Thursday, July 17, 2008


Obama calls criticism of wife 'infuriating'
Barack Obama says criticism of his wife is 'infuriating,'
blames conservative news media
JULIE PACE AP News


Jul 17, 2008 What gets under Barack Obama's skin? Criticism of his wife, Michelle Obama.
In an interview with Glamour magazine, Obama said attacks on his wife are "infuriating." The likely Democratic presidential nominee blamed the conservative press for going after his wife as if she were the candidate.
"If they have a difference with me on policy, they should debate me. Not her," Obama told the magazine.
Michelle Obama has been highly active in her husband's campaign, appearing with him at events and by herself at other times in an effort to help tout his candidacy. She promotes his policy agenda at fundraisers and gives interviews to reporters in support of her husband's views.
An Associated Press-Yahoo poll suggests Michelle Obama has higher favorable ratings than Cindy McCain, wife of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. However, Michelle Obama's unfavorable ratings are also higher.
Michelle Obama came under fire in February when she said she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. She later clarified her remark, saying she has always been proud of her country and was particularly proud to see so many people involved in the political process.
Obama said the attacks are ironic because his wife is "the most quintessentially American woman I know."
Michelle Obama, 44, has worked as a lawyer and hospital executive. The couple has two daughters, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7.
The Internet has been a double-edged sword for the Obama campaign. While it's allowed them to organize supporters and raise millions of dollars, Obama said it's also provided a vehicle for rumors and myths to spread quickly.
"It's very hard to catch up," he said.
Glamour's editor-in-chief also interviewed McCain. Full interviews with both candidates were scheduled to appear in the magazine's October issue.
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Dedicated To Truth


U.S. To Set Up Diplomatic Mission In Iran

(Oh Really !)


NOTE from B4B: Although this news is designed to be accepted as good news, we actually find this a bit scary. In a previous post we mentioned how Bush has given the OK to Israel to attack Iran. Now, all of a sudden, after all the Bush hate rhetoric of 'no talking to enemies', the Regime wants to create the illusion that he wants to now 'talk'. Could this be a part of his master plan....to look like the US wants to talk while telling Israel to do the dirty work? (then Bush can say....'it wasn't me'.) Pay attention folks. This smells like manipulation. Here is the 'good news' article:


It's like The Telegraph didn't write about it last month... Reuters is reporting today that British paper, The Guardian, says the US will set up a diplomatic mission in Tehran. Below is an excerpt from today's unsourced report. Here's The Telegraph's report from June that says the US is "considering" diplomatic missions.
The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush.The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section - a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country.
What makes this latest report from The Guardian more believable than The Telegraph's? Well for starters, recently the Bush Administration has been making good on its double-talk by announcing that it will send senior State Department official, William Burns, to hear out Tehran in Switzerland this weekend. The Guardian points out the blatant contradiction between Bush's rhetoric and the action's his administration has been taking:
"Burns is to sit at the table with Iranian officials despite Bush repeatedly ruling out direct talks on the nuclear issue until Iran suspends its uranium enrichment programme, which is a possible first step on the way to a nuclear weapon capability."
And according to the Reuters article,
Senior U.S. diplomat William Burns said in testimony to Congress last week the United States was looking to opening up an interest section in Tehran but had not made a decision yet.
The Telegraph also notes that, "Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, said the idea had been floated within her department for several months."
This all comes at three days after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said talks with the US could happen "in the near future."
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Dedicated To Truth !


Obama Camp Elated Over
$52 Million June Donations



There is a sense of elation in the Obama campaign as it was announced that their candidate raised $52 million in June. It's a massive haul for the presumptive Democratic nominee -- $3 million short of the historic mark he hit earlier in the cycle but much larger than the $22 million that John McCain brought in this past month.


The majority of donations, Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in an email to supporters, were of the small variety, with the average amount being $68.
An aide to the Senator was ecstatic when asked about the June numbers and said of an earlier Wall Street Journal report that Obama had raised "only" around $30 million: the paper is "embarrassed."


Greg Sargent at Talking Points Memo noted that the June haul puts Obama on track to achieve his goal of raising $300 million during the entirety of the general election - a total needed to match the likely loot of McCain and the RNC. And yet, Obama and his allies at the DNC still lag behind their counterparts. The Democrats have $72 million on hand, compared to the roughly $100 million brought in by the GOP.


"We remain at a massive disadvantage to our opponents," Plouffe wrote in an email before asking for additional $25 donations. "As I mentioned in my video message earlier in the week, the McCain Campaign and the Republican National Committee finished June with nearly $100 million in the bank.


We can't stop now. It's going to take everything we've got to defeat John McCain and his allies in November."



KEEP IT COMING !



Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

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

Together, We WILL Make A Difference !

Cindy McCain:

Drugs, Lies, Intimidation,

Theft and Cindy McCain


We ran across a story written in 1994, a full 14 years ago, detailing the Cindy McCain “almost” drug-theft scandal which the McCains managed to weasel their way out of.

These days Cindy McCain is the picture of the glowing, supportive spouse of a politician running for President. It was a different picture back then, at least in private, as the McCain’s managed to turn the tale of Cindy’s scheme for stealing narcotics using the doctors who worked in the charity she ran, into one of “redemption”.

At the time, journalists were willing to play along, the “tearful” confession, the claims of attempting to battle her addiction by seeking treatment, which turned out to be untrue.
GOP presidential candidate John McCain’s wife Cindy took to the airwaves last week, recounting for Jane Pauley (on “Dateline”) and Diane Sawyer (on “Good Morning America”) the tale of her onetime addiction to Percocet and Vicodin, and the fact that she stole the drugs from her own nonprofit medical relief organization.

It was a brave and obviously painful thing to do.
It was also vintage McCain media manipulation. Source - Salon
The Phoenix New Times wrote an extensive piece covering the McCain’s machinations to keep Cindy out of jail and out of the harsh public eye. After all, how would the the public feel about a woman who stole narcotics to feed her habit using the very doctors who worked for her charity? They also attempted to have the unintentional whistle-blower, Tom Gosinski, charged with extortion.

And it worked, to a “T”.
From the John McCain website:
As an advocate for children’s health care needs, Cindy founded and ran the American Voluntary Medical Team (AVMT) from 1988 to 1995. AVMT provided emergency medical and surgical care to impoverished children throughout the world. Cindy led 55 medical missions to third world and war-torn countries during AVMT’s seven years of existence. On one of those missions, Mother Teresa convinced Cindy to take two babies in need of medical attention to the United States. One of those babies is now their adopted daughter, 15 year old Bridget McCain.

A friend of Cindy’s, Tom was hired in September of 1991 as director of government and international affairs. Tom says that by the summer of 1992 he and other employees thought Cindy’s behavior to be so erratic that “she was addicted to the prescription narcotics Percocet and Vicodin. They believed she was obtaining these drugs illegally in the names of her employees and the public charity she founded.”

Before Cindy McCain’s problems became public, Gosinski had written that she stole a great many Percocets. How did the McCains deal with that? (mondoreb feb. 2008)
SORRY ! Cindy IS NOT of the Quality to be America's 1st Lady !
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Dedicated To Truth !

Wednesday, July 16, 2008


While IndyMac Customers Line Up
To Tranfer Money To Mattresses
McCain Weak On Economy


With Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke reiterating that the U.S. economy isn't in great shape, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the subject of bailout chatter and IndyMac being seized after the bank collapsed somewhat controversially, investors are pretty nervous.
Now, though, they're starting to act in ways we haven't seen much of in nearly a century. Customers at a Pasadena branch of IndyMac, the recently failed bank, lined up to withdraw as much money as they could, fearing the worst. (reuters)
Time For TRUE Leadership....OBAMA 2008
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Together, We WILL Make A Difference !

Tuesday, July 15, 2008



Israel ‘Will Attack Iran’ Before New US

President Sworn In, John Bolton Predicts


John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, has predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November presidential election but before George W Bush’s successor is sworn in.

by Toby Harnden in Washington
The Arab world would be “pleased” by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.”It [the reaction] will be positive privately. I think there’ll be public denunciations but no action,” he said.
Mr Bolton, an unflinching hawk who proposes military action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he sees as a lack of will by the Bush administration to itself contemplate military strikes.

“It’s clear that the administration has essentially given up that possibility,” he said. “I don’t think it’s serious any more. If you had asked me a year ago I would have said I thought it was a real possibility. I just don’t think it’s in the cards.”
Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran, he argued. The “optimal window” for strikes would be between the November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009.

“The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defences by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations .

“They’re also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgement is they would not want to do anything before our election because there’s no telling what impact it could have on the election.”
But waiting for either Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, or his Republican opponent John McCain to be installed in the White House could preclude military action happening for the next four years or at least delay it.

An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy,” said Mr Bolton, who was Mr Bush’s ambassador to the UN from 2005 to 2006.
“With McCain they might still be looking at a delay. Given that time is on Iran’s side, I think the argument for military action is sooner rather than later absent some other development.”
The Iran policy of Mr McCain, whom Mr Bolton supports, was “much more realistic than the Bush administration’s stance”.

Mr Obama has said he will open high-level talks with Iran “without preconditions” while Mr McCain views attacking Iran as a lesser evil than allowing Iran to become a nuclear power.
William Kristol, a prominent neo-conservative, told Fox News on Sunday that an Obama victory could prompt Mr Bush to launch attacks against Iran. “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,” he said.

Last week, Israeli jets carried out a long-range exercise over the Mediterranean that American intelligence officials concluded was practice for air strikes against Iran. Mohammad Ali Hosseini, spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, said this was an act of “psychological warfare” that would be futile.
“They do not have the capacity to threaten the Islamic Republic of Iran. They [Israel] have a number of domestic crises and they want to extrapolate it to cover others. Sometimes they come up with these empty slogans.”

He added that Tehran would deliver a “devastating” response to any attack.
On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, said military action against Iran would turn the Middle East into a “fireball” and accelerate Iran’s nuclear programme.

Mr Bolton, however, dismissed such sentiments as scaremongering. “The key point would be for the Israelis to break Iran’s control over the nuclear fuel cycle and that could be accomplished for example by destroying the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan or the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

“That doesn’t end the problem but it buys time during which a more permanent solution might be found…. How long? That would be hard to say. Depends on the extent of the destruction.”
The Telegraph
STOP THE MADNESS.....VOTE OBAMA !!!!!!!!!!!
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Together, We WILL Make A Difference !

NOTE: The Previous Post

Bush Gave $43 Million TO TALIBAN was written in May 2000

WOW ! Bush Gave $43 Million TO TALIBAN !
Robert Sheer
The Nation
May 2000
Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-US terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush Administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.


Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.


Sadly, the Bush Administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at US insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.


The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women?


At no point in modern history have women and girls been more systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human rights. Women may not appear in public without being covered from head to toe with the oppressive shroud called the burkha , and they may not leave the house without being accompanied by a male family member. They've not been permitted to attend school or be treated by male doctors, yet women have been banned from practicing medicine or any profession for that matter.


The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an extreme religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all behavior, from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown. It is this last power that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House.
The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash from the Bush Administration, they have been willing to appear to reverse themselves on the growing of opium. That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising. But it is grotesque for a US official, James P. Callahan, director of the State Department's Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban's special methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a system of consensus-building," Callahan said after a visit with the Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on drugs "in very religious terms."
Of course, Callahan also reported, those who didn't obey the theocratic edict would be sent to prison.


In a country where those who break minor rules are simply beaten on the spot by religious police and others are stoned to death, it's understandable that the government's "religious" argument might be compelling. Even if it means, as Callahan concedes, that most of the farmers who grew the poppies will now confront starvation. That's because the Afghan economy has been ruined by the religious extremism of the Taliban, making the attraction of opium as a previously tolerated quick cash crop overwhelming.


For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the United States is willing to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the Afghan economy.
As the Drug Enforcement Administration's Steven Casteel admitted, "The bad side of the ban is that it's bringing their country--or certain regions of their country--to economic ruin." Nor did he hold out much hope for Afghan farmers growing other crops such as wheat, which require a vast infrastructure to supply water and fertilizer that no longer exists in that devastated country. There's little doubt that the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power.


The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession.
Time 4 Judgement....Time 4 OBAMA !
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Together, We WILL Make A Difference !


Obama's NAACP Speech


It is always humbling to speak before the NAACP. It is a powerful reminder of the debt we all owe to those who marched for us and fought for us and stood up on our behalf; of the sacrifices that were made for us by those we never knew; and of the giants whose shoulders I stand on here today.


They are the men and women we read about in history books and hear about in church; whose lives we honor with schools, and boulevards, and federal holidays that bear their names. But what I want to remind you tonight — on Youth Night — is that these giants, these icons of America’s past, were not much older than many of you when they took up freedom’s cause and made their mark on history.


Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was but a 26-year old pastor when he led a bus boycott in Montgomery that mobilized a movement. John Lewis was but a 25-year old activist when he faced down Billy clubs on the bridge in Selma and helped arouse the conscience of our nation. Diane Nash was even younger when she helped found SNCC and led Freedom Rides down south. And your chairman Julian Bond was but a 25-year old state legislator when he put his own shoulder to the wheel of history.


It is because of them; and all those whose names never made it into the history books - those men and women, young and old, black, brown and white, clear-eyed and straight-backed, who refused to settle for the world as it is; who had the courage to remake the world as it should be - that I stand before you tonight as the Democratic nominee for President of the United States of America.


And if I have the privilege of serving as your next President, I will stand up for you the same way that earlier generations of Americans stood up for me - by fighting to ensure that every single one of us has the chance to make it if we try. That means removing the barriers of prejudice and misunderstanding that still exist in America. It means fighting to eliminate discrimination from every corner of our country. It means changing hearts, and changing minds, and making sure that every American is treated equally under the law.


But social justice is not enough. As Dr. King once said, “the inseparable twin of racial justice is economic justice.” That’s why Dr. King went to Memphis in his final days to stand with striking sanitation workers. That’s why the march that Roy Wilkins helped lead forty five years ago this summer wasn’t just named the March on Washington, and it wasn’t just named the March on Washington for Freedom; it was named the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
What Dr. King and Roy Wilkins understood is that it matters little if you have the right to sit at the front of the bus if you can’t afford the bus fare; it matters little if you have the right to sit at the lunch counter if you can’t afford the lunch. What they understood is that so long as Americans are denied the decent wages, and good benefits, and fair treatment they deserve, the dream for which so many gave so much will remain out of reach; that to live up to our founding promise of equality for all, we have to make sure that opportunity is open to all Americans.


That is what I’ve been fighting to do throughout my over 20 years in public service. That’s why I’ve fought in the Senate to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create good jobs here in America. That’s why I brought Democrats and Republicans together in Illinois to put $100 million in tax cuts into the pockets of hardworking families, to expand health care to 150,000 children and parents, and to end the outrage of black women making just 62 cents for every dollar that many of their male coworkers make.


And that’s why I moved to Chicago after college. As some of you know, I turned down more lucrative jobs because I was inspired by the Civil Rights Movement and I wanted to do my part in the ongoing battle for opportunity in this country. So I went to work for a group of churches to help turn around neighborhoods that were devastated when the local steel plants closed. And I reached out to community leaders - black, brown, and white - and together, we gave job training to the jobless, set up afterschool programs to help keep kids off the streets, and block by block, we helped turn those neighborhoods around.


So I’ve been working my entire adult life to help build an America where social justice is being served and economic justice is being served; an America where we all have an equal chance to make it if we try. That’s the America I believe in. That’s the America you’ve been fighting for over the past 99 years. And that’s the America we have to keep marching towards today.
Our work is not over.


When so many of our nation’s schools are failing, especially those in our poorest rural and urban communities, denying millions of young Americans the chance to fulfill their potential and live out their dreams, we have more work to do.
When CEOs are making more in ten minutes than the average worker earns in a year, and millions of families lose their homes due to unscrupulous lending, checked neither by a sense of corporate ethics or a vigilant government; when the dream of entering the middle class and staying there is fading for young people in our community, we have more work to do.
When any human being is denied a life of dignity and respect, no matter whether they live in Anacostia or Appalachia or a village in Africa; when people are trapped in extreme poverty we know how to curb or suffering from diseases we know how to prevent; when they’re going without the medicines that they so desperately need - we have more work to do.
That’s what this election is all about. It’s about the responsibilities we all share for the future we hold in common. It’s about each and every one of us doing our part to build that more perfect union.


It’s about the responsibilities that corporate America has - responsibilities that start with ending a culture on Wall Street that says what’s good for me is good enough; that puts their bottom line ahead of what’s right for America. Because what we’ve learned in such a dramatic way in recent months is that pain in our economy trickles up; that Wall Street can’t thrive so long as Main Street is struggling; and that America is better off when the well-being of American business and the American people are aligned. Our CEOs have to recognize that they have a responsibility not just to grow their profit margins, but to be fair to their workers, and honest to their shareholders and to help strengthen our economy as a whole. That’s how we’ll ensure that economic justice is being served. And that’s what this election is about.
It’s about the responsibilities that Washington has - responsibilities that start with restoring fairness to our economy by making sure that the playing field isn’t tilted to benefit the special interests at the expense of ordinary Americans; and that we’re rewarding not just wealth, but the work and workers who create it. That’s why I’ll offer a middle class tax cut so we can lift up hardworking families, and give relief to struggling homeowners so we can end our housing crisis, and provide training to young people to work the green jobs of the future, and invest in our infrastructure so we can create millions of new jobs.


And that’s why I’ll end the outrage of one in five African Americans going without the health care they deserve. We’ll guarantee health care for anyone who needs it, make it affordable for anyone who wants it, and ensure that the quality of your health care does not depend on the color of your skin. And we’re not going to do it 20 years from now or 10 years from now, we’re going to do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States of America.


And here’s what else we’ll do - we’ll make sure that every child in this country gets a world-class education from the day they’re born until the day they graduate from college. Now, I understand that Senator McCain is going to be coming here in a couple of days and talking about education, and I’m glad to hear it. But the fact is, what he’s offering amounts to little more than the same tired rhetoric about vouchers. Well, I believe we need to move beyond the same debate we’ve been having for the past 30 years when we haven’t gotten anything done. We need to fix and improve our public schools, not throw our hands up and walk away from them. We need to uphold the ideal of public education, but we also need reform.


That’s why I’ve introduced a comprehensive strategy to recruit an army of new qualified teachers to our communities - and to pay them more and give them more support. And we’ll invest in early childhood education programs so that our kids don’t begin the race of life behind the starting line and offer a $4,000 tax credit to make college affordable for anyone who wants to go. Because as the NAACP knows better than anyone, the fight for social justice and economic justice begins in the classroom.


But it doesn’t end there. We have to fight for all those young men standing on street corners with little hope for the future besides ending up in jail. We have to break the cycle of poverty and violence that’s gripping too many neighborhoods in this country.


That’s why I’ll expand the Earned Income Tax Credit - because it’s one of the most successful anti-poverty measures we have. That’s why I’ll end the Bush policy of taking cops off the streets at the moment they’re needed most - because we need to give local law enforcement the support they need. That’s why we’ll provide job training for ex-offenders - because we need to make sure they don’t return to a life of crime. And that’s why I’ll build on the success of the Harlem Children’s Zone in New York and launch an all-hands-on-deck effort to end poverty in this country - because that’s how we’ll put the dream that Dr. King and Roy Wilkins fought for within reach for the next generation of children.


And if people tell you that we cannot afford to invest in education or health care or fighting poverty, you just remind them that we are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. And if we can spend that much money in Iraq, we can spend some of that money right here in Cincinnati, Ohio and in big cities and small towns in every corner of this country.


So yes, we have to demand more responsibility from Washington. And yes we have to demand more responsibility from Wall Street. But we also have to demand more from ourselves. Now, I know some say I’ve been too tough on folks about this responsibility stuff. But I’m not going to stop talking about it. Because I believe that in the end, it doesn’t matter how much money we invest in our communities, or how many 10-point plans we propose, or how many government programs we launch - none of it will make any difference if we don’t seize more responsibility in our own lives.


That’s how we’ll truly honor those who came before us. Because I know that Thurgood Marshall did not argue Brown versus Board of Education so that some of us could stop doing our jobs as parents. And I know that nine little children did not walk through a schoolhouse door in Little Rock so that we could stand by and let our children drop out of school and turn to gangs for the support they are not getting elsewhere. That’s not the freedom they fought so hard to achieve. That’s not the America they gave so much to build. That’s not the dream they had for our children.


That’s why if we’re serious about reclaiming that dream, we have to do more in our own lives, our own families, and our own communities. That starts with providing the guidance our children need, turning off the TV, and putting away the video games; attending those parent-teacher conferences, helping our children with their homework, and setting a good example. It starts with teaching our daughters to never allow images on television to tell them what they are worth; and teaching our sons to treat women with respect, and to realize that responsibility does not end at conception; that what makes them men is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one. It starts by being good neighbors and good citizens who are willing to volunteer in our communities - and to help our synagogues and churches and community centers feed the hungry and care for the elderly.



We all have to do our part to lift up this country.
That’s where change begins. And that, after all, is the true genius of America - not that America is, but that America will be; not that we are perfect, but that we can make ourselves more perfect; that brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand, people who love this country can change it. And that’s our most enduring responsibility - the responsibility to future generations. We have to change this country for them. We have to leave them a planet that’s cleaner, a nation that’s safer, and a world that’s more equal and more just.


So I’m grateful to you for all you’ve done for this campaign, but we’ve got work to do and we cannot rest. And I know that if you put your shoulders to the wheel of history and take up the cause of perfecting our union just as earlier generations of Americans did before you; if you take up the fight for opportunity and equality and prosperity for all; if you march with me and fight with me, and get your friends registered to vote, and if you stand with me this fall - then not only will we help close the responsibility deficit in this country, and not only will we help achieve social justice and economic justice for all, but I will come back here next year on the 100th anniversary of the NAACP, and I will stand before you as the President of the United States of America. And at that moment, you and I will truly know that a new day has come in this country we love.
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Together, We WILL Make A Difference !


Thank you.

Sunday, July 13, 2008


ALERT ALL WARRIORS !
ACTION TIME AGAINST NEW YORKER MAGAZINE
CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION !!!!!!!!!!!

Article from Huff Post:
OBAMA CAMP: "Tasteless And Offensive "
Who knows if they'll get this in Dubuque, but they sure aren't going to like it in Chicago: This week's New Yorker cover features an image of Michelle and Barack Obama that combines every smeary right-wing stereotype imaginable: An image of Obama in a turban and robes fist-bumping his be-afro'd wife, dressed in the military fatigues of a revolutionary and packing a machine gun and some serious ammo. Oh yes, this quaint little scene takes place in the Oval Office, under a picture of Osama bin Laden above a roaring fireplace, in which burns an American flag. All that's missing is a token sprig of arugula.
The illustration, by Barry Blitt,is called "The Politics of Fear" and, according to the NYer press release, "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign." Uh-huh. What's that they say about repeating a rumor?
Presumably the New Yorker readership is sophisticated enough to get the joke, but still: this is going to upset a lot of people, probably for the same reason it's going to delight a lot of other people, namely those on the right: Because it's got all the scare tactics and misinformation that has so far been used to derail Barack Obama's campaign — all in one handy illustration. Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism— well, here's your image.
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called it "tasteless and offensive" and, according to Jake Tapper at ABC, another high-profile Obama supporter called it "as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish."
The companion article by Ryan Lizza, who has written extensively about the campaign, traces Obama's early career and rise through Chicago politics. It's very long (18 pages!) and probably won't thrill a lot of Democratic party faithful, either, since it advances the image of Obama as a skilled and calculating politician who rose by becoming a master of the game:
"[P]erhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them....he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game."
Is it the New Yorker's job to write uniformly flattering profiles of Obama? Do they have a duty to avoid controversial imagery that plays off the most dogged and damaging campaign smears? Of course not. Still, as Tapper says, there are probably "some angry, angry people in Chicago right now." Not to mention Washington, New York, and maybe even Dubuque.
Update: Artist Barry Blitt defends the cover, saying that "It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is." (end of article)


NOTE FROM B4B:
SPONSORED RACISM WILL NOT BE TOLERATED !!!!!
CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION
TIME TO FLOOD THEIR PHONES, EMAIL, FAX, ETC.
(then deal with advertisers)
Senior Editor: Hendrik Hertzburg
CONTACT THE ARTIST: Barry@BarryBlitt.com
New Yorker Magazine
Owner: Conde' Nast Publications
4 Times Square New York, N.Y. 10036
phone: 1-800-825-2510
email:themail@NewYorker.com
ADVERTISING CONTACTS:
Drew Schutte
Vice President & Publishing Director
David Miller
Associate Publisher
For small-space advertising inquiries, please send an e-mail to http://us.mc532.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=smallads@newyorker.com, or call 877-843-6967.
For general advertising inquiries, please contact:
Terese CunninghamAdvertising Director
Telephone: 212-286-2105
Maria TenagliaAdvertising Director
Telephone: 212-286-6993
For other advertising inquiries, please contact your local sales representative:Cookman Campbell
Chicago Manager
Telephone: 312-649-3506
Patti ChapmanDetroit Manager
Telephone: 248-458-7955
Melissa Smith
Los Angeles Manager
Telephone: 323-965-3466
Marii Sebahar
San Francisco Manager
Telephone: 415-955-8282
For marketing inquiries, please contact:
Daniella Wells
Marketing Services Director
Telephone: 212-286-7479
ASSIGNMENT: Can someone track down which candidate Conde' Nast/Hertzburg contributed to. Could be interesting. Let us know.
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Together, We WILL Make A Difference !

I Was Right ! Bush Wants Israel To Bomb Iran !

Just yesterday B4B reported about the 'secret' congressional meeting this past March regarding the Imminent Martial Law Plan (see post below) which would mean that Bush would stay in office during the martial law period (basically canceling the election). Yesterday we stated that Bush may coax Israel to attack Iran (wouldn't look credible if U.S. did another illegal preemptive attack....plus all of our troops are kind of busy right now), creating major unrest in the region, giving Bush 'justification' for the desired martial law declaration. Well, here it is, just one day later as reported in the Times of United Kingdom:


President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran


Times/UK
President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.
Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.
“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.
Nor is it certain that Bush’s amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility. Tehran’s test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets.
“It’s really all down to the Israelis,” the Pentagon official added. “This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn’t believe that anything but force will deter Iran.”
The official added that Israel had not so far presented Bush with a convincing military proposal. “If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green,” he said.
There was also resistance inside the Pentagon from officers concerned about Iranian retaliation. “The uniform people are opposed to the attack plans, mainly because they think it will endanger our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the source said.
Complicating the calculations in both Washington and Tel Aviv is the prospect of an incoming Democratic president who has already made it clear that he prefers negotiation to the use of force.
Senator Barack Obama’s previous opposition to the war in Iraq, and his apparent doubts about the urgency of the Iranian threat, have intensified pressure on the Israeli hawks to act before November’s US presidential election. “If I were an Israeli I wouldn’t wait,” the Pentagon official added.
The latest round of regional tension was sparked by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which fired nine long and medium-range missiles in war game manoeuvres in the Gulf last Wednesday.
Iran’s state-run media reported that one of them was a modified Shahab-3 ballistic missile, which has a claimed range of 1,250 miles and could theoretically deliver a one-ton nuclear warhead over Israeli cities. Tel Aviv is about 650 miles from western Iran. General Hossein Salami, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander, boasted that “our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch”.
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said she saw the launches as “evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one”, although the impact of the Iranian stunt was diminished on Thursday when it became clear that a photograph purporting to show the missiles being launched had been faked.
The one thing that all sides agree on is that any strike by either Iran or Israel would trigger a catastrophic round of retaliation that would rock global oil markets, send the price of petrol soaring and wreck the progress of the US military effort in Iraq.
Abdalla Salem El-Badri, secretary-general of Opec, the oil producers’ consortium, said last week that a military conflict involving Iran would see an “unlimited” rise in prices because any loss of Iranian production — or constriction of shipments through the Strait of Hormuz — could not be replaced. Iran is Opec’s second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia.
Equally worrying for Bush would be the impact on the US mission in Iraq, which after years of turmoil has seen gains from the military “surge” of the past few months, and on American operations in the wider region. A senior Iranian official said yesterday that Iran would destroy Israel and 32 American military bases in the Middle East in response to any attack.
Yet US officials acknowledge that no American president can afford to remain idle if Israel is threatened. How genuine the Iranian threat is was the subject of intense debate last week, with some analysts arguing that Iran might have a useable nuclear weapon by next spring and others convinced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is engaged in a dangerous game of bluffing — mainly to impress a domestic Iranian audience that is struggling with economic setbacks and beginning to question his leadership.
Among the sceptics is Kenneth Katzman, a former CIA analyst and author of a book on the Revolutionary Guard. “I don’t subscribe to the view that Iran is in a position to inflict devastating damage on anyone,” said Katzman, who is best known for warning shortly before 9/11 that terrorists were planning to attack America.
“The Revolutionary Guards have always underperformed militarily,” he said. “Their equipment is quite inaccurate if not outright inoperable. Those missile launches were more like putting up a ‘beware of the dog’ sign. They want everyone to think that if you mess with them, you will get bitten.”
A former adviser to Rice noted that Ahmadinejad’s confrontational attitude had earned him powerful enemies among Iran’s religious leadership. Professor Shai Feldman, director of Middle East studies at Brandeis University, said the Iranian government was getting “clobbered” because of global economic strains. “His [Ahmadinejad's] failed policies have made Iran more vulnerable to sanctions and people close to the mullahs have decided he’s a liability,” he said.
In Israel, Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, has his own domestic problems with a corruption scandal that threatens to unseat him and the media have been rife with speculation that he might order an attack on Iran to distract attention from his difficulties. According to one of his closest friends, Olmert recently warned him that “in three months’ time it will be a different Middle East”.
Yet even the most hawkish officials acknowledge that Israel would face what would arguably be the most challenging military mission of its 60-year existence.
“No one here is talking about more than delaying the [nuclear] programme,” said the Pentagon source. He added that Israel would need to set back the Iranians by at least five years for an attack to be considered a success.
Even that may be beyond Israel’s competence if it has to act alone. Obvious targets would include Iran’s Isfahan plant, where uranium ore is converted into gas, the Natanz complex where this gas is used to enrich uranium in centrifuges and the plutonium-producing Arak heavy water plant. But Iran is known to have scattered other elements of its nuclear programme in underground facilities around the country. Neither US nor Israeli intelligence is certain that it knows where everything is.
“Maybe the Israelis could start off the attack and have us finish it off,” Katzman added. “And maybe that has been their intention all along. But in terms of the long-term military campaign that would be needed to permanently suppress Iran’s nuclear programme, only the US is perceived as having that capability right now.”
Additional reporting: Tony Allen-Mills in New York
NOTE FROM B4B: WAKE UP AMERICA ! While some of us are sitting around arguing about FISA, should Hillary be V.P., Jesse Jackson's 'nut-gate', etc., the Bush Regime is planning something so diobolical that all of these issues will be irrelevent. STAY FOCUSED ! Going to be a hot summer !
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org....
Together, WE Will Make The Difference !

Saturday, July 12, 2008


NEWSFLASH !
Congress addresses the imminent martial law plan - in private.

Sat. July 12, 2008

Secret meeting in Congress to discuss the imminent martial law. This happened March 13th of 2008. WHY? Congress is expecting the imminent collapse of the U.S. economy sometime in late 2008 and the possibility of “Civil War” in the United States due to the economic collapse. Possibly the most disturbing, “The advance round up of insurgent U.S. citizens that are likely to move against the U.S. Government.” It goes on to project the necessary and unavoidable merger between the U.S. , Canada and Mexico to save the U.S. economy. If this doesn’t motivate you into action then nothing will…. If nothing else watch CSPAN video of Dennis Kucinich asking for the reasons for secret meeting.

You think this is not possible then read this NOW:
Bush Executive Order: I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat…

Here’s some of the links the author (Michael Herzong) refers to in the audios:B.A. BrooksHouse of Representatives Secret meeting (Wired.com)House of Representatives Secret meeting (Dennis Kucinich)Detailed information that is connected to B.A. BrooksDavid J. Meyer congress secret meeting


NOTE from B4B: The rumor of a potential Bush martial law plan has been spreading and seems to be heading toward reality. One is not certain if the martial law plot will derive from an economic crash late this summer or an attack on Iran most probably launched by Israel under Bush's request. Either way, it is interesting that after 2 years of public outcry for a Bush impeachment, which had fallen on deaf ears, just last week Nancy Pelosi stated that impeachment proceedings may be warranted, although she knows that actual impeachment would take more time than Bush has left in office. Could this be her way of blocking the anticipated martial law....knowing that if Bush is in impeachment proceedings he cannot declare martial law ? Looks like it's going to be a hot summer. Stay grounded. Stay Together....The TRUE battle may be yet to come.


(See Updated Post from B4B)

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

Friday, July 11, 2008




Is This Why Rev. Jackson Hates Obama ?


Open Letter to Rev. Jackson from Najee Ali


(Political Activist)



Rev Jackson, your vulgar tirade caught on tape by Fox News where you said you wanted tocut Barack Obama's nuts off and accusing him of talking down to Black folks by giving moral lectures at churches is the last straw for me and a growing number of African Americans who are outraged at your comments.

There are many Blacks across the nation, myself included, who are appreciative for the work and contributions you have made in your civil rights career. But at this point, you're hurting Black America and Obama.


In September 2007 it was clear that you were frustrated by Obama, when you stated in an interview in South Carolina that Obama needs to stop acting white, because you felt he was not engaged in the Jena 6 movement enough to your liking.


Rev Jackson, your continued verbal attacks on Obama are unwarranted. It's as if you're jealous that Obama has eclipsed you and both your campaigns for the Democratic nomination by actually preparing to win it as the 2008 presumptive nominee.


Jesse Jackson & Barack Obama
For years you have been criticized as an ambulance chaser and opportunist. Many of Dr. King's insiders and aides say that King did not trust you. 40 years ago in Memphis as King lay dying from an assassin's bullet your first thought and action was to smear your shirt with Dr. King's blood. You then proceeded to appear in Chicago the next day on several news programs wearing the same shirt you deliberately smeared with his blood as if you were the heir of King's movement.


Obama's recent comments about Black fathers not abandoning their children and accepting moral responsibility in our lives is a lesson you apparently needed to learn when you were younger. If you had, it may not have caused you to cheat on your wife and father a child out of wedlock with a former staffer. Maybe that's what really bothered you about Obama's message to the church that Black fathers should be responsible for their children; you certainly haven't been.


Jesse Jackson and daughter
Living in Los Angeles I have watched your ten year old daughter grow up. Over the years I have had the pleasure to spend several holidays with your daughter including Christmas, her birthday parties and other milestones in her life. I will never turn my back on {the child} her mom and their family. It's about providing friendship, support and love to them while you have been missing in action.


Your daughter has never traveled or taken a trip with you, you have an annual birthday party in Beverly Hills every year where your entire family is welcome but your youngest child has only attended it once. She has had very little contact with her siblings and has never even met her big brother Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr, who apparently doesn't want anything to do with her. And allegedly (I believe it to be true ), he was the one to leak the scandal to the media concerning your affair.


Now don't get me wrong, Obama is not above reproach. He is a politician and is fair game to be fairly criticized by you or anyone else. But to personally attack Obama is crossing the line. Obama is not talking down to Black people; he wants you and other dead beat dads to spend time and care for your children properly. The destruction of the Black family and absentee fathers is a major problem in our community.


It's a problem that King spoke out and fought against. 40 years after King's murder I can see why King didn't trust you. If you can't and won't sincerely help Obama in this historic run then at least stop attacking him. Listen to Obama's message of being a responsible father and start taking care of your daughter.


Najee Ali

Najee Ali is Executive Director of Project Islamic H.O.P.E, a national civil rights organization that advocates for the human rights of oppressed people regardless of race, gender or religion. He was selected by Wave Newspapers and Our Weekly Newspaper as one of the 25 most influential black leaders in Los Angeles. More information is available at: http://www.islamichope.org/.



Note from B4B: We didn't write the letter....we just shared it...and all we can say is.....WOW !

(UPDATE: We have deleted the child's name for anonymity.)

Related Article

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


Rev. Jesse Jackson Makes
B4B Official 'Obama Hater List'

Thanks to the now infamous 'Nut-Gate' comment made by Rev. Jesse Jackson, Blacks4Barack has received numerous requests to have Jackson placed on the Obama Hater Watch List. In order to comply with the overwhelming requests we have chosen to add the Rev. on a temporary basis (still being respectful).

Visit http://blacks4barack.org/GetFiredUp.html to see the
complete Official Obama Hater List.
Obama news updates, photos, Celebs 4 Obama, volunteer info, videos, voter registration, Create-Your-Own Obama Logo (FREE), SpeakOut4Obama, Join B4B, Media Lies of the Week and Much More !

Blacks4Barack !
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org... Dedicated To Truth !

Wednesday, July 9, 2008


Should Jesse Jackson Be Added

To The 'Obama Hater List'

(although he's a 'supporter')?


The Rev. Jesse Jackson issued an apology to Barack Obama Wednesday for making what he called a "crude and hurtful" remark about the Illinois senator's recent comments directed toward some members of the black community.

According to Jackson, a Fox News microphone picked up comments he meant to deliver privately that seemed to disparage the presumptive Democratic nominee for appearing to lecture the black community on morality.

Jackson didn't elaborate on the context of his remarks, except to say he was trying to explain that Obama was hurting his relationship with black voters by recently conducting "moral" lectures at African-American churches.
Jackson's apology came a few hours before Fox News planned to air the remarks.
Speaking to CNN Wednesday, Jackson said he feels "very distressed" over the comments.

"This is a sound bite in a broader conversation about urban policy and racial disparities. I feel very distressed because I'm supportive of this campaign and with the senator, what he has done and is doing," he said. "I said he comes down as speaking down to black people. The moral message must be a much broader message. What we need really is racial justice and urban policy and jobs and health care. That's a range of issues on the menu.

"Then I said something I regret was crude. It was very private. And very much a sound bite," he also said.
More details from Clarence Page on The Swamp:

Well, Swamp fans, as Jackson explained to me by telephone, his remarks occurred during an off-air moment during a Fox New Channel interview that aired Sunday.
Jackson didn't realize that the mics were still "hot," as in turned on and recording when he made a few off-the-cuff remarks about Obama's faith-based programs.

Bill O'Reilly has the story and plans to report it on his Fox program, "The O'Reilly Factor" tonight.

Even though O'Reilly has booked me and another guest to respond to the video, he is withholding a full transcript or recording of Jackson's remarks even from me until the program airs.
So far I have only been told by a producer that Jackson criticizes Obama's proposed faith-based programs for "talking down to black people."

And (A warning here to younger or more sensitive readers) Jackson also says something about how the senator was "going to get his (twin objects of male anatomy) cut off."
Jackson, who recalled his remark as, "The senator is cutting off his you-know-what with black people," expressed deep regrets for saying it, even in what he thought was a "private conversation."

"I want to be clear," Jackson said. "My support for Barack Obama is unequivocal. I apologize to Barack and the Obama campaign for my crude and hurtful comments."



B4B NOTE: Looks like the old school might be a bit jealous. Jesse Jackson has done many great things as well as paved the way....but now it's time to stay out of the way.


To See The Official 'Obama Hater Watch' list visit Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Iraq Leaders Demand Timeline For U.S. Departure

Iraq said for the first time yesterday that it wanted to set a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from its territory.


(Times/UK)
President Bush has long resisted a schedule for pulling his 145,000 soldiers out, arguing that it would play into the hands of insurgents. Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia Prime Minister, who boasted last week that he had crushed terrorism in the country, suggested that it was time to start setting time-lines.


“The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to put a timetable on their withdrawal,” Mr al-Maliki said during a visit to the United Arab Emirates. He rejected efforts by Mr Bush to hurry through an agreement on vital issues such as the immunity of US troops in Iraq and use of the country’s airspace. Mr Bush had hoped to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by the end of July to establish the basis for a long-term presence of US troops in the country.
The Iraqi parliament has bridled at pushing through such a binding deal with the outgoing and unpopular Bush Administration, saying that the negotiations have been secretive and could undermine Iraq’s sovereignty. “I don’t know anything about this agreement and neither does parliament,” said Ezzedine Dawla, a Sunni MP. “We’re going to pass something we don’t know anything about.”


Mr al-Maliki’s announcement showed a growing self-confidence that Iraqi leaders can stand up to their powerful ally. His oil minister said last week that leading Western oil companies would not be allowed to set conditions for future deals over Iraq’s main natural resource. The tough stance also comes before Iraqi provincial elections later this year, and may mark the start of the Prime Minister’s campaign to be reelected. His popularity was bolstered by military operations to take back the southern oil city of Basra and the town of al-Amarah from Iranian-backed Shia militias.


His comments may also hint at future cooperation with Barak Obama, the Democratic candidate, who has promised to pull US troops out of Iraq within 16 months, although Mr Obama has since appeared to waver on the commitment.


“The negotiations are continuing with the American side,” Mr al-Maliki said, reflecting the desire of many MPs to wait until a new administration is in the White House, and Iraq’s provincial elections are over, before making any deal. The agreement would govern such issues as immunity for US troops from prosecution, the use of Iraqi airspace, and which side takes operational control for military missions against insurgents.


Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish MP, said that the issue of immunity for US forces had become a particularly sensitive subject for Iraqis. “We have suffered so much from immunity. Immunity equals committing crimes. In the name of immunity they have killed people, they have their own prisons, they captured Iraqis. We can’t continue like this,” he said.


Haidar al-Abadi, a close aide to the Prime Minister, said that the US had wanted complete control of Iraqi airspace, since Iraq still had no air force. Mr al-Abadi said that the Government had rejected the demand. “Air-space will be decided by the Iraqi Government,” he said.
In a rebuff to the Mr al-Maliki the Pentagon said any timetable would be articifical and withdrawal would depend on conditions on the ground.





Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

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

Friday, July 4, 2008


Message From Obama
Re: FISA


Today, Barack Obama posted a message to supporters on my.barackobama.com about the FISA legislation.

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.
This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.
But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.
The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation (PDF) uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as president -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.
Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.
I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as president of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country's destiny.
Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.
So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.
Barack Obama
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth