Vladimir Putin Accuses Bush of
Provoking Georgia Conflict To Help McCain

Tony Halpin in Moscow

Vladimir Putin accused President Bush tonight of orchestrating the war in Georgia in a plot to get John McCain elected to the White House.

In his most explosive allegation since the South Ossetia crisis erupted, the Russian Prime Minister said that the United States had provoked the conflict to aid the Republican candidate, who is an outspoken critic of the Kremlin.

“It is not just that the American side could not restrain the Georgian leadership from this criminal act. The American side in effect armed and trained the Georgian army,” Mr Putin said.

“Why spend years holding difficult negotiations and looking for complicated compromises in ethnic conflicts? It’s easier to arm one of the parties and push it to kill the other party, and the job is done.

“The suspicion arises that someone in the United States especially created this conflict with the aim of making the situation more tense and creating a competitive advantage for one of the candidates fighting for the post of US President.”

Mr Putin said that his defence officials had told him that Americans were operating in the conflict zone in Georgia during the fighting.

He added: “It should be admitted that they would do so only following direct orders from their leaders. Therefore, they were acting in implementing those orders, doing as they were ordered, and the only one who can give such orders is their leader.”

Mr Putin did not name Mr Bush directly but the White House swiftly denounced his allegations, made during an interview with CNN. His comments were also broadcast on Russian television, which had been circulating a similar conspiracy theory last week.

By lending his authority to the claims, Mr Putin has raised tensions with the US to a new level just days before Dick Cheney, the US Vice President, is due to arrive in Georgia to show support for its pro-Western leader Mikheil Saakashvili.

Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman, said: “To suggest that the United States orchestrated this on behalf of a political candidate – it sounds not rational.

“Those claims first and foremost are patently false, but it also sounds like his defence officials who said they believed this to be true are giving him really bad advice.”

The deputy head of Russia’s general staff told reporters in Moscow that troops had found a US passport in a village near the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali, where he said Georgian special forces had been operating during the conflict.

“What was that gentleman’s purpose of being among the special forces and what he is doing today, I so far cannot answer,” Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn said.

“We have been looking for the holder of the passport but haven’t been able to find him. We know that he is a resident in the state of Texas.”

Mr Putin’s allegations were broadcast as President Dmitri Medvedev turned his back on a wave of Western condemnation and sought support in the East for his decision on Tuesday to recognise the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia.

But China and the leaders of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan refused to rally round their fellow member Russia at a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, despite an appeal from Mr Medvedev to denounce Georgian “aggression”.

A joint declaration praised Moscow’s “active role in promoting peace” in the Caucasus but also stressed the need to respect existing borders. It said: “The participants...underscore the need for respect of the historical and cultural traditions of each country and each people, and for efforts aimed at preserving the unity of the state and its territorial integrity.”

Time For Judgement...TIME FOR OBAMA !

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...

Dedicated To TRUTH !

Bush Inks Deal To Withdraw

ALL U.S. Troops From Iraq

By End 2011 !

BAGHDAD, Aug. 21 -- U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from the country by the end of 2011, and Iraqi officials said they are "very close" to resolving the remaining issues blocking a final accord that governs the future American military presence here.
Iraqi and U.S. officials said several difficult issues remain, including whether U.S. troops will be subject to Iraqi law if accused of committing crimes. But the officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were unauthorized to discuss the agreement publicly, said key elements of a timetable for troop withdrawal once resisted by President Bush had been reached.
"We have a text," Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said after a day-long visit Thursday by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Rice and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spent nearly three hours here discussing key undecided issues. The accord must be completed and approved by both governments before a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.
The question of immunity for U.S. troops and Defense Department personnel from Iraqi legal jurisdiction -- demanded by Washington and rejected by Baghdad -- remained unresolved. Troop immunity, one U.S. official said, "is the red line for us." Officials said they were still discussing language that would make the distinction between on- and off-duty activities, with provisions allowing for some measure of Iraqi legal jurisdiction over soldiers accused of committing crimes while off-duty.
But negotiators made progress on a specific timetable outlining the departure of U.S. forces from Iraq, something Maliki is under considerable domestic political pressure to secure. In the past, Rice and other U.S. officials have spoken of an "aspirational time horizon" that would make withdrawals contingent on the continuation of improved security conditions and the capabilities of Iraqi security forces.
Officials on both sides have said they hope to split the difference, setting next year as the goal for Iraqi forces to take the lead in security operations in all 18 provinces, including Baghdad.
U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have now also agreed to a conditions-based withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by the end of 2011, a date further in the future than the Iraqis initially wanted. The deal would leave tens of thousands of U.S. troops inside Iraq in supporting roles, such as military trainers, for an unspecified time. According to the U.S. military, there are 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, most of whom are playing a combat role.
Negotiators agreed several weeks ago to reduce the presence of all U.S. forces in Iraqi cities, among the most dangerous places soldiers operate, by the end of next year. That process would entail consolidating U.S. troops now deployed in small neighborhood posts into larger bases outside city centers, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials involved in the talks.
"They have both agreed to 2011," Mohammed al-Haj Hamoud, Iraq's chief negotiator, said in a telephone interview. "If the Iraqi government at that time decides it is necessary to keep the American forces longer, they can do so."
The fragile nature of security gains over the past year was evident in the secrecy surrounding Rice's one-day visit here, which was not announced until her arrival from Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. U.S. negotiators hoped that her participation in direct talks with Maliki and visits with the Shiite and Sunni vice presidents would help conclude the immunity and timeline discussions.
"What my presence can do is to identify any final obstacles," Rice said Thursday as she began the Baghdad leg of a trip that has included a NATO meeting in Brussels on the crisis in Georgia and a stop in Warsaw to sign an agreement to station parts of a missile-defense system in Poland.
"It's a chance for me to sit with the prime minister and really get a sense of if there is anything else we need to do from Washington to get to closure" on the Iraq security accord. At a joint news conference before her departure, Rice and Zebari said that significant progress had been made. "We are working together as partners to make sure we cover the concerns of both," she said.
The United States, Zebari said, had shown "a great deal of understanding" and flexibility in response to Iraqi concerns. The issues were "sensitive," he said, and "that's why it takes a long time."
"We think this is a very good agreement," Rice said, adding that "the United States has gone very far" in accommodating Iraqi issues. She then noted that some obstacles remain, saying it would be an "excellent agreement when we finally have agreement."
Shortly after negotiations began in March, Iraq rejected an initial U.S. draft, which Maliki later publicly branded a "dead end." The draft called for immunity for both troops and U.S. civilian contractors, as well as unilateral U.S. control over its military operations and detention of Iraqi citizens. It did not include a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal.
With talks at a stalemate and time growing short, the two sides scaled back hopes of reaching a full status-of-forces agreement of the type that outlines the rights and responsibilities of U.S. forces in more than 80 countries around the world. In early June, after President Bush instructed U.S. negotiators to be more flexible on Iraq's key concerns, compromises were reached on military operations and detainees, and the United States abandoned its immunity demand for contractors.
Last month, Maliki said that the end of 2010 would be a reasonable goal for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops.
Facing challenges from within his own majority Shiite group, as well as from minority Sunnis and Kurds, Maliki pledged that there would be no "secret deals" with the United States. He said the agreement would be put to a vote in Iraq's fractious parliament.
"Time is of the essence," Zebari said at the news conference. "We are redoubling our efforts" to conclude the deal in time for it to be signed by Maliki and Bush before the U.N. mandate expires on Dec. 31, he said.
Without a formal, bilateral agreement, there is no international legal basis for U.S. forces to remain here.
The first Iraqi political test will come Friday, Zebari said in a conversation with reporters after the news conference, when Maliki's executive council will examine the parts of the text that negotiators have agreed to, as well as proposals to deal with immunity and other issues. "Tomorrow is a very important day," Zebari said.
The next step is consideration by a larger council of representatives from the leading political blocs. Then the document will be submitted to parliament, which is in summer recess until Sept. 9.
The Muslim holy month of Ramadan, when all business slows amid fasting, also falls in September.
U.S. negotiators have told Iraqi officials that a change in U.S. policy in Iraq could come when a new president takes office in January. The Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), has said he will continue current policy. His Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), has said he will begin an immediate withdrawal of U.S. combat forces, to be completed within 16 months.

Support Our Troops...BRING THEM HOME !

OBAMA 2008

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...

Dedicated To TRUTH !

Bush Regime, Iraq Agree

To Set Withdrawal Timetable !

B4B NOTE: Interesting. Looks like the Bush Regime is starting to realize that Obama has been correct from day one with his desire to set timetables for Iraq withdrawal. McCain's rhetoric of 'we should stay until we win'(whatever that means) just shows how out of step he is with reality.

BAGHDAD — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Thursday that U.S. and Iraqi officials agree that timetables should be set for a U.S. troop withdrawal, but conceded that nailing down a broader pact on future relations is difficult.
Appearing together at a news conference, Rice and Zebari also mutually asserted that a final agreement between Washington and Baghdad on a a broad document spelling out the nature of any future U.S. troop presence and Washington-Baghdad relations is close to fruition, but not yet complete.
"We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold, are well worth having in such an agreement," Rice told reporters after meeting with Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The two sides had come together on a draft agreement earlier this week and Rice made an unannounced visit to Baghdad to press officials there to complete the accord.
Zebari, asked about fears expressed by neighboring countries over such a pact, said in Arabic: "This decision (agreement) is a sovereign one and Iran and other neighboring countries have the right to ask for clarifications. ... There are clear articles (that) say that Iraq will not be used as a launching pad for any aggressive acts against neighboring countries and we already did clarify this."
A key part of the U.S.-Iraqi draft agreement envisions the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq's cities by next June 30.
Said Zebari: "This agreement determines the principle provisions, requirements, to regulate the temporary presence and the time horizon, the mission of the U.S. forces."
U.S. military forces went into in Iraq in early 2003 and overthrew President Saddam Hussein and the war is now in its sixth year. There have been more than 4,100 U.S. deaths there and countless losses among Iraqis.

Time For Judgement...Time For OBAMA !

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...

Dedicated To Truth !

ALERT: Bush/McCain Plotting To Secretly

Spy On Americans !

Bloggers, peace groups, animal rights, civil liberty/labor activists

COULD BE TARGETED !

Last night both candidates appeared on Rick Warren's 'religious forum' although curiously one of the candidates barely mentioned religion at all. But one of the most interesting statements came from McCain as he discussed what he would do to make us more 'secure'. From the transcript we see that McCain is in lockstep with the Bush Regime to pass laws that will allow bloggers, protesters of any kind and even peace activists to be targeted and labeled as 'terrorists'! Here is McCain's statement from the transcript:

" BUT THE POINT IS WE HAVE NOW HAD TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES OVER THE LAST 20 OR 30 YEARS IN COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE REMARKABLE. IT'S A REMARKABLE ABILITY THAT OUR ENEMIES HAVE TO COMMUNICATE SO WE HAVE TO KEEP UP WITH THAT CAPABILITY. I MEAN, THERE IS TOO MANY WAYS AND -- THROUGH CYBERSPACE AND THROUGH OTHER WAYS -- THAT PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER. SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO STEP UP OUR CAPABILITIES TO MONITOR THOSE. SOMETIMES THERE ARE CALLS FROM OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, INSIDE THE UNITED STATES,THERE IS ALL KINDS OF COMMUNICATIONS OF EVERY DIFFERENT KIND. SO YOU NEED CONGRESS TO WORK TOGETHER YOU NEED A JUDICIARY THAT WILL REVIEW THESE LAWS THAT WE PASS AND AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF OUR FAILURE TO SIT DOWN, REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT, AND WORK THESE THINGS OUT"

Coincidentally, at this exact moment, the Bush Regime is working to pass laws that will basically increase the ability of our government to secretly spy on absolutely any and every American who they feel is a 'threat', a list that includes bloggers and activists of all kinds. Just yesterday the Washington Post reported the masterminded plot of this administration to take away our Constitutional Rights:

(From Washington Post)

The Justice Department has proposed a new domestic spying measure that would make it easier for state and local police to collect intelligence about Americans, share the sensitive data with federal agencies and retain it for at least 10 years.

The proposed changes would revise the federal government's rules for police intelligence-gathering for the first time since 1993 and would apply to any of the nation's 18,000 state and local police agencies that receive roughly $1.6 billion each year in federal grants.

Quietly unveiled late last month, the proposal is part of a flurry of domestic intelligence changes issued and planned by the Bush administration in its waning months. They include a recent executive order that guides the reorganization of federal spy agencies and a pending Justice Department overhaul of FBI procedures for gathering intelligence and investigating terrorism cases within U.S. borders.

Taken together, critics in Congress and elsewhere say, the moves are intended to lock in policies for Bush's successor and to enshrine controversial post-Sept. 11 approaches that some say have fed the greatest expansion of executive authority since the Watergate era.

Supporters say the measures simply codify existing counterterrorism practices and policies that are endorsed by lawmakers and independent experts such as the 9/11 Commission. They say the measures preserve civil liberties and are subject to internal oversight.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the administration agrees that it needs to do everything possible to prevent unwarranted encroachments on civil liberties, adding that it succeeds the overwhelming majority of the time.

Bush homeland security adviser Kenneth L. Wainstein said, "This is a continuum that started back on 9/11 to reform law enforcement and the intelligence community to focus on the terrorism threat."

Under the Justice Department proposal for state and local police, published for public comment July 31, law enforcement agencies would be allowed to target groups as well as individuals, and to launch a criminal intelligence investigation based on the suspicion that a target is engaged in terrorism or providing material support to terrorists. They also could share results with a constellation of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and others in many cases.

Criminal intelligence data starts with sources as basic as public records and the Internet, but also includes law enforcement databases, confidential and undercover sources, and active surveillance.

Jim McMahon, deputy executive director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said the proposed changes "catch up with reality" in that those who investigate crimes such as money laundering, drug trafficking and document fraud are best positioned to detect terrorists. He said the rule maintains the key requirement that police demonstrate a "reasonable suspicion" that a target is involved in a crime before collecting intelligence.

"It moves what the rules were from 1993 to the new world we live in, but it maintains civil liberties," McMahon said.

However, Michael German, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the proposed rule may be misunderstood as permitting police to collect intelligence even when no underlying crime is suspected, such as when a person gives money to a charity that independently gives money to a group later designated a terrorist organization.

The rule also would allow criminal intelligence assessments to be shared outside designated channels whenever doing so may avoid danger to life or property -- not only when such danger is "imminent," as is now required, German said.

On the day the police proposal was put forward, the White House announced it had updated Reagan-era operating guidelines for the U.S. intelligence community. The revised Executive Order 12333 established guidelines for overseas spying and called for better sharing of information with local law enforcement. It directed the CIA and other spy agencies to "provide specialized equipment, technical knowledge or assistance of expert personnel" to support state and local authorities.

And last week, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said that the Justice Department will release new guidelines within weeks to streamline and unify FBI investigations of criminal law enforcement matters and national security threats. The changes will clarify what tools agents can employ and whose approval they must obtain.

The recent moves continue a steady expansion of the intelligence role of U.S. law enforcement, breaking down a wall erected after congressional hearings in 1976 to rein in such activity.

The push to transform FBI and local police intelligence operations has triggered wider debate over who will be targeted, what will be done with the information collected and who will oversee such activities.

Many security analysts faulted U.S. authorities after the 2001 terrorist attacks, saying the FBI was not combating terrorist plots before they were carried out and needed to proactively use intelligence. In the years since, civil liberties groups and some members of Congress have criticized the administration for unilaterally expanding surveillance and moving too fast to share sensitive information without safeguards.

Critics say preemptive law enforcement in the absence of a crime can violate the Constitution and due process. They cite the administration's long-running warrantless-surveillance program, which was set up outside the courts, and the FBI's acknowledgment that it abused its intelligence-gathering privileges in hundreds of cases by using inadequately documented administrative orders to obtain telephone, e-mail, financial and other personal records of U.S. citizens without warrants.

Former Justice Department official Jamie S. Gorelick said the new FBI guidelines on their own do not raise alarms. But she cited the recent disclosure that undercover Maryland State Police agents spied on death penalty opponents and antiwar groups in 2005 and 2006 to emphasize that the policies would require close oversight.

"If properly implemented, this should assure the public that people are not being investigated by agencies who are not trained in how to protect constitutional rights," said the former deputy attorney general. "The FBI will need to be vigilant -- both in its policies and its practices -- to live up to that promise."

German, an FBI agent for 16 years, said easing established limits on intelligence-gathering would lead to abuses against peaceful political dissenters. In addition to the Maryland case, he pointed to reports in the past six years that undercover New York police officers infiltrated protest groups before the 2004 Republican National Convention; that California state agents eavesdropped on peace, animal rights and labor activists; and that Denver police spied on Amnesty International and others before being discovered.

"If police officers no longer see themselves as engaged in protecting their communities from criminals and instead as domestic intelligence agents working on behalf of the CIA, they will be encouraged to collect more information," German said. "It turns police officers into spies on behalf of the federal government."

Civil liberties groups also have warned that forthcoming Justice Department rules for the FBI may permit the use of terrorist profiles that could single out religious or ethnic groups such as Muslims or Arabs for investigation.

Mukasey said the changes will give the next president "some of the tools necessary to keep us safe" and will not alter Justice rules that prohibit investigations based on a person's race, religion or speech. He said the new guidelines will make it easier for the FBI to use informants, conduct physical and photographic surveillance, and share data in intelligence cases, on the grounds that doing so should be no harder than in investigations of ordinary crimes.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that updating police intelligence rules is a move "in the right direction. However, the vagueness of the provisions giving broad access to criminal intelligence to undefined agencies . . . is very troubling."

Staff writers Joby Warrick and Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

As you know, this Is VERY serious ! The bottom line is....a vote for McCain is a vote to lose our privacy rights. They will be secretly spying on bloggers, civil liberties groups, activists and anyone they want to....including me...for trying to share truth ! (Funny how this Bush proposal is NEVER discussed in Main Stream Media)

SHARE THIS EVERYWHERE! THIS MUST BE STOPPED !

Obama 2008

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...

Dedicated To TRUTH !

GOPers For Obama Rip McCain On Georgia;

Tout Hagel As V.P.

Republicans For Obama Speak Out

By Sam Stein

A group of prominent Republicans supporting Barack Obama took to a conference call Tuesday morning to tout their preferred candidate, make the case for other GOPers to cross party lines, and warn about the dangers of John McCain's foreign policy.

Hoping to fill a void in news with Senator Obama on vacation, former Rep. Jim Leach, former Sen. Lincoln Chafee and Rita Hauser (a national intelligence expert who served in the Bush administration), offered at times sharp lines of criticism for the presumptive Republican nominee.

"I served with Sen. McCain, and he and I were the only two to vote against the Bush/Cheney tax cuts," recalled Chafee. "During this campaign it is a different John McCain. He is saying he would make the tax cuts permanent. He is advocating more drilling whereas he voted against drilling in ANWR. It goes to his credibility. And that is such an important issue for this country... plus his foreign policy has been consistently with Bush/Cheney and I know from my perspective that is a huge issue for the United States."

Hauser, meanwhile, pivoted off current events to highlight why Republicans like her viewed McCain's foreign policy as shortsighted and, quiet possibly, at odds with international interests.

"I think the little flare up we are witnessing in Georgia is another illustration of the different approach these two men are taking," she said. "McCain is bellicose: threatening to kick Russia out of the G8, use force if it is required. Obama is far more of the traditional position: turn to international institutions, call for reconciliation, call for an end of hostilities, but also be firm in his words. And that's the kind of leadership we need."

Reflecting disenchantment over the Bush/Cheney years, Leach, Chafee and Hauser all touted Obama's pledge of post-partisanship as a defining aspect in why they were crossing party lines. As for the true test of Obama's bipartisanship -- whether he would appoint a Republican official as vice president or to his cabinet -- the officials on the call deferred to the candidate. But Leach did give a nod to Sen. Chuck Hagel, a prominent Republican who seems tailor made to endorse Obama.

"There are a number of very impressive vice presidential candidates and this is a singular decision for one person and that is Sen. Obama. But I would be hopeful that among the serious list of people to be considered would be Chuck Hagel," said the Iowa Republican. "I think Chuck would be the type of Republican who will represent well this country."

As part of their Republicans-for-Obama effort, the group said they would be launch a website in the next few days that would, primarily, contrast Obama's positions against McCain's through a Republican lens. "It will encourage others to come on because they will see that there is a growing number of Republicans around the country that support him," said Hauser.

The imperative was there, said Leach. It was simply a matter of showing Republicans the shortcomings of the current administration and convincing them that Obama was within their political mainstream.

"This is not a time for politics as usual," said the former congressman. "The portfolio of issues passed on to the next president is as daunting as any since WWII. The case for inspiring new political leadership and the social ethic has seldom been more evident. Barack Obama's platform is a call for change, but the change that he is articulating is more renewal than departure. ... It is rooted in very old American values that are very much part of the Republican as well as the Democratic tradition. ... The national interest requires a new approach to our interaction with the world -- including the recognition that a long-term occupation of Iraq is likely dangerously destabilizing." Visit: Republicans For Obama

OBAMA 2008

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Together, We WILL Make A Difference

We always hear about Obama's problems with blacks, whites, hispanics, jews, women, muslims, beer drinkers etc.. So we found this to be very interesting:

McCain's Problem With White Voters

By: Paul Jenkins

Much has been said and written in the past six months about Barack Obama's need to attract white voters in sufficient numbers to be elected, first in the primary (done) and now in the general election. It is a truism that somehow got twisted into Obama having a "problem with white voters" by the Clinton campaign and a compliant and mathematically illiterate traditional media. More to the point now, it is McCain who needs to score exceptionally well among white voters, better in fact than any other Republican presidential candidate in the past 20 years, including George H. W. Bush in his rout of Michael Dukakis in 1988.

A combination of changing demographics and heightened interest among groups favorable to Obama means that McCain will likely need over two-thirds of the vote of white voters 30 and older, and over 60% of all white voters, to even have a shot at winning. By comparison, the GOP's best presidential scores among whites in the last five elections belong to the elder Bush (60% against Dukakis) and George W. Bush (58% against John Kerry). The task is not impossible, but increasingly unlikely.

It is no surprise, then, that the McCain campaign has suddenly started focusing on race. The meaningless "race card" play is as desperate now as it was when Bill Clinton used it late in the primary. It is a frantic plea to the sliver (or is it more?) of white voters who somehow think that African-Americans can pull out a trump card that magically cowers all white people around them into submitting to their will. The "race card" covers a wide, polymorphous range of presumed white grievances, not least of which is affirmative action, which 53% of white voters say is "no longer necessary" in one recent survey; perhaps not coincidentally, the same percentage of white voters thought Obama's comment saying he didn't look like past presidents was "racist."

With that in mind, the Clintons' raw recourse to race in some of the late primary states did appear to have some effect: in Pennsylvania, for instance, half of Clinton's winning margin was provided by white voters who openly said that the candidate's race mattered "a lot" in their choice. It appears that McCain too sees race-baiting as his only way to the presidency and is turning to it early in the hope of stemming an unfriendly tide.

The prospects for McCain nonetheless remain daunting, even if one believes that openly bringing race to the table will attract more voters than alienate others (this is not a given.)

How did this happen?

At the risk of making Karl Rove and Mark Penn turn in their political graves, forget about micro-trends and let's look at the old-school, but frankly still meaningful broad racial, ethnic and age demographics at play.

African-Americans, Democrats' most loyal group, will continue to support the party's nominee with the same margin or better as in the past. What will change here is that black turnout can be expected to rise, conservatively to 12% of the electorate (from 11% in 2004.)

Among Latinos, McCain had high hopes, with his Arizona roots and moderate stance on immigration. That was until he cut and ran on that issue in the GOP primary, bringing him more or less in line with a party whose approval among Latinos is sinking even faster than among the general population (obviously not only because of its stance on immigration.) By doing this, McCain abandoned all hope of duplicating Bush's inroads in 2004. Recent polls have been remarkably consistent in pegging the race among Latino voters at about 70% of decided voters in favor of Obama. As the McCain campaign likes to say, he needs no introduction to this group: we take that to mean that there is little for him to add, that the majority of Latino voters' mind is made up and that these numbers will not change. Adding to McCain's problems is that the number of Hispanic voters has grown in every one of the past four years, conservatively to 9% of the voting age population.

Another problem for McCain: young white voters, who have tilted solidly towards Democratic candidates in recent elections (10% margin for Kerry in 2004.) The difficulty for the Republican this year is that the Democrat is especially attractive to young voters (Obama surely has more youth appeal than, say, Kerry); and that as echo boomers (children of baby boomers) have come of age, the number of voting-age young people has swollen. Even if 18-29 year-olds don't vote in a higher proportion than usually (and most observers assume they will), there are far more of them than there were four or eight years ago.

With white voters thirty or older representing a shrinking share of the electorate, and Republicans' already low popularity with the rest of the voting population dwindling, the challenge grows exponentially for McCain. Not coincidentally, he has rarely been able to exceed a 45% share against Obama in the RealClear and Pollster general election poll composites. It may be that the actual ceiling when undecided voters are accounted for is 47 or 48%, but it is unlikely to be higher.

Of course, the presidential election is based on the electoral college and individual states' outcomes, not on national polling as was sadly demonstrated in 2000. Here too, though, the picture is bleak for McCain. Outside of a dozen dazzlingly red states, mostly small and mostly in the Deep South, Appalachia and the Plains, McCain cannot count on any strong traditional GOP support. Again, demographic composition and recent shifts are working against him in a number of key states without which he cannot even begin to hope to be elected.

In the South, McCain is leading by single digits in Mississippi, South Carolina and Georgia, all of which have large African-American populations. Obama is unlikely to win these, but he sure will give McCain a fight, especially in Georgia, an unpleasant prospect for McCain whose limited resources should not be depleted in such Republican strongholds. More ominously, both candidates are essentially tied in North Carolina and Virginia, easy wins for Bush in 2004. Both states feature a potentially lethal mix for McCain: a large pool of black voters, young and/or educated whites, and a growing Latino population.

In the Southwest, McCain's problems are best symbolized by Arizona, his home state, in which he is struggling to beat Obama, thanks in no little part to the fact that Hispanics now represent 25% of voters. Texas should not be close either, yet here too Obama is lurking behind McCain by just 6% or so. McCain may not have given up yet on New Mexico and Colorado (both of which Bush won), but he may as well in light of polling and of demographics that favor a general shift towards the Democratic party (open Senate seats in both states are expected to move into the Democrat column this year.) Nevada remains a moderately bright spot for McCain, as it appears to be shifting more slowly towards Democrats than its neighbors; that said, here too Obama is now leading.

Obama's home region, the Midwest, is a nightmare for McCain. States previously known as swing have swung so far towards Obama (and in some cases Democrats generally) that they are considered all but unattainable by McCain: Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa (all decided by less than 3% margins in 2004) will all vote for Obama. Perhaps worse for McCain, Indiana, North and South Dakota, and Missouri are in play, an unthinkable occurrence four years ago. McCain's hopes in the region rest on Ohio and Michigan. It is a measure of the hill he has to climb that in Ohio, an absolute must-win Bush state for him, McCain is currently slightly behind Obama. Michigan is essentially McCain's only hope at this point of gaining a significant formerly Democratic state (thank you DNC for your ineptitude in handling that primary problem, and Hillary Clinton for exacerbating it after all was lost), and even there he is behind Obama. It is no accident that both Ohio and Michigan, bleeding jobs and population, are essentially immobile demographically and are showing the least movement toward the Democrat.

Another state McCain cannot lose under any circumstance is Florida. Thanks to Obama's late start there and Democratic primary stupidity (see Michigan above), the state has only recently slowly started moving towards the Democrat. That said, it IS moving, with Obama slightly ahead. A look at the Congressional races in the state shows what McCain may be up against: Florida's three Cuban-American Representatives, all Republicans, are in the fight of their electoral life, demonstrating the deep demographic and political shifts in the state, especially in South Florida. The most recent survey gives Obama a 20% edge among Latinos in Florida, a sea change from 2004 when the exit poll numbers were the exact reverse.

Aggravating the situation for McCain, smaller GOP states such as Alaska and Montana are threatening to break off, less because of demographics than of local conditions and Republican corruption and ineptitude. The presence of former GOP Congressman Bob Barr at the head of the Libertarian ticket will probably not be material in most states, but in some close contests (such as Montana and Alaska) his role could be remarkably akin to that played by Ralph Nader in 2000.

The Northeast, including Pennsylvania, will vote en bloc for Obama except for West Virginia and, just possibly, New Hampshire, McCain's political home away from home in which he is nonetheless lagging behind Obama.

None of this is to say that the election is foretold, that Democrats should be complacent, or that Obama has a cakewalk ahead of him. However, McCain's campaign to date is so widely off the mark that it is hard to imagine he will be able to get his groove back with white voters, a group whose aspirations he should be deeply familiar with. It also means that unless McCain can convince more white voters to cast their ballot for him than for any Republican in recent memory, and to match Ronald Reagan's performance against Walter Mondale in 1984, he will not win. This too is unlikely: after all, many of these voters knew Reagan. And McCain, to them, is no Reagan.

OBAMA 2008

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Dedicated To Truth

send comments

Obama Just Not A Good Negro

By: Ernest Harris

I'm about at the end of my rope as it relates to giving certain people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to how they respond to and treat Barack Obama and his family.

By "certain people" I am referring to the mainstream media (MSM) and to be frank, conservatives, most of whom are white, but by no means is this category limited only to whites. And by the way, I include some Hillary supporters and other Democrats in this category as well, because I don't for a minute believe just being in the Democratic Party makes one truly liberal or progressive.

But I have tried for quite some time in this campaign, and even before, as it relates to other situations in my lifetime, to give people the benefit of the doubt, to offer potential excuses for behavior that is so undeniably indicative of at minimum a double standard for how minorities are treated as compared to whites, and at worst, outright racism, and I do hesitate most of the time to use that word.

What has become very clear to me in the aftermath of Obama's historic trip to the Middle East and Europe is that the root of the opposition to, and extremely palpable dislike for Obama (and Michelle), is that he is just not behaving like the good negro that is expected of him. He has stepped out of his "place," beyond his station, into a position that was not agreed to and chosen for him by others. In short, he is being "uppity," that ultimate charge leveled at blacks for generations when they dared try to equate themselves with those who they should know are better than them.

Just look at some of the things that have been said, loudly and quietly, about Obama since this trip, which clearly pushed some of these people over the edge. In report after report, comment after comment, you could hear the grumblings. Obama was acting like a rock star; Obama was already acting like he was President; Obama was presumptuous; the trip and his talking in front of large crowds are symptomatic of Obama's hubris, his arrogance.

It was truly strange. Here you had an American man who was welcomed with open arms, indeed with great excitement about a new era that he just might represent, and many on the right (and some in his own party) were acting like he did something wrong. The double standard that couldn't be missed was that John McCain had essentially taken the same trip, and more, since he also went to Mexico and Colombia. And not once do I recall the MSM, or even the Democrats, questioning his right to go and the value of such a trip. Not once. But Obama goes and is greeted with much more excitement (an understatement) and he has to defend the trip. Outrageous. It is like Obama said himself at the Unity Conference this weekend in Chicago, it's like he is being punished for doing the trip better than McCain could. And for being more popular.

But you see, I don't ultimately think it is about whether or not Obama did it better or not. It is increasingly clear that this is about the fact that seeing a Black man (at least one who identifies as such in his case) in front of that crowd in Germany, seeing him with those heads of state, in a role as possible leader of the free world, was just too much. True colors are just starting to bleed through. We could see it coming with some people even before this trip. There were comments that Barack and Michelle were trying to act like the Black Kennedy's and there was, and still is of course, the much talked about charge that they are elitists. This charge has always been the most curious. It has come mostly, though not entirely, from Republicans who elected a current President who comes from generations of money and truly elite circles. How much more elite can a person be when their father was a President? Even McCain and his wife fit the definition of elite better, his father a Navy Admiral and his wife from one of the wealthiest families in the country. The Obama's, by all accounts, are from working class homes with no one in their families in a position to have "given" them anything they got. And yet it is the Obama's who are called elite.

No, they are not elitist. They are just minorities who are above and beyond what certain people are used to seeing, are better than what certain people are comfortable accepting since they do force the undeniable realization that they are indeed anybody's equal. And that just seems to be too much for some people to handle.

And now, according to Politco.com, McCain's new strategy is to go even further and try to make stick the notion that Obama is simply "not American enough." Which, no matter how you slice that, ultimately is code for he doesn't look like what an "American" should look like. It'll be interesting to see how far he gets with this one. But I have no doubt that there are many out there who deep down believe dark skin is not representative of 'America," at least not for our highest leader. It is clear, that no matter what Obama did, said, or does, he will never be acceptable, not because of his liberal positions, because we have had liberals run for office before, and because we saw and still see with some Hillary supporters, even being liberal is not enough. No, he will never be acceptable to this segment of our society simply because of his skin color. Political disagreements are not uncommon and are expected. But what we are seeing cannot be explained simply as partisan discourse.

There really is no other way to explain this double standard in treatment and response, this constant cry that Obama is presumptuous, arrogant, elitist and any number of other nicer ways to say he is not behaving as a good minority should, which is done by accepting only what is given, and by not daring to overshadow or overstep the white man, or woman as he did in Hillary's case.

He is just not supposed to be where he is and doing what he is doing. Ultimately that is one change too far and too fast for those in our society who cling to the old ways and outdated concepts of societal and world order.

Earnest Harris is an award-winning writer. He has written for The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Dallas Morning News, New York Newsday, and Hispanic magazine among others. He was also a political columnist with The Austin American-Statesman and the host of talk radio shows in Austin, Texas and St, Louis, Missouri. Currently he is primarily focused on the entertainment industry where he works as a writer, producer and director in Los Angeles. He and his wife oversee their own production company, Marlo Productions. Their latest movie, "A Simple Promise" was just released on DVD and two others are slated to go into production this year.

Obama 2008

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Dedicated To Truth

A Message from Obama: Regarding McCain's Latest Tactic

A few hours ago John McCain, the same man who just months ago promised to run a "respectful campaign," said he is "proud" of his latest attack ad.

That's the one attacking your enthusiasm, comparing me to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, and making false claims about my energy plan.

Now, we're facing some serious challenges in this country -- our economy is struggling, energy costs are skyrocketing, and families don't have health care.

Given the seriousness of these issues, you'd think we'd be having a serious debate. But instead, John McCain is running an expensive, negative campaign against us. Each day brings a desperate new set of attacks.

And they're not just attacking me. They're attacking you.

They're mocking the desire of millions of Americans to step up and take ownership of the political process.

They're trying to convince you that your enthusiasm won't amount to anything -- that the people you persuade, the phone calls you make, the donations you give, the doors you knock on are all an illusion. They believe that in this election the same old smears and negative attacks will prevail again.

They're wrong.

Show the strength of our movement for change.

Thank you,

Barack

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Together, We WILL Make A Difference

McCain 'Accidentally' Leaks Details of

Obamas Secret Trip To Iraq
Reuters reports that McCain shared details of Obama's trip to Iraq at a fundraiser:

NOTE from B4B: Just as I thought. Weeks ago, when I first started hearing McCain prompting Obama to go over to Iraq, my very first thought was....this could be a set-up. Now I don't know if it's because I have been following the corruption of the Bush Regime for the past number of years or because I've just watched The Godfather Trilogy....parts 1-2 and 3 in a row....whatever the case.....I smell a rat. I hate to say it, but I would not put it past this bunch of organized thugs personified to try to get Obama out of the country, as in over in Iraq, and then set him up for danger. I mean, can we really trust BlackWater to protect him. And now, McCain is even spelling out Obama's secret Iraq itinerary ! PATHETIC. So now, since Reuters and Huffington Post have already started spilling the itinerary beans, it's up to all 'O' Warriors to further spread this story so that it is so well known that Obama cancels the Iraq leg of his trip. Here is the article as appeared on Huff Post:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday that his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, is likely to be in Iraq over the weekend.
The Obama campaign has tried to cloak the Illinois senator's trip in some measure of secrecy for security reasons. The White House, State Department and Pentagon do not announce senior officials' visits to Iraq in advance.

"I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators" who make up a congressional delegation, McCain told a campaign fund-raising luncheon.

Josh Marshall points out that there's something very wrong with this:
The Reuters piece hints at it. But if Obama is going to be in Iraq this weekend, this is a major breach on McCain's part. As a knowledgeable insider notes ...
"If it is true that Obama is going to Iraq this weekend, it is a very serious mistake for McCain to have disclosed it publically. Even for run-of-the-mill CODELs the military gives guidance like,

"Please strongly discourage Congressional offices from issuing press releases prior to their trips which mention their intent to travel to the AOR and/or the dates of that travel or their scheduled meetings. Such releases are a serious compromise to OPSEC." If Obama is going to Iraq this weekend, I can not begin to imagine how much this is complicating the security planning for the trip."

It's known that Obama is leaving on his foreign trip this weekend and the Journal OpEd page this morning said that Obama could arrive in Iraq "as early as this weekend." And with a slew of reporters in tow, it's not exactly highly classified information. But there is a reason definite information about these sorts of trips aren't released in advance.

Hypothetically, maybe McCain was just guessing. But even so it would still be a serious lapse of judgment on his part.

In fact, McCain was furious when the press reported on his son serving in Iraq -- he feared the coverage would make him a target.

NOTE from B4B: We added the word 'accidentally' to the Huff title because we just know that McCain wouldn't do something this foolish on purpose.....right? But if he can't handle proper procedures for the security of one man, how will he handle securing our country. Finally, imagine the media uproar if this had been reversed.

See MORE from DailyKos
or article: "Obama's Aides Furious At McCain For Blabbing" New York Daily News

SPREAD THE WORD....BLOCK THE TRIP !

UPDATE: To those who prayed for Obama's safe journey....Prayer Works!

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...

Together, We WILL Make A Difference !

Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran

If He ‘Thinks Senator Obama’s

Going To Win’

On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going to be elected.
However, “if the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out,” Kristol said, reinforcing the fact that McCain is offering a third Bush term on Iran.
“I do wonder with Senator Obama, if President Bush thinks Senator Obama’s going to win, does he somehow think — does he worry that Obama won’t follow through on that policy,” Kristol added. Host Chris Wallace then asked if Kristol was suggesting that Bush might “launch a military strike” before or after the election:
WALLACE: So, you’re suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama’s going to win the election, either before or after the election, launch a military strike?
KRISTOL: I don’t know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can’t — it’s hard to make foreign policy based on guesses of election results. I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what is, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force.
Kristol also suggested that Obama’s election would tempt Saudi Arabia and Egypt to think, “maybe we can use nuclear weapons.”
Kristol’s belief that Bush might attack Iran before leaving office is not new. In April, he told Bill Bennett that it wasn’t “out of the question” that Bush would consider such a strike because “people are overdoing how much of a lame duck the president is.”
The claim that Obama’s potential election could force Bush’s hand also isn’t new. Earlier this month, far-right pseudo scholar Daniel Pipes told National Review Online that “President Bush will do something” if the Democratic nominee won. “Should it be Mr. McCain that wins, he’ll punt,” said Pipes.
Both Kristol and Pipes apparently agree with President Bush’s claim in March that McCain’s “not going to change” his foreign policy.

NOTE: Keep in mind that William Kystol (yes the pundit on Fox News) is the designer of the PNAC Plan to attack Iraq, Iran and Syria written in 1992. The signers of the Plan all ended up on the Bush Cabinet !

Learn More About PNAC.....Spread The Truth !

REJECT THE BUSH FEAR TACTICS !

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth !

Obama Addresses

Absent Black Fathers

(transcript)

Apostolic Church of God
Sunday, June 15th, 2009

Chicago, IL
Good morning. It’s good to be home on this Father’s Day with my girls, and it’s an honor to spend some time with all of you today in the house of our Lord.
At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus closes by saying, “Whoever hears these words of mine, and does them, shall be likened to a wise man who built his house upon a rock: the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock.” [Matthew 7: 24-25]
Here at Apostolic, you are blessed to worship in a house that has been founded on the rock of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. But it is also built on another rock, another foundation – and that rock is Bishop Arthur Brazier. In forty-eight years, he has built this congregation from just a few hundred to more than 20,000 strong – a congregation that, because of his leadership, has braved the fierce winds and heavy rains of violence and poverty; joblessness and hopelessness. Because of his work and his ministry, there are more graduates and fewer gang members in the neighborhoods surrounding this church. There are more homes and fewer homeless. There is more community and less chaos because Bishop Brazier continued the march for justice that he began by Dr. King’s side all those years ago. He is the reason this house has stood tall for half a century. And on this Father’s Day, it must make him proud to know that the man now charged with keeping its foundation strong is his son and your new pastor, Reverend Byron Brazier.
Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men who constantly push us toward it.
But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing – missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.
You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled – doubled – since we were children. We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.
How many times in the last year has this city lost a child at the hands of another child? How many times have our hearts stopped in the middle of the night with the sound of a gunshot or a siren? How many teenagers have we seen hanging around on street corners when they should be sitting in a classroom? How many are sitting in prison when they should be working, or at least looking for a job? How many in this generation are we willing to lose to poverty or violence or addiction? How many?
Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Yes, we need more money for our schools, and more outstanding teachers in the classroom, and more afterschool programs for our children. Yes, we need more jobs and more job training and more opportunity in our communities.
But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child – it’s the courage to raise one.
We need to help all the mothers out there who are raising these kids by themselves; the mothers who drop them off at school, go to work, pick up them up in the afternoon, work another shift, get dinner, make lunches, pay the bills, fix the house, and all the other things it takes both parents to do. So many of these women are doing a heroic job, but they need support. They need another parent. Their children need another parent. That’s what keeps their foundation strong. It’s what keeps the foundation of our country strong.
I know what it means to have an absent father, although my circumstances weren’t as tough as they are for many young people today. Even though my father left us when I was two years old, and I only knew him from the letters he wrote and the stories that my family told, I was luckier than most. I grew up in Hawaii, and had two wonderful grandparents from Kansas who poured everything they had into helping my mother raise my sister and me – who worked with her to teach us about love and respect and the obligations we have to one another. I screwed up more often than I should’ve, but I got plenty of second chances. And even though we didn’t have a lot of money, scholarships gave me the opportunity to go to some of the best schools in the country. A lot of kids don’t get these chances today. There is no margin for error in their lives. So my own story is different in that way.
Still, I know the toll that being a single parent took on my mother – how she struggled at times to the pay bills; to give us the things that other kids had; to play all the roles that both parents are supposed to play. And I know the toll it took on me. So I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle – that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my girls; that if I could give them anything, I would give them that rock – that foundation – on which to build their lives. And that would be the greatest gift I could offer.
I say this knowing that I have been an imperfect father – knowing that I have made mistakes and will continue to make more; wishing that I could be home for my girls and my wife more than I am right now. I say this knowing all of these things because even as we are imperfect, even as we face difficult circumstances, there are still certain lessons we must strive to live and learn as fathers – whether we are black or white; rich or poor; from the South Side or the wealthiest suburb.
The first is setting an example of excellence for our children – because if we want to set high expectations for them, we’ve got to set high expectations for ourselves. It’s great if you have a job; it’s even better if you have a college degree. It’s a wonderful thing if you are married and living in a home with your children, but don’t just sit in the house and watch “SportsCenter” all weekend long. That’s why so many children are growing up in front of the television. As fathers and parents, we’ve got to spend more time with them, and help them with their homework, and replace the video game or the remote control with a book once in awhile. That’s how we build that foundation.
We know that education is everything to our children’s future. We know that they will no longer just compete for good jobs with children from Indiana, but children from India and China and all over the world. We know the work and the studying and the level of education that requires.
You know, sometimes I’ll go to an eighth-grade graduation and there’s all that pomp and circumstance and gowns and flowers. And I think to myself, it’s just eighth grade. To really compete, they need to graduate high school, and then they need to graduate college, and they probably need a graduate degree too. An eighth-grade education doesn’t cut it today. Let’s give them a handshake and tell them to get their butts back in the library!
It’s up to us – as fathers and parents – to instill this ethic of excellence in our children. It’s up to us to say to our daughters, don’t ever let images on TV tell you what you are worth, because I expect you to dream without limit and reach for those goals. It’s up to us to tell our sons, those songs on the radio may glorify violence, but in my house we live glory to achievement, self respect, and hard work. It’s up to us to set these high expectations. And that means meeting those expectations ourselves. That means setting examples of excellence in our own lives.
The second thing we need to do as fathers is pass along the value of empathy to our children. Not sympathy, but empathy – the ability to stand in somebody else’s shoes; to look at the world through their eyes. Sometimes it’s so easy to get caught up in “us,” that we forget about our obligations to one another. There’s a culture in our society that says remembering these obligations is somehow soft – that we can’t show weakness, and so therefore we can’t show kindness.
But our young boys and girls see that. They see when you are ignoring or mistreating your wife. They see when you are inconsiderate at home; or when you are distant; or when you are thinking only of yourself. And so it’s no surprise when we see that behavior in our schools or on our streets. That’s why we pass on the values of empathy and kindness to our children by living them. We need to show our kids that you’re not strong by putting other people down – you’re strong by lifting them up. That’s our responsibility as fathers.
And by the way – it’s a responsibility that also extends to Washington. Because if fathers are doing their part; if they’re taking our responsibilities seriously to be there for their children, and set high expectations for them, and instill in them a sense of excellence and empathy, then our government should meet them halfway.
We should be making it easier for fathers who make responsible choices and harder for those who avoid them. We should get rid of the financial penalties we impose on married couples right now, and start making sure that every dime of child support goes directly to helping children instead of some bureaucrat. We should reward fathers who pay that child support with job training and job opportunities and a larger Earned Income Tax Credit that can help them pay the bills. We should expand programs where registered nurses visit expectant and new mothers and help them learn how to care for themselves before the baby is born and what to do after – programs that have helped increase father involvement, women’s employment, and children’s readiness for school. We should help these new families care for their children by expanding maternity and paternity leave, and we should guarantee every worker more paid sick leave so they can stay home to take care of their child without losing their income.
We should take all of these steps to build a strong foundation for our children. But we should also know that even if we do; even if we meet our obligations as fathers and parents; even if Washington does its part too, we will still face difficult challenges in our lives. There will still be days of struggle and heartache. The rains will still come and the winds will still blow.
And that is why the final lesson we must learn as fathers is also the greatest gift we can pass on to our children – and that is the gift of hope.
I’m not talking about an idle hope that’s little more than blind optimism or willful ignorance of the problems we face. I’m talking about hope as that spirit inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better is waiting for us if we’re willing to work for it and fight for it. If we are willing to believe.
I was answering questions at a town hall meeting in Wisconsin the other day and a young man raised his hand, and I figured he’d ask about college tuition or energy or maybe the war in Iraq. But instead he looked at me very seriously and he asked, “What does life mean to you?”
Now, I have to admit that I wasn’t quite prepared for that one. I think I stammered for a little bit, but then I stopped and gave it some thought, and I said this:
When I was a young man, I thought life was all about me – how do I make my way in the world, and how do I become successful and how do I get the things that I want.
But now, my life revolves around my two little girls. And what I think about is what kind of world I’m leaving them. Are they living in a county where there’s a huge gap between a few who are wealthy and a whole bunch of people who are struggling every day? Are they living in a county that is still divided by race? A country where, because they’re girls, they don’t have as much opportunity as boys do? Are they living in a country where we are hated around the world because we don’t cooperate effectively with other nations? Are they living a world that is in grave danger because of what we’ve done to its climate?
And what I’ve realized is that life doesn’t count for much unless you’re willing to do your small part to leave our children – all of our children – a better world. Even if it’s difficult. Even if the work seems great. Even if we don’t get very far in our lifetime.
That is our ultimate responsibility as fathers and parents. We try. We hope. We do what we can to build our house upon the sturdiest rock. And when the winds come, and the rains fall, and they beat upon that house, we keep faith that our Father will be there to guide us, and watch over us, and protect us, and lead His children through the darkest of storms into light of a better day. That is my prayer for all of us on this Father’s Day, and that is my hope for this country in the years ahead. May God Bless you and your children. Thank you.

Visit: Blacks4Barack.org

To Watch Complete Speech

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...Dedicated To TRUTH !

IT'S OFFICIAL ! BUSH LIED

US INTO IRAQ WAR !!!

Article By: Arianna Huffington

For those of you who were understandably busy following the last round of the Democratic Nomination Ultimate Fighting Championship this past week (I won't give away the ending for those who have it TiVo'd), I'd like to call your attention to a major story you may have missed: the Senate Intelligence Committee's 200-page "Phase II" report on how the Bush administration used -- and abused -- pre-war intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq.
The Committee's conclusion: the president and his top officials deliberately misrepresented secret intelligence to make the case to invade Iraq. No surprise there.
But it's vitally important that we continue to reiterate and document the truth of what happened and who was responsible for perpetrating this fraud on the American public. And here's why: the war is still going on (and American soldiers continue to die as a result of the deception); the same people responsible for this debacle still have their hands on the wheel; desperate to cover their tracks, they continue to lie about how we got into this mess; and they are currently hitting all the same notes in agitating for war in Iran.
The report is a direct rebuke to the administration's continued claims that it was the intelligence that was faulty, and that Bush and co. were simply presenting what the C.I.A. had given them.
A statement released by committee chairman Jay Rockefeller makes it clear that the administration "on numerous occasions, misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq...in making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent."
The report doesn't use the word, but we all know what it's called when someone presents something as fact that's directly contradicted by the evidence. A lie. Not a mistake. A lie.
Some specifics from Rockefeller's statement (emphasis mine):
Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
So much for the tired claim that "everybody in the world" agreed that Iraq had WMD, was a "grave and gathering threat," was in league with Al Qaeda, etc., etc., etc.
The report also details how a cabal very high up in the Pentagon and the Vice President's office got played by a group of shady Iranian exiles in order, as McCaltchy's John Walcott puts it, to "feed bogus intelligence on Iraq and Iran to senior policymakers in the Bush administration who were eager to oust the Iraqi dictator."
This meeting was brokered by neo-con All-Star Michael Ledeen, who is now one of those desperately agitating for war with Iran. The story reads like a bad spy novel.
In December of 2001, Ledeen and two Pentagon Iran experts met an Iranian named Manucher Ghorbanifar in Rome. Ghorbanifar sketched out his plan to overthrow the Iranian regime on a cocktail napkin. The plan involved, as the Senate report puts it, "simultaneous disruption of traffic at key intersections leading to Tehran," which would "create anxiety, work stoppages and other disruptive measures." Ghorbanifar asked for $5 million in seed money to get started.
This was not the first time Leeden and Ghorbanifar had met. Both are alumni of the Iran-Contra arms scandal. In fact, in 1984, the CIA had said that Ghorbanifar "should be regarded as an intelligence fabricator and a nuisance."
Operation Desert Gridlock never happened, but Ledeen continued to feed his dubious intelligence to an eager Pentagon, including giving Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith a 100-day plan which would provide evidence that Iraqi WMD had been secretly moved to Iran. On this, he was backed up by three Republican senators: Rick Santorum, Jon Kyl and Sam Brownback.
Eventually alarm bells went off in the CIA and State Department and an investigation of the Pentagon's contacts with Ghorbanifar was started. It was shut down after only one month, however, by Stephen Cambone, then Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence.
The reaction of Republicans to the Phase II report has been predictable. They're desperate for the public not to dwell on the truth about this war. And if they can't present contrary evidence to refute the report (and they can't, because it doesn't exist), they can at least sow doubt -- acting as if the report is the result of partisan bickering as opposed to the smoking gun of the Bush administration's tragic acts.
In fact, the committee vote on the report was 10-5, with Republicans Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snow voting with the Democrats."It rots the very fiber of democracy when our government is put to these uses," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse in response to the report.
It's no coincidence that a war built on lies continues to be conducted using lies ("the surge is working"). Mark Green proposes a way to end the cycle of deception: create a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. "This worked in a very different historical situation of South Africa and can work here as well," wrote Green on HuffPost. "South Africans who engaged in murder and violence were given amnesty if they confessed under oath to their crimes and knowledge -- but would be prosecuted if they didn't.... The largely successful effort led to both truth and reconciliation."
Richard Clarke echoed Green's proposal last week, and also suggested something each of us can do: "I just don't think we can let these people back into polite society and give them jobs on university boards and corporate boards and just let them pretend that nothing ever happened when there are 4,000 Americans dead and 25,000 Americans grievously wounded, and they'll carry those wounds and suffer all the rest of their lives."
If the leaders responsible for that suffering are not held accountable -- both at the ballot box and by being shamed and shunned as Clarke suggests -- we dishonor the sacrifices of the fallen, and make it likely that many more will endure a similar fate.

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

VOTE OBAMA '08

VOTE...JUDGEMENT !