hillary as doing so great while emphasizing the so-called struggles that Obama is having. Then there's the black 'experts' who coincidentally always happen to cater to Hillary. It's really sad to watch this type of third world manipulation and the networks need to be called on it. Meanwhile, we have to know how to digest (or regurgitate) the information we recieve from the so-called news.

What this means is the Republican controlled news networks are going to do everything they can to pursuade the American Democrats to nominate Hillary so they can eat her alive in the general election. ALL Obama or Edwards supporters should be mindful of these manipulative tactics and not allow themselves to be mislead. Work hard for your candidate....don't be fooled. These are the exact tactics of political deception that are ruining our country which Barack Obama is dedicated to change. Remember, no matter what the news says.....Hillary will DEFINITELY lose to the Republicans......and they know it. I must give the Republican media credit. That's a great strategy ! p.s. Watch more CSPAN!

Visit: Blacks 4 Barack Official Site (A Multi-Racial Organization)

Monday, January 21, 2008

Clinton's Arkansas still remains 1 of 3 states to
Honor Robert E. Lee on MLK Day !

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - While the nation honors the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. on Monday, three states celebrate another man as well.
In Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi, the slain civil rights leader shares a state holiday with Robert E. Lee, commanding officer of the Confederate Army.
The two figures seem to coexist in the very fabric of the Arkansas’ capital city. Streets bearing their names intersect in Little Rock, though Lee Avenue is much longer than King Drive.

The large number of events celebrating King’s life always outweigh the nearly silent response to the Confederate general, said state Sen. Tracy Steele. He said some hope to separate the overlapping honors for Lee and King.
"It certainly has been discussed. In past years, there’s not been the type of community outcry or internal legislative support to get it done," said Steele, D-North Little Rock. "But it does seem the question comes up every year."
The pull of Civil War history, particularly the Confederacy, remains strong in Arkansas. Hats, T-shirts and pickup truck back windows still bear the "bars and stars" of the Confederate battle flag.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the state’s largest newspaper, typically runs a long editorial noting the general’s birthday each year. King receives a similar tribute.
In its Lee tribute last year, the newspaper’s editorial page read: "Despite his legend, the general could not command events — yet he remained in full command of his response to those events. Which is why not all the rains that have come and gone since his time have been able to wash out the single name that still sums up whatever is best in us and in this, our ever fecund, always forgiving South: Lee."
Lee, born 201 years ago, received the honor of having a county in eastern Arkansas named after him during Reconstruction. Another county in Arkansas is named for Lee’s adversary, president and former Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant.

The commemoration of Lee’s birth dates to 1943, when Arkansas legislators declared it one of several "memorial days" the governor would commemorate by a proclamation. In 1947, legislators amended the law to name Jan. 19 a legal holiday in honor of the general.
In 1983, lawmakers voted to recognize King Day as an official state holiday, but required state employees to choose which two holidays they wanted off — either King’s birthday on Jan. 15, Lee’s birthday on Jan. 19 or the employee’s birthday.
During the next regular legislative session in 1985, they voted to combine King and Lee’s holiday commemorations for the third Monday in January. Employees got to keep their birthdays as a holiday.
When Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe was asked if he would attend a Lee event, Beebe said he "wasn’t aware of any." He deferred when asked if the state should cede the day to King alone.
"The Legislature has to make the decision," Beebe told The Associated Press. "As a practical matter, virtually all the celebrations have been centered around MLK."
In 1997, a spokesman for then-Gov. Mike Huckabee said that both men should be honored. Huckabee, currently running for the Republican presidential nomination, in 1999 signed the bill that gave the Legislature a holiday on King Day.

"They’re both heroes. Their birthdays come the same week and you know the government likes to have holidays at the start of the week," spokesman Rex Nelson said then.
Visit: Blacks 4 Barack Official Site - A Multi-Racial Organization

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Says Dr. Joseph Lowery: Obama’s
black doubters have a ‘slave mentality’
Wednesday, January 16, 2008, 04:09 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

In an address to the Hungry Club at Butler Street YMCA in downtown Atlanta, the Rev. Joseph Lowery re-stoked the fires on Wednesday when he told the largely African-American audience that “a slave mentality” was fueling black doubts about Obama’s chances of capturing the White House.

The report comes from our AJC colleague, John Hollis, who was at the event.
“No matter how much education they have, they never graduated from the slave mentality,” Lowery said of those who have advised Obama to wait, or have doubted his ability to compete in a general election.

“The slavery mentality compels us to say, ‘We can’t win, we can’t do,’” said Lowery, an avid Obama supporter and a co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
Strong words, when you consider that they include people like U.S. Rep. John Lewis or former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young.
Lowery likened discouraging comments about Obama to ones Martin Luther King received while imprisoned in a Birmingham jail in 1963.

A number of local white ministers told King at the time they agreed with him, but they didn’t think the time was right for such civil dissent.
“Martin said the people who were saying ‘later’ were really saying ‘never.’ But the time to do right is always right now,” Lowery said.

Vist: Blacks 4 Barack Official Site

Saturday, January 19, 2008

NEWS FLASH !!! Widespread Cheating & Vote Suppression by Clinton Campaign in Clark County, NV
From Daily Kos
Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:19:31

Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe has now made the accusation in the Atlantic, with over 200 separate allegations of irregularities at caucus sites. [UPDATE: I'm not claiming that these tactics were enough to flip the results. In fact, I don't think so. Hillary probably won more actual Nevada voters anyway, and would have won them without the cheating (though Obama won more delegates, which is what matters). The point is to illustrate the nature of her campaign; how it reflects on her character; and how it affects the Democratic base.
Also, word on the ground is that caucuses on the Strip and in Reno were clean.
For all you doubters out there, all I can do is tell you what I directly experienced, and heard firsthand from other volunteers at the campaign office. As further corroboration, the Obama hotline to report irregularities was busy for a full ten minutes.
Finally, Obama supporters: please listen to Markos. He's right: Edwards people are not necessarily Obama 2nd choice: in fact, it's closer to the opposite. You're not doing us any favors.]
Hey everyone,

I'm reporting in from one of the Obama field offices in Clark County, NV. My girlfriend and I just came back from being the precinct captains at our caucus, and the scene here is ugly.
Everyone is reporting election irregularities on the part of the Hillary campaign. There is widespread cheating and voter suppression going on all over Clark County--and it's obviously coming in from the top down. Whether it made enough of a difference to swing the election is another question--but there is no question that Hillary was running a scorched-earth, no-holds-barred campaign in which all of her surrogates were instructed to cheat in every way possible.
To be clear about the caucus process here: caucus doors opened at 11am today; people are allowed to file in and register on location until 12 noon, at which time the doors close and no one else is admitted. Those registering were given non-binding ballots to fill out to help assess in case of problems with head count. At this point, the total number of people in the room are counted. Viability is determined (15%), and then the viable sections have 20 minutes to convince the uncommitteds/unviables. Final counts are then made.

Here are just a few of the irregularities from the Clinton campaign that have come to my ears, before I tell my own story. Word on the ground is that we have video of some of these shenanigans as well.

No less than foureight Obama captains (including myself) have reported that Clinton operatives tried to close the doors at 11:30--a full thirty minutes before the doors were supposed to close. In some cases I am hearing they actually succeeded, and voters were turned away before more knowledgeable people could get there to reopen them. The Clinton campaign had obviously told their people to be there by 11:30--and they knew that the higher the turnout, the worse for them.

At least two reports of Clinton operatives telling the uncommitteds and Edwards supporters, once their numbers were deemed not viable, that they had to leave. Whether these tactics succeeded or not, I do not know. Obviously, the Clinton campaign knew that voters not already in her camp were unlikely to join her camp (I know from my own experience that I convinced many more undecideds than my opponent Hillary operative), so they attempted to suppress their vote.

At least one report of Clinton operatives telling Obama supporters with viable numbers that they were not viable, and had to leave. From what I hear, some of those voters did in fact leave.
At least two reports (including my own) of disabled voters being coerced into the Clinton camp against their will, or even having their voter card filled out for them against their will.

A few reports of probable out-of-state Clinton operatives being counted among the voters--though since checking ID is illegal, and other Hillary operatives from in-state would vouch for them, it's impossible to say.
At least one report of two large men standing outside the door checking voters for whom they would support, and telling all Obama people they were at the wrong location.
At least one other report of Hillary operatives doing the check-in, and telling all Obama supporters that they were not on the list, could not register at the location (not true), and that they could not caucus.
At least one report of ballots being filled out in advance for Hillary in mass.

At least one report of Hillary supporters saying that the caucus location was just the Hillary room--and that Obama supporters had to go to a faraway location.
At least one report of a voter registration list only in Spanish, and only with Hillary supporters on it. Obama supporters later found the registration list with the rest of the people--in the garbage can of the ladies restroom.
Several reports of Hillary signs on the registration table, and Hillary supporters in Hillary shirts doing registration.

And there's much, much more. It's only just getting started to come through. How many of these tactics worked is unclear. Certainly, aggressive Obama volunteers like myself should have nipped many of these in the bud, but we're actually counting on concerned citizens who care--not machine operatives trained to cheat and brought up in the nearly criminal Nevada machine and the ruthless, conscience-less Hillary campaign.

Here's my story:
I got to the location at 10:30am and set up. The Hillary people were already there. In charge of them was a 60-ish woman with a slight Brooklyn accent. Here were the irregularities in my precinct alone:
The Hillary operative tried to force the doors to close at 11:30am. KK was outside greeting people, and she overheard the Hillary campaign mention that the doors would be closing at 11:30am, and she went to talk to the precinct chair. So we intervened and said that that was absolutely not legal by the rules. She then started screaming at the chair to close the doors. When he read the rules that they were open until 12noon, she said that "that's not what I was told, other campaigns were spreading misinformation." We stood our ground, and the doors remained open.

A man in a wheelchair came in with his daughter, and said he was an Edwards supporter. When his daughter began to wheel him to the middle of the room, the Hillary operative tapped her on the shoulder, took the wheelchair and took him to the Clinton corner. I rushed over from talking to an undecided voter and objected loudly, but his daughter was a Hillary person. The Clinton operative said, "I don't control what he does; she does." At that point I said to the man, "Nobody controls you. If you want to vote for Edwards, you have every right to go to the center of the room. Do you need help?" He looked at me plaintively, but said nothing as his daughter dragged him farther back into the corner and just shook his head.

The Clinton operative herself had a Brooklyn accent and I overheard her mention having been from New York. When she stood to be counted in the middle of the room, I objected and asked her if she was actually from Nevada. She said yes. I talked to the chair and asked him to ask her name and find her on the list. He asked her her name and checked the list, and she was not on it. At this point the chair said, "well, I can't ask for ID." I said, "She can't participate if no one will vouch for her." At this point a Hispanic man wearing a Hillary shirt said she was his wife. While that's not impossible, it was also improbable--but I had no way to verify or object further.
One voter who hadn't even finished registering said that she was undecided, and the Hillary operative physically escorted her to the Hillary side. I went to talk to the woman, but she was immediately surrounded by 3 Hillary supporters who would not let me in, and I had to attend to others registering at that point (our operatives were outnumbered by hers 2-1).
Hillary supporters were doing check-in, and a Hillary sign was behind them. I forced the sign off the table, and I went to the front desk to verify that everything went according to the rules at checkin--but if nothing else, the necessity of doing so prevented me from doing other needed work.

Even so, KK and I managed to convince 6 undecided/Edwards voters (Edwards & uncommitted both lacked viability in my caucus), while their cheating, ruthless operatives only convinced two--and our caucus outperformed the field, garnering 4 delegates to her 5. It was intense--and it was war. I knew what the Clinton operatives were up to, and they knew I knew. It was bloodless war; I almost feel pity for the goodhearted Obama volunteers who were unprepared for the level of sociopathy that I expected--and encountered--from the Clinton campaign.

After being a part of this campaign, doing this work, and seeing this level of viciousness from a supposedly Democratic candidate, it will be a cold day in hell before I do any work for anyone in any way associated with Hillary Clinton. At this point, even my general election vote is in question. I am furious almost to the point of nausea. There are so many young, idealistic activists here who are absolutely crushed--not because we lost here, but because of the way we "lost." Disillusionment is running extremely high--and I doubt very much of many of them will be back in 2008, or ever again. Illegal and immoral campaign tactics like this aren't just reprehensible: they also come at a cost to the party in the long run.
Leaving behind the triangulating, DLC politics of the Clintons, this crap leaves me with just one question: with Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?

Obama Now Leads By 48 !!!

Obama just swept Hillary over the weekend with victories in Nebraska, Washington State, Louisiana, Virgin Isle and Maine on Sunday which was an incredible accomplishment going up against the 'inevitable'. But everyone must know the facts. The media has such a desire to see Hillary and McCain as the nominees that they are totally misleading the public. The Democratic nominee will be determined by who recieves the most delegate votes....PERIOD ! Not who wins which state....not even total number of votes. It's the number of delegates......that's it !!! The media wants us to feel like Hillary has the lead in the race which is an outright LIE !!!! If you listen to the media you would think Hillary just won the presidency ! DON'T BE FOOLED AMERICA. Obama is now leading by 48 delegate votes !!!! Hillary was so disgusted by her spanking that she fired her senior advisor on Sunday.
Some news outlets are also trying to fool the public by emphasizing and only posting what's called the superdelegate numbers. Super-delegates are political people who had 'pledged' their vote to a specific candidate before the first primary. Super-delegates are not counted because they can change their mind on the drop of a dime. Since they are not committed votes they should not be counted yet. It would be nice if the media would be honest for a change. Which is exactly why we need a man of true integrity.......BARACK OBAMA 2008!!! Spread the truth !!!!
See MSNBC Delegate Scorecard (Democrat and Republican)

Visit: Blacks 4 Barack Official Site (A Multi-Racial Organization)

Friday, January 18, 2008

Should Hillary Apologize to Blacks for being

AGAINST Civil Rights Act of 1964 ?
Blacks Learning 'Goldwater Girl' Hillary Was AGAINSTthe Civil Rights Act of 1964....Feel Deceived !

An article by Washington columnist Robert Novak (Google: 'Hillary, King, Goldwater) reveals that Hillary Clinton was a staunch supporter of Sen. Barry Goldwater (who was adamently against the civil rights act and a segregationist) during the same period she claims in all black church appearances that she was for the civil rights movement. Blacks feel that it was impossible for Hillary to have been a Goldwater Girl and pro civil rights at the same time which leads to the assumption that Ms. Clinton is re-inventing her past. Many blacks feel deceived by The Clintons. Should Hillary Clinton make a public apology to blacks for lying in black churches

Monday, January 14, 2008

Obama Calls Truce With Hillary Camp

Takes High Road

RENO, Nevada (CNN) — Barack Obama is calling for a truce of sorts with rival Hillary Clinton following days of a heated back-and-forth between both the Democrats' presidential campaigns over Clinton's record on civil rights.
“I may disagree with Sen. Clinton or Sen. Edwards on how to get things done or how to get there, but we share the same goals, we're all Democrats, we all believe in civil rights, we all believe in equal rights," Obama said told reporters in Reno, Nevada.
The comments follow several days of heated rhetoric from both campaigns following Clinton's remarks to a reporter last week on the legacies of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done," she said, in her continued argument that her experience shows she can get more done as president than Obama.
Some African-American leaders criticized the remarks as denigrating the civil rights movement and Dr. King. The criticisms were amplified by Obama's campaign and Clinton later said she was "personally offended" the campaign was "distorting her words."
Meanwhile, speaking at a Clinton campaign event Sunday, BET founder Bob Johnson lashed out atObama's campaign over the criticism, and seemed to take a swipe at the Illinois senator's admitted drug use as a young man.
"As an African-American, I'm frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book," he said..
Johnson later claimed he was not referencing Obama's past drug use specifically, but was referring rather to his time as a community organizer.
Speaking Monday, Obama said he wanted to end the current "tit-for-tat" with Clinton.
"I don't want the campaign in this stage to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat back-and-forth that we lose sight why all of us are doing this," he said. "If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading, or in some way is unfair, then I will speak out forcefully against them, and I hope the other campaigns take the same approach."
Shortly after Obama's comments, Clinton released a statement saying it's time to "reach common ground."
"We differ on a lot of things. And it is critical to have the right kind of discussion on where we stand. But when it comes to civil rights and our commitment to diversity, when it comes to our heroes - President John F. Kennedy and Dr. King – Senator Obama and I are on the same side," the New York Democrat said. “And in that spirit, let's come together, because I want more than anything else to ensure that our family stays together on the front lines of the struggle to expand rights for all Americans.”
– CNN's Alexander Mooney and Chris

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Hillary Was AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964
While a republican and "Goldwater Girl"
(Blacks feel deceived as Hillary facts exposed)

A March 12, 2007 article written by acclaimed Washington columnist Robert Novak sheds a very revealing light on the true sentiment of Hillary Clinton during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement. Clinton recently was found to have minimized the great and monumental strides taken by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by stating that it was Lyndon B. Johnson, then president, who should receive the credit for civil rights progress including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In an attempt to attract black support Hillary Clinton regularly shares her 'civil rights experience' during every speech given to blacks audiences. Novak writes of one such speech at Selma's First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the "bloody Sunday" freedom march there, where Sen. Clinton declared: "As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union." But Novak's article states that there's a big problem with her statement.
The fact is, in 1963, the same period of time she speeks of at all black church appearances, not only was Hillary Clinton a republican, but she was also a staunch supporter of republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and one of the most vocal senators adamently against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson. Novak writes " then could she be a 'Goldwater Girl' in the next year's presidential election?" He continues, "...she described herself in her memoirs as 'an active Young Republican' and 'a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.' (Hillary worked on Golwater's presidential campaign)
Novak adds, "As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the historic voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King. Hillary headed the Young Republicans at Wellesley College. The incompatibility of those two positions of 40 years ago was noted to me (Novak) by Democratic old-timers who were shocked by Sen. Clinton's temerity in pursuing her presidential candidacy." Novak adds, "What Hillary Clinton said at Selma is significant because it betrays her campaign's panicky reaction to the unexpected rise of Sen. Obama as a serious competitor for the Democratic nomination.
Clinton's plans were transformed by the advent of Obama, an African-American threatening the hard allegiance of black voters forged by Bill Clinton. On one hand, the Clinton campaign has attacked Obama and his supporters. On the other hand, she has sought to solidify her civil rights credentials.
While Clinton was re-inventing her past, her road to the White House is not going as planned. Instead of a steady procession to coronation at the Denver convention, she is involved in a real struggle against credible opponents led by Obama. No wonder she and her handlers were tempted to imply the existence long ago of a young lady in Chicago's suburbs who never really existed."
We greatly appreciate Mr. Novak's findings which bring one main thought to mind. Wake up Black America! DON'T BE FOOLED ! The fact is, Hillary was AGAINST the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that Dr. King died for. As a 'Goldwater Girl' she was even against Lyndon B. Johnson, the very person she now gives the credit to for Dr. King getting to the mountaintop. She has worked extremely hard to hide many truths about her past, including ordering that her 92 page college thesis that she wrote at Wellesley College be 'sealed' and unavailable to the public, an order forced upon the college by Bill Clinton while president, although all senior thesis' at Wellesley have been available for public reading for over 100 years, except one....Hillary Rodham Clinton's.
Reports have stated that information in her 'secret thesis' could be the 'Swift Boat' ammo to be used by the Republican Party against her should she become the nominee. (read more about 'secret thesis' at MSNBC)
In addition to re-inventing her past, the most obvious new Clinton strategy is to use 'token Negroes' like BET Founder Bob Johnson and Magic Johnson to name a couple, to attack and discredit Barack Obama, a tactic which many blacks find additionally offensive, calling these black Clinton cronies 'sell-outs'. Spread the word....share the facts. The Clinton's have been conning the black community for a long time and are NOT what they claim to be. I bet they go home at night, pour some wine, kick their feet up and just laugh like crazy about what big black suckers we are. But now, it's time to prove them wrong !
Greg Jones

Friday, January 11, 2008

SC's Republican governor praises

Obama candidacy

Sanford has not endorsed a GOP presidential candidate.

(CNN) – The Republican governor of South Carolina wrote an op-ed in the state’s largest paper Friday in which he spoke admiringly of Democratic candidate Barack Obama's candidacy, and urged voters to think about the significance of the Illinois senator’s White House run as they make their presidential picks.
Mark Sanford said he wouldn’t be voting for Obama because of their differing policy views. “However,” he added, “as the presidential campaign trail now makes its turn toward this state, and as South Carolinians make their final decisions on whom to vote for, it’s worth pausing to take notice of something important that the Obama candidacy means for our corner of America.
“…In the Obama candidacy, there is a potentially history-making quality that we should reflect on. It is one that is especially relevant on the sensitive topic of race — because South Carolina and the South as a whole bear a heavier historical burden than the rest of our country on that front,” he added.
He said that Obama was not running on the basis of his race, and that no one should make their decision one way or the other because of it. “Nonetheless, what is happening in the initial success of his candidacy should not escape us. Within many of our own lifetimes, a man who looked like Barack Obama had a difficult time even using the public restrooms in our state.
“What is happening may well say a lot about America, and I do think as an early primary state we should earnestly shoulder our responsibility in determining how this part of history is ultimately written.”
Sanford, who endorsed John McCain in 2000, has not publicly backed any GOP presidential candidates this cycle. South Carolina’s Republicans head to the polls January 19.
–CNN's Rebecca Sinderbrand

Kucinich is calling for a recount of New Hampshire.
CONCORD, New Hampshire (AP) — Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who won less than 2 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, said Thursday he wants a recount to ensure that all ballots in his party's contest were counted.
The Ohio congressman cited "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" about the integrity of Tuesday results.
Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said Kucinich is entitled to a statewide recount. But, under New Hampshire law, Kucinich will have to pay for it. Scanlan said he had "every confidence" the results are accurate.
In a letter dated Thursday, Kucinich said he does not expect significant changes in his vote total, but wants assurance that "100 percent of the voters had 100 percent of their votes counted."
Kucinich alluded to online reports alleging disparities around the state between hand-counted ballots, which tended to favor Sen. Barack Obama, and machine-counted ones that tended to favor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. He also noted the difference between pre-election polls, which indicated Obama would win, and Clinton's triumph by a 39 percent to 37 percent margin.
Candidates who lose by 3 percentage or less are entitled to a recount for a $2,000 fee. Candidates who lose by more must pay for the full cost. Kucinich's campaign said it was sending the $2,000 fee to start the recount.


Thursday, January 10, 2008

Don't Be Fooled....

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Colin Powell to
Join Barack Obama ?

ONE has held the highest office of any black man in the history of the US government and its armed forces. The other is seeking to go a step further and become the first black man in the White House.
Now Washington is buzzing with talk that Barack Obama, a Democrat presidential candidate, and Colin Powell, a former US Army general and secretary of state, may join forces.
Last week Mr Powell revealed that he had been advising the senator from Illinois on foreign policy - provoking a flurry of speculation about the plans and ambitions of both men.
Mr Powell, 70, who left office in January 2005 under a cloud left by the war in Iraq, has served three Republican presidents, but made it clear that he was considering backing a Democrat to succeed his former boss, George Bush. He disclosed that he had twice met Senator Obama, at the request of the White House hopeful. "I make myself available to talk about foreign policy matters and military matters with whoever wishes to chat with me," Mr Powell said.
"I'm going to support the best person that I can find who will lead this country."
He ruled out any suggestion that he might seek the vice-presidency. But asked whether he would accept another senior post, he said: "I would not rule it out. I am not at all interested in political life if you mean elected political life. But I always keep my eyes open and my ears open to requests for service."
Mr Powell and Senator Obama are not obvious partners. Senator Obama, alone among the Democrat frontrunners, opposed the Iraq war from the start - a war that Mr Powell's now discredited testimony before the United Nations on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs is seen to have helped bring about.
A former adviser to president Bill Clinton - whose wife, Hillary, is the other leading Democratic candidate - welcomed Senator Obama's links with Mr Powell as a sign that he wanted to heal the divisions in American society.
Philip Crowley, the director of homeland security at the Centre for American Progress and a former White House special assistant, said: "It's refreshing that we have a candidate that wants to craft a centrist policy that will reach out across party lines."
The blogger Too Sense, who writes on racial issues, said: "Powell's meeting with Obama is a brilliant move. Obama's association with another one-time potential black president, a black man who white America has found so non-threatening that he was held up as a model for 'the rest of us', can only increase his appeal."
Telegraph, London

Bill Clinton Keys Obama's Car
From Andy Borowitz (Huffington Post)

In what political observers called a shocking display of anger from a former President of the United States, Bill Clinton today keyed the car of Illinois Senator Barack Obama.
Mr. Clinton's attacks on Senator Obama have become more scathing in recent days, but few Democratic insiders expected his rhetorical attacks to turn into outright vandalism.
That is precisely what happened, however, in the parking lot of a Dunkin' Donuts in Nashua, New Hampshire, where Mr. Obama and his aides had stopped for an early morning campaign appearance.

Spotting the Illinois senator's car in the lot, a wild-eyed Mr. Clinton pulled out his key ring and "started twirling it on his finger like a six-shooter," according to one eyewitness.
Saying he was "damned sick and tired" of everything going Mr. Obama's way, the former President dragged his keys across the length of the senator's car, creating a deep gash in the paint job that experts said would cost hundreds of dollars to repair.
As news of Mr. Clinton's attack on Mr. Obama's automobile spread like wildfire across New Hampshire, political insiders branded the former president's move as a tactical mistake that could turn off Democratic voters.

"Keying another candidate's car is really beneath the dignity of a former President of the United States," said Carol M. Foyler, a longtime media advisor to Democratic candidates. "That's the kind of thing you want surrogates to do."
For his part, Mr. Clinton was unrepentant, telling reporters "you ain't seen nothing yet."
"Where does he live?" Mr. Clinton shouted at the press corps. "I'ma go TP that bastard's house."

Monday, January 7, 2008

VIDEO: Watch Obama's
Iowa Victory Speech !!!
Polls show Obama leading in New Hampshire !!!

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Hillary Was On Walmart Board Of Directors

Why Such A Big Secret ?

Even Wal-Mart, the largest and arguably most powerful corporation in the country, is no match for the triangulation, pandering and obfuscation of Hillary Clinton. With Wal-Mart rating as public enemy number one among many liberals, progressives and just regular voters, Clinton is finding her past ties to Wal-Mart too hot to handle so, presto, over the side the Beast of Bentonville must go.

For those not in the know, Clinton served on Wal-Mart's board for six years prior to her husband's run for the presidency. She recently received $5,000 from Wal-Mart. I've raised the Wal-Mart relationship repeatedly in my current race against Clinton and it causes deep unease among voters. I believe it speaks to the incumbent's close ties to abusive corporate power: her large corporate financial contributions, her support for so-called "free trade" (which is simply trade to benefit corporations) and her unwillingness to confront corporate power that denies every American, among other things, universal health insurance.
So, I had to chuckle when I read that Clinton, having never said a bad word about the company in the past, recently said that Wal-Mart should pay more for its workers' health benefits. And, to boot, she returned the $5,000 she had received from the company. But, when asked what she did about the company's benefits for workers when she served on the board, she replied, "Well, you know, I, that was a long time ago ... have to remember..."
You can't have it both ways. You can't promote an image of being an intelligent woman who has a pile of facts at her fingertips but, at the same time, you suffer a sudden bout of amnesia when asked to answer for your record. And it would be an inconvenient record to defend.
In 1992, Wal-Mart was simply smaller than it is today. But it was still huge, with $43.9 billion in net sales, 1,714 stores and 371,000 employees. Even in 1992, Wal-Mart was already the world's largest retailer.
And the board Hillary Clinton sat on was rabidly anti-union, was exploiting sweatshop labor around the world, discriminating against women workers, forcing workers to labor off the clock and destroying communities that did not want them. This should not be a shock: Clinton was a partner in the Rose law firm, one of the most active anti-union law firms in the country.
So, the question still remains: what did Hillary Clinton do -- or, not do -- when she served on the board of Wal-Mart? Maybe, if her memory was refreshed, she could tell us how she protested the company's relentless union-busting, expressed feminist outrage at the widespread discrimination against women and was horrified that the mushrooming wealth of the Wal-Mart family was made possible on the backs of slave labor around the world.
Her behavior then, when the spotlight was not on and her record did not matter to voters, should tell voters a lot more about her principles and values than the carefully orchestrated image New Yorkers try to figure out now. The voters deserve to know.
By: Jonathan Tasini

Friday, January 4, 2008


After an incredibly exciting and historic day yesterday, I thought I'd browse some of the news sites. MSNBC, Fox, newspapers like The Times and others, who are all talking about the campaigns of Obama and Huckabee to the level they should. Then I went to CNN. I was astounded !!! On their entire front page...there is ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF OBAMA AT ALL !!!! Nothing about his victory ! Unbelievable !!!! Pitiful !!!! Take a look....then spread the word....make some noise about this sabotaging. THIS MUST STOP !!! (see for yourself)

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Obama Campaign Proves
Much Less White Prejudice
than Blacks Thought !
By: Greg 'Peace Song' Jones

" There's no way America would vote for a black president !.....America's not ready for a black president." That has historically been the sentiment and attitude shared by the majority of blacks in America due in part to the fact that we have always been under the assumption that most whites are so prejudiced that a black president in America would just never happen. But one of the most incredible things that has arisen through Barack Obamas campaign has been the vision of mass numbers of white people at each of the Obama rallys showing great love and support for this credible, intelligent, gifted, strong leader....who happens to also be black. It has been incredibly eye-opening and uplifting, and it, for the first time, shows us blacks that we have actually been wrong in our assumption that most whites are prejudiced toward us. Guess what ? Although you do have the exceptions to the rule, the fact is....most whites ARE NOT racist toward blacks. This is a very important revelation. VERY !!!

We, as blacks have held on to our injured history, which we rightfully feel was caused by whites, to such a degree that we have never had the opportunity to see or learn that the prejudiced attitudes of whites does not exist today like it had in the past. We just didn't know. We knew that a lot of whites like black music. We knew that millions of white women love Oprah, but we thought that was just a 'woman thing'. But in all honesty, we had no idea, until now, that white people of all ages....even older ones...could be as supportive of a black candidate as they have shown in great mass. We, as blacks have been wrong !

And now, to my black brothers and sisters....It's time for us to acknowledge this extremely important revelation...In other words....all whites are not prejudiced !!! In fact, MOST whites aren't ! I know, it's hard to believe because of our lifetime of thinking differently....but these are the facts. Just look in the eyes of the whites at Obama's rallys. You see a true warmth, compassion and true support for this man....who is black. What this means is that most whites have risen above the racism of old. Now, it is time for us, as blacks, to rise up as well. Of course, we as blacks will have the specific cases of injustice and prejudice as displayed through examples like Jena 6, Genarlow Wilson, Katrina and the like....and specific cases like those should be dealt with accordingly. But we must not continue to allow certain negative occurances to misdirect our minds toward thinking that these negative examples speak for the entire white race. The majority of whites of today are actually on our side !

Obama's campaign has already won by proving that whites and blacks can not only get along....but can work TOGETHER....toward a better tomorrow...for us all. And guess what my black family....America IS ready !!!

Zogby Poll: Obama Only Candidate

Able to Beat ALL Republicans
Telephone survey shows fellow Democrats Hillary Clinton

and John Edwards would defeat some GOPers, lose to others

UTICA, New York - Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would defeat all five of the top Republicans in prospective general election contests, performing better than either of his two top rivals, a new Zogby telephone poll shows.
His margins of advantage range from a 4 percent edge over Arizona Sen. John McCain and a 5 percent edge over Arkansas’ Mike Huckabee to an 18 percentage point lead over Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, the survey shows. Against New York’s Rudy Giuliani he leads by 9%, and against Fred Thompson of Tennessee he holds a 16 point edge.
The telephone survey included 1,000 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/– 3.2 percentage points. The poll was conducted Dec. 12–14, 2007.
Democrat Hillary Clinton of New York would defeat Romney by a narrow 46% to 44% margin and Thompson by a 48% to 42% margin. She would lose to Huckabee 48% to 43%, to Giuliani 46% to 42%, and to McCain by a 49% to 42% margin. The data suggest that Clinton has improved her position slightly. A November Zogby Interactive poll showed her losing by small margins to all five of the top GOP candidates.
The performance of the Democratic candidates among independent voters is notable. For instance, Clinton trails Giuliani by one point (43% for Giuliani, 42% for Clinton among independents), but Obama leads Giuliani among independents by a huge 56% to 31% edge. Edwards leads Giuliani, 52% to 38% among independents. Clinton has similar trouble among independents against McCain, in that she trails with 37% support to his 46% support. In a prospective Obama versus McCain match–up among independent voters, Obama leads, 51% to 35%. Edwards and McCain are tied at 42% apiece among independents.
As among independents, Obama is the Democrat moderates like best, but his edge among moderates over Edwards is not nearly as pronounced as with independents. For instance, against McCain, both Edwards and Obama lead, but Clinton loses badly. Obama leads McCain by a 51% to 37% edge, while Edwards leads McCain by a 47% to 41% margin.
Clinton loses to McCain among moderates, with McCain winning 51% and Clinton winning 38%.
In polling stretching back to last year, Zogby International has identified moderates and independents as key voting demographics in the 2008 election cycle.
Among Republicans, McCain performs the best among moderates in the general election match–ups, with Huckabee running a close second. Romney and Thompson run worst – in prospective contests against Obama, the Democrat leads Thompson 59% to 27%, and leads Romney by a 62% to 23% margin. Obama leads all five Republicans among moderates. Against Clinton, McCain and Huckabee lead among moderates, while the Democrat leads the other three Republicans.
For a detailed methodological statement on this poll, please visit:

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Iraq's 'purple finger' Elections More Advanced
than Iowa Democratic Caucus !
DES MOINES -- Iowa not only has the distinction of holding the earliest contest in the presidential nominating calendar. It also enjoys the dubious reputation for holding what may can seem the most arcane of contests.
I was reminded of this on Saturday morning when Iowa Democratic Party officials staged a lengthy briefing for reporters to explain just how their caucus process works. For 90 minutes, Norm Sterzenbach, the party's political director, patiently walked reporters through the process. That included everything from rules for the media (remain quiet and do not get involved in caucus discussions) to mind-numbing formulas used to report results on the night of Jan. 3, 2008.Sterzenbach related a wonderful anecdote to us on Saturday morning to explain just how personal these caucus fights can be. Without offering any names, he explained that there are two women in Ft. Dodge who were on opposite sides of one of the most bitter of intraparty presidential contests in 1980, when Ted Kennedy challenged sitting President Jimmy Carter for the nomination. One woman was with the Kennedy forces, the other with the Carter operation. The two apparently have not spoken to one another since.
What's good about the caucus process is that it is very personal. Candidates talk directly to the voters, often more than once, as they campaign in the state. Campaign workers contact voters constantly with phone calls, direct mail, even personal visits from young and eager field organizers.Because the ultimate universe of caucus attendees is relatively small (only about 125,000 people participated in the Democratic caucuses in 2004), the amount of information every campaign is gathering about likely caucus participants can be staggering. In a year like this, that could mean some undecided voters will be contacted hundreds of times by the various campaigns. It's enough to try the patience of even the most dedicated activists -- one Iowan said Monday morning he's ready for the whole thing to be over -- but many seem to take it in stride.The most distinguishing feature of the caucuses, and what makes them far different from presidential primaries, is that when Iowans gather in schools and church basements and other places on caucus night, everything is out in the open. This can be intimidating for first-time participants, a fact that concerns every campaign this year that is looking to expand the traditional universe of caucus attendees. But it is the essence of Iowa's system. In a primary, voters quietly fill out their ballots and leave. In the caucuses, they are required to come and stay for several hours, and there are no secret ballots. In the presence of friends, neighbors and occasionally strangers, Iowa Democrats vote with their feet, by raising their hands and moving to different parts of the room to signify their support for one candidate or another.Few people outside Iowa understand the caucus process. As Sterzenbach acknowledged at one point during his briefing, for Democrats, it is not a one-person, one-vote system. The Democratic results you'll see reported on Jan. 3 may approximate the percentage of people who turned out for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John Edwards or any of the other Democrats, but it will not necessarily be a close approximation. (Republicans report what is essentially a straw poll of those who show up on caucus night.)The gap between the number of people who show up ready to support one candidate or another and the percentages you'll see reported grows out of what happens once the caucus begins. In each precinct, a candidate must reach a threshold in order to qualify for any of the delegates being awarded there that night (known in the jargon of the Iowa Democratic Party as SDEs, or "state delegate equivalents.") If a candidate falls short of that threshold, say 15 percent or 20 percent of the total number of people in the room, his or her supporters can redistribute themselves with another candidate. That's when persuasion, hard bargaining, deal-making between candidates' staffs or even chicanery comes in. Inducements are allowed; bribes are not.Four years ago, Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards cut a deal, agreeing shortly before caucus day that if either of them failed to reach threshold in any precinct, their supporters would go and line up with the other. Other arrangements are less formal but no less effective in reallocating the people who have arrived intending to support some of the lesser candidates.Another distinguishing feature from a primary is that it pays to have some support in all 99 counties and all 1,784 precincts in the state, rather than having concentrated pockets of support in a few areas. Because of the rules and formulas used to apportion delegates, a candidate gets no extra benefit from overwhelming support in a precinct. Bill Bradley, for example, had very strong support in college towns but that was not reflected in the overall percentage of delegates he won in 2000 against Al Gore.One of the most interesting debates among Democrats in Iowa right now is the role college students may play in the caucuses. The early date for the caucuses means that college students will be at home and not on the campuses on caucus night in January. That appeared to be a blow for Obama, who is counting on significant help from college students.But Sterzenbach said college students could play an even more significant role this time because they will be spread more evenly around the state, rather than being on campus. "Everybody talks about college students are going to be disenfranchised and they're not going to be allowed to participate," he said. "It's actually going to be the exact opposite. College students can have a significantly higher impact now--by voting at home rather than on campus."Obama has strong support among younger Iowans, while Clinton's supporters tend to be older. Based on past history, Clinton is more likely to see those older voters show up on caucus night than Obama is to see his college students. But if Obama actually can turn out a sizeable percentage of these student voters, his campaign, his campaign may have caught a break by the timing of this year's caucuses.The next seven weeks will be the equivalent of trench warfare for the campaigns, as they continue to identify rock-solid supporters and figure out every possible way to make sure those supporters turn out the night of Jan. 3, no matter what the weather. The rest of the country may not understand this exercise in democracy -- and many Iowans may not either. But for the campaigns who fight the fight and the activists who play the game, it's one of Iowa's most revered traditions. But it is still arcane.
--Dan Balz