Saturday, August 9, 2008





Another War Is Breaking Out...
RIGHT THIS MINUTE !


New York Times
GORI, Georgia — The conflict between Russia and the former Soviet republic of Georgia moved toward all-out war on Saturday as Russia prepared to land ground troops on Georgia’s coast and broadened its bombing campaign both within Georgia and in the disputed territory of Abkhazia.

The fighting that began when Georgian forces tried to retake the capital of South Ossetia, a pro-Russian region that won de facto autonomy from Georgia in the early 1990s, appeared to be developing into the worst clashes between Russia and a foreign military since the 1980s war in Afghanistan.

Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, declared that Georgia was in a state of war, ordering government offices to work around the clock, and said that Russia was planning a full-scale invasion of his country.

Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, eclipsing the authority of President Dmitri A. Medvedev, left the Olympics in China and arrived Saturday evening in Vladikavkaz, a city in southern Russia just over the border that is a military staging area. State-controlled news broadcasts showed Mr. Putin meeting generals, suggesting that he was in charge of the operations on Georgian soil.

Mr. Putin made clear that Russia now viewed Georgian claims over the breakaway regions within its borders to be invalid, and that Russia had no intention of withdrawing. “There is almost no way we can imagine a return to the status quo,” he said, according to Interfax.

Russian armored vehicles continued to stream into South Ossetia, and Russian officials said that 1,500 civilians had been killed in South Ossetia and that 12 Russian soldiers had died.

A Georgian government spokesman said that 60 civilians had been killed in airstrikes on the city of Gori. Each side’s figures were impossible to confirm independently.

Attending the Olympic Games in Beijing, President Bush directly called on Russia on Saturday to stop bombing Georgian territory, expressing strong support for Georgia in a direct challenge to Russia’s leaders. (complete article)

Time For Judgement...TIME FOR OBAMA !

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

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

Dedicated To Truth




Hiding The Scumbag (McCain)

By Jane Smiley

So, John Edwards had a brief affair with a woman who is over forty, and it's a scandal. Elizabeth Edwards was ill at the time, and so John is especially naughty for being so callous, and yes I gave money to his campaign, but then, I never thought adultery was a big deal in the abstract, because, as we all know, I am a liberal, and I think denying people healthcare, swindling the taxpayer, starting an unnecessary war by forging documents and lying, and stealing the oil belonging to other nations is a lot worse than adultery. If every working person in America were to be free to join a union and if we had mastered that global warming thing, then I could start worrying about adultery, and be glad of it.

So, John McCain had a lengthy affair with a young rich woman, left his wife for her when she was crippled from a car accident, and went on to live off the new wife, for decades, and it's not a scandal. Why is that? Why is a misstep, followed by anger and reconciliation, a scandal, while actual bona fide betrayal followed by abandonment (and, let's say, a parasitic lifestyle) is just one of those things?

It is said that the first Mrs. McCain has forgiven her former husband. It is said Elizabeth Edwards has forgiven her current husband.

I know, I know, the National Enquirer never went after McCain. Why is that? When there seemed to be a bit of a smoking gun about John McCain and a lobbyist earlier this year, The National Enquirer didn't touch it. The lobbyist was disappeared, the New York Times dropped the story, and shhh. NO scandal. Why is that? Wouldn't I, as a citizen, rather my president slept with a filmmaker than a lobbyist?

Is it just that John Edwards is cuter than John McCain? Is it just that the idea of McCain getting it on makes the press squirm, and so they don't touch that story? Or do they really have a pro-Republican bias that shows up over and over and over? The press seems to be saying, go ahead, Republicans, trash the country, bankrupt the country, drive the country into a economic, moral, ethical, and military abyss. We don't care. We aren't going to hold you responsible for anything, including marital abandonment and cruelty.


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

Tuesday, August 5, 2008


McCain Volunteers Cindy
For TOPLESS Contest !



David Knowles (AOL News)

John McCain
drummed up support at the annual biker rally in Sturgis, South Dakota yesterday, telling the crowd he preferred the sound of Harley Davidson motorcycle engines to cheering Germans "any day." Hooray for outlaw bikers! John McCain salutes your Easy Rider spirit! So much so, in fact, that he hinted that his wife Cindy might like to get those engines revving a little louder. Via CNN:

Indeed, McCain felt so comfortable at the event that he even volunteered his wife for the rally's traditional beauty pageant, an infamously debauched event that's been known to feature topless women.

"I encouraged Cindy to compete," McCain said to cheers. "I told her with a little luck she could be the only woman ever to serve as first lady and Miss Buffalo Chip."

Yes, nothing like a little first lady T&A to help heal the country (the bottoms have been known to come off at the Miss Buffalo Chip contest, too). Nothing quite says "American Pride" like showing off your wife at a biker rally.

More Sturgis fun pictures here. And here's the video of McCain delivering his scripted shtick on having the bikers oggle our would-be first lady.

Time For Judgement....Time For OBAMA

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

send comments



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

Monday, August 4, 2008


HAPPY BIRTHDAY
BARACK OBAMA !!!

Turns 47 today....August 4th

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

Sunday, August 3, 2008


FACT CHECK: McCain Opposed Federal MLK Holiday, Arizona MLK Holiday And Key Legislation Aimed At Equal Opportunity For African Americans


From: ProgessiveAccountabilty.org

McCain Claim: McCain Defended Opposition Of Federal MLK Holiday By Saying He Supported Arizona’s State Holiday. During a press availability in Panama City, Florida, John McCain said, “I have supported hundreds of pieces of legislation, which would help Americans obtain an equal opportunity in America. I am proud of that record, from fighting for the recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday in my state to sponsoring specific legislation that would prevent discrimination in any shape or form in America today.” [McCain Press Availability In Panama City, Florida, 8/1/08]

  • FACT: McCain Supported Republican AZ Governor’s Decision To Rescind MLK Holiday. ABC News reported, “In Arizona, a bill to recognize a holiday honoring MLK failed in the legislature, so then-Gov. Bruce Babbitt, a Democrat, declared one through executive order. In January 1987, the first act of Arizona’s new governor, Republican Evan Mecham, was to rescind the executive order by his predecessor to create an MLK holiday. Arizona’s stance became a national controversy. McCain backed the decision at the time.” [ABC News, 4/3/08]

  • FACT: McCain Supported Gov. Evan Mecham’s Decision In 1987 To Rescind Martin Luther King Jr. Day. As reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer, “In a vote likely to haunt him for the rest of his public career, McCain voted against 1983 legislation establishing the third Monday in January as the federal holiday marking King’s birthday. Back home in Arizona, he supported Gov. Evan Mecham’s decision in 1987 to rescind an executive order creating a state holiday for King, but later reversed his position.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/16/08]
  • FACT: McCain Voted Against Creating Martin Luther King Holiday. In 1983, McCain voted against a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill to designate the third Monday of every January as a federal holiday in honor of the late civil rights leader, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The motion passed 89-77. [HR 3706, Vote 289, 8/2/83; CQ 1983]
    • McCain Admitted His Opposition To The Federal MLK Holiday Was “A Mistake” And His Position Has “Evolved.” During a 2000 interview, McCain compared his evolution on this issue to former Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater. “I believe that Barry Goldwater, to start with, regretted his vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act,” McCain said. “I think that Barry grew, like all of us grow and evolve. In 1983, when I was brand-new in the Congress, I voted against the recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King. That was a mistake, OK? And later I had the chance to … help fight for … the recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King as a holiday in my state.” [ www.salon.com 4/18/00; Accessed 4/2/08]
  • FACT: In 1994, McCain Sided With Senator Jesse Helms and Voted To Eliminate Funding For Martin Luther King Commission. McCain voted in favor of a Helms amendment “to prohibit federal financing for the Martin Luther King Jr. Federal Holiday Commission.” The amendment failed 28-70-2. [S Amdt 1738, Vote #127, 5/24/94; CQ Vote Description]
  • FACT: McCain Voted Against The Civil Rights Act Of 1990 FOUR Times. In 1990, McCain voted against a bill designed to address employer discrimination at least 4 times. According to the Washington Post, the “Civil Rights Act of 1990 is designed to overturn several recent Supreme Court rulings that made it much more difficult for individual employees to prove discrimination. The legislation, being fought by business, also would impose new penalties on employers convicted of job discrimination.” [S 2104, Vote #304, 10/24/90; Vote #276, Vote #275, 10/16/90; Vote #161, 7/18/90; Washington Post, 7/9/90]
Dont' Be Fooled.....OBAMA 2008

Related Article: Sole Black Reporter Booted From McCain Event

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

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

Saturday, August 2, 2008


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




Friday, August 1, 2008


Vietnam War Speechwriter says:

Here We Go Again


By: Noel Koch

On the first Saturday of each new month during the summer a group of Vietnam Veterans gather at the Vietnam Memorial in the early morning hours to wash The Wall. It is an act of homage, honoring our Brothers and Sisters. We are joined by a local service group, Civil Air Patrol Cadets, recruited to continue the work after we are gone. Each person has his or her motives for coming together in that hallowed place. For me, it is an act of contrition.

From 1971 through 1974 I served in the White House as a Special Assistant to the President. Part of my role involved the crafting of speeches arguing the case for staying the course in Vietnam. These speeches represented, in the aggregate, a monument to specious reasoning and a misapprehension of the imperatives of great power. President Nixon did not coin the phrase "I am not going to be the first president to lose a war." That self-regarding sentiment came from President Lyndon Johnson.

Still, President Nixon adopted it, and the popular wisdom of foreign policy "thinkers" reaching back to the 50s dressed it in the more presentable language of global realpolitik. If the communists took Indochina, Thailand would fall, then Burma and on across the Asian sub-continent. Jingoists, confused over which way the dominoes might fall, and never reluctant to send other people's sons and daughters to war, warned that if the communists weren't stopped in Southeast Asia we would be fighting them in the streets of San Francisco.

Establishment gray beards joined the chattering classes to insist that if the US withdrew from Vietnam, the US would lose its credibility, would cease to be a great power, its word never again to be trusted by its allies and others who looked to us for leadership in the struggle against global tyranny. It was all, as Neil Sheehan, writing about John Paul Vann, called it: "a bright shining lie." And the worst lie of all, in repeated appeals to the grieving hearts of our fellow citizens, was that we could only redeem the lives of our fallen by "winning" the war. Braced by that lie, we sacrificed more.

At length, President Nixon, the grand master of realpolitik, began the necessary process of extracting America from Vietnam. The fears we promoted in the speeches I and others wrote and promoted proved baseless. Inevitably, the angers set loose by our misadventure in Vietnam persisted for years.

In the end, it was John McCain, brutalized as a prisoner of war, who completed his Vietnam service by leading the fight to lance the boil of bitterness that disfigured the face of America in the aftermath of the war. It was John McCain, much honored for his wartime heroism, who brought further honor upon himself by standing for reconciliation with an old foe. Implicit in McCain's healing leadership was the understanding that our withdrawal from Vietnam, where our nation lost a war but our warriors never lost a battle, did not disgrace the memory of the more than 58,000 who died there.

If disgrace is to be assigned, it rests not with those who served, but with those who misused their service. The fighters of Vietnam, after all, defending their homeland, were only the instrument of our losses. It was America's misguided leadership that was the agent of those losses.

So, it is a sorrow now to hear John McCain, in pursuit of the White House, accusing Senator Barack Obama of dishonoring the sacrifices of American soldiers by calling for the withdrawal of US forces from a conflict promoted, as was Vietnam, by deceiving the American people. It is inexplicable, as the war in Iraq itself is inexplicable, that Senator McCain should charge that Barack Obama "is willing to lose a war in order to win the presidency." Buried near the surface of that discreditable allegation is the insistence that America must put still more of its best at risk in order to redeem those it has already lost.

The Senator insists we must win in Iraq. Yet, after a war that has lasted longer than World War II, and after the loss of more than 4,000 American lives, a definition of "winning" has still to be offered by the authors of this fiasco and their supporters. Senator Obama's fitness to be Commander-in-Chief is reaffirmed by his determination to end this folly, despite attacks on his motives and his patriotism. It was that determination that has served to persuade Iraq that it must now put its own house in order. And that is as close to "winning" as we are going to get in this war.

It is often said, and correctly, that Iraq is a very different war from Vietnam, but this much they have in common: American lives were wasted in Vietnam and they are being wasted in Iraq. However much American blood is shed in that sour soil, it will not be sweetened sufficiently to nurture up the seeds of democracy. (huff post)

Noel Koch is a member of the steering committee of Vets For Obama. Visit their official site or join them on Facebook.


SUPPORT OUR TROOPS...BRING THEM HOME !

Obama 2008


Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

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

Together, We WILL Make A Difference !


Group Pushing 'Hillary For VP'

VoteBoth Closes Down


Nedra Pickler

WASHINGTON — An effort to urge Barack Obama to pick former rival Hillary Rodham Clinton as his running mate is shutting down under the assumption she is not a contender for the No. 2 spot.

The two former Clinton staffers who started the group Vote Both say Obama's decision to offer Clinton a prime-time speaking role at the Democratic Party nominating convention and other signals suggest Obama will not chose her.

"Because it seems that Senator Obama has made his decision to offer the slot on the ticket to another candidate, we believe that continuing to ask him to pick Hillary is no longer helpful to our party's chances of winning in November," Adam Parkhomenko and Sam Arora wrote in an e-mail they planned to send Thursday to the 40,000-plus supporters who signed onto their online petition.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the campaign won't comment on the vice presidential search and hasn't finalized the convention speaking program. Obama and Clinton advisers have said Clinton is likely to speak on the convention's second night, Aug. 26, which is the 88th anniversary of the ratification of the amendment giving the women the right to vote.

Parkhomenko and Arora have a combined 10 years experience working for Clinton. Most recently Arora was a press aide to her presidential campaign and Parkhomenko was executive assistant to former Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, who is now chief of staff for Obama's yet-to-be named vice presidential nominee.

In an interview, Arora was coy about what makes them so confident Clinton won't be chosen.

"All indications we have from people close to Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are that Hillary is not on the short list," Arora said. "We're looking at how we can _ if we can _ use Vote Both to help him because we want a Democrat in the White House."

Obama said this week that he wants a running mate who will help him change how business has been conducted in Washington _ seen by many as an indication that he won't pick Clinton.

It's Voter Registration Time !!!

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

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

Together, We WILL Make A Difference !

Thursday, July 31, 2008


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

Gulf Report:

Purpose of Mideast Negotiations Is To Help McCain


According to a press release sent out by Time, this Friday's edition of the magazine will reportedly include a article that describes how Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is deeply involved in an effort to "clean up [President] Bush's foreign policy legacy."

But one newspaper in the Persian Gulf believes the negotiations are tailored for the benefit of John McCain during the fall election season. In a Thursday editorial entitled "Negotiations for the Sake of Rice," the UAE's Al-Khaleej writes that leaders in the United States, Israel and the Palestinian Territories all know that no breakthroughs can be expected in President Bush's last few months in office.

"But since the attention is focused on helping the Republican candidate John McCain in the presidential election in November, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will increase her pressures in an attempt to change some positions and facts, and sign a document - a mere document - that would be regarded as an accomplishment," the paper claims, adding that the negotiations are "pointless." (Huff Post)


Beware of Manipulation !

OBAMA 2008 !!!!

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

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

Dedicated To Truth !

Friday, July 25, 2008





Beware of Weak Polls !
Just Another Tool of Media Manipulation
To Make Race Seem Tighter


As Obama generates thousands of well-wishers worldwide including the astounding 200,000 plus in Berlin, while McCain hangs out in grocery stores and German weinershnitzels in Columbus, Ohio, the media has joined in unison to attempt to make the presidential race seem super-tight between the candidates. Maybe this is because most of the media is GOP controlled or maybe just a desire to make the race more interesting a contest in hopes of garnering better ratings. They know that it would be pretty boring to viewers if they all stated 'McCain Is Toast'!



Whatever the true reason, we took a look at the great pollsters that all of the media love to refer to as their incredible sources....that is Quinnipiac University and Rasmussen Polls (Reports)



First thought is....'Quin who?'. Yes, Quinnipiac University, located in Connecticut has been chosen by the media as the number one pollsters which prove that Obama is ahead by only 3 points. (which everyone who hears this knows that can't be true. Republicans don't even like McCain). From Quin's own website we learned: "Student interviewers use a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system to collect data from statewide and national residents. For a typical public opinion survey, a randomly selected sample of about 1,000 registered voters age 18 and over is interviewed over five or six days. The polls are conducted at the Polling Institute on West Woods Road, close to the main campus".



Now, that's interesting because we learn that these are college kids doing these 'polls' randomly polling around 1000 people (out of 126 million plus registered voters nationwide) via landline telephones, an item rarely used by the young voters of today. All I can say is, I give these kids credit for trying to learn polling procedures, but I definitely don't see this to be a worthy enough method for MSM to use as the 'pollsters of truth'.



Secondly, there's the Rassmussen Polls, owned by Scott Rasmussen. I found it interesting that this polling source kind of popped up out of nowhere since I had never heard of them before this season's campaign. So I did a quick search on Scott and learned that he, like Quin uses land-line telephone surveys as their method of polling. But what is even more interesting is Scott's background, which was not in data surveys, statistical gathering or even polling at all.



Scott Rasmussen's history, as found on Wikipedia, states: "...Rasmussen was exposed to the broadcasting business through his father, Bill Rasmussen, who was a broadcaster for the New England Whalers. In 1979, Scott and Bill Rasmussen founded ESPN, the cable sports network" That's kind of interesting. So Scott's background is in television production and programming. Verrrry interesting. And didn't ABC Television buy ESPN. Hmmmm.


Another point to these great 'polls' that should be considered is that they don't even use real people as the callers ! Their automated system uses a computer generated 'voice' to 'talk' to the randomly selected people to be polled. Studies have shown that only 1 out of 3 people who receive computer voiced calls will actually participate, meaning every 2 out of 3 just hang up. And the media calls this 'accurate polling'? (Fox even calls it 'breaking news' at times...that's funny)



In other words, these so-called polls are not only extremely weak but are far from reliable. They're simply being used as another manipulation tool by the media. Heck.....if it's that easy...I'm thinking about starting my own polling company. If Scott can do it.....why can't I. Also, beware of the NBC/WSJ polls. NBC is owned by G.E., which owns Raytheon, one of the largest defense contractors in the world (makes bombs, tanks, etc.) and Wall Street Jounal is now owned by Rupert Murdoch....yes the same guy that owns FOX News. Interesting that they're working together.Hmmmm.



p.s. Let's REALLY prove these great pollsters wrong by getting everyone you know registered to vote...and VOTE....for the entire world's #1 choice...
BARACK OBAMA !


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




AMERICA'S FUTURE FIRST FAMILY !
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Together, We WILL Make A Difference !

Thursday, July 24, 2008



Transcript:

OBAMA BERLIN SPEECH !

"A World that Stands as One"
July 24th, 2008
Berlin, Germany



Thank you to the citizens of Berlin and to the people of Germany. Let me thank Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier for welcoming me earlier today. Thank you Mayor Wowereit, the Berlin Senate, the police, and most of all thank you for this welcome.
I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen - a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.
I know that I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city. The journey that led me here is improbable. My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His father - my grandfather - was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.
At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning - his dream - required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West. And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life.
That is why I'm here. And you are here because you too know that yearning. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life.
Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on the day when the first American plane touched down at Templehof.
On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade.
This is where the two sides met. And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city. They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin.
The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin.
And that's when the airlift began - when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city.
The odds were stacked against success. In the winter, a heavy fog filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping off the needed supplies. The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold.
But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city's mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. "There is only one possibility," he said. "For us to stand together united until this battle is won...The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty...People of the world, look at Berlin!"
People of the world - look at Berlin!
Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.
Look at Berlin, where the determination of a people met the generosity of the Marshall Plan and created a German miracle; where a victory over tyranny gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security.
Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity.
People of the world - look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.
Sixty years after the airlift, we are called upon again. History has led us to a new crossroad, with new promise and new peril. When you, the German people, tore down that wall - a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope - walls came tumbling down around the world. From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened. Markets opened too, and the spread of information and technology reduced barriers to opportunity and prosperity. While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history.
The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers - dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean.
The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil.
As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.
Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all.
In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we're honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny.
In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth - that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe.
Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more - not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.
That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.
The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.
We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity. Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace. Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid.
So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other.
That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the moment when our nations - and all nations - must summon that spirit anew.
This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.
This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO's first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.
This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.
This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century - in this city of all cities - we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent.
This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all.
This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.
This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations - including my own - will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one.
And this is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world. We must remember that the Cold War born in this city was not a battle for land or treasure. Sixty years ago, the planes that flew over Berlin did not drop bombs; instead they delivered food, and coal, and candy to grateful children. And in that show of solidarity, those pilots won more than a military victory. They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust - not just from the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here.
Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time?
Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words "never again" in Darfur?
Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?
People of Berlin - people of the world - this is our moment. This is our time.
I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.
But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived - at great cost and great sacrifice - to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom - indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us - what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America's shores - is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.
These are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. These aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of these aspirations that the airlift began. It is because of these aspirations that all free people - everywhere - became citizens of Berlin. It is in pursuit of these aspirations that a new generation - our generation - must make our mark on the world.
People of Berlin - and people of the world - the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.
WATCH COMPLETE SPEECH
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Working Together....To Change The World !



OBAMA STORMS BERLIN !

Largest Crowd of Campaign !


Before the largest crowd of his campaign, Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama on Thursday summoned Europeans and Americans together to "defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it" as surely as they conquered communism a generation ago.
"The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand," Obama said, speaking not far from where the Berlin Wall once divided the city.
"The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand," he said.
Obama said he was speaking as a citizen, not as a president, but the evening was awash in politics. His remarks inevitably invited comparison to historic speeches in the same city by Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, and he borrowed rhetoric from his own appeals to campaign audiences in the likes of Berlin, N.H., when he addressed a crowd in one of the great cities of Europe.
"People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time," he said.
Time For Leadership...TIME FOR OBAMA !
TO WATCH COMPLETE HISTORIC SPEECH
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Together, We WILL Make A Difference !

Tuesday, July 22, 2008


Looks Like A Bit Of 'Tit-for-Tat'
Notice drugs in Cindy's hand....pretty realistic !
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Dedicated To TRUTH !