The following is a long laundry list of sites and people speaking the truth to people we all trust. I have been acumulating them and it has sickened me to see this truth. I hope and pray people will take the time to get this word out for all to see.
Note: I am open to hearing more truth and open to being shown all views and opinions so as long as they are not just idle attitudes and ego opnions but are backed up with facts.
===========================================================
CLINTONS + BUSHS FIRST SELL DRUGS TO POOR THEN BUST THEM AND SEND THEM TO PRIVATIZED PRISONS FOR PROFIT AND SET UP FUTURE POOR KIDS FOR DRUG USE AND PRISON + DEATH PENALTY
SEE LINK BELOW FOR HOW KIDS ARE SET UP FROM CRADLE TO GRAVE
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/danielleclarke/CSnl
BELOW SEE HOW THEY IMPORTED DRUGS BEFORE THEY GOT INTO OFFICE AND WERE ABLE TO FUND THEIR CAMPAIGNS AT THE SAKE OF THE POOR
If the clintons get back in office watch drug use zoom out of control they are in cahoots with bush and now making money on privatized prisons
If you want to know about the clintons and how they make money (on Drugs) on the lives of children see their past history.just google "clinton cocaine arkansas"
http://prorev.com/connex.htm <=== CLINTON TIME LINE
BUSH SR AND DRUGS ===>
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/mena.html
SEE = Daniel Patrick Moynihan opposed the Clintons' Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act--their "welfare reform" law. When it was passed, Moynihan called it "the most brutal act of social policy since Reconstruction." google "clinton crack cocaine prison"
MENA CONNECTION: Clinton, Cocaine & Coverup =
youtube = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqY3pMcW8DI
VOTE OBAMA FOR A REAL HONEST GOVERNMENT BUSH ALLOWED THE DRUGS TO FLY INTO ARKANSAS THROUGH TEXAS THEY ARE BOTH IN CAHOOTS TOGETHER
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=TSHB,TSHB:2006-45,TSHB:en&q=bush+clinton+arkansas+texas+cocaine
GOOGLE = bush clinton arkansas texas cocaine
VOTE OBAMA FOR A REAL HONEST GOVERNMENT A MAN WHO WANTS TO PUT THE MONEY BACK THAT THE CLINTONS TOOK AWAY WHEN THEY NEVER FUNDED THE MOTHERS WHO GOT TAKEN OFF WELFARE TO WORK FOR EDUCATION AND HOW THEY NEVER FUNDED THE CHILDREN FOR CHILD CARE AND HOW THEY TOOK AWAY THE PELL GRANTS FROM PRISONERS SO THAT THEY KEPT REVOLVING THROUGH THE NEW PRIVATIZED PRISONS THAT THE CLINTONS PROMOTED DURING THEIR REIGN.
BILL CLINTON IS NOT THE "" BLACK PRESIDENT "" HE IS THE "" WHITE DEVIL ""
I have tried to sign up for the bilerco project only to never get the meail approving me so here is my thoughs on barack Obama.
Barack has tried to work with all people. This is diversity.
Here is Baracks statement from 2004 to a LGBT group.
Obama: You raise an important point. Although yourinitial question waswhether there’s been a backlash against me, I seenone of that within theDemocratic Party. I think there are stillgeographical differences in termsof attitude toward gay and lesbian issues. I thinkdownstate, there is adifference. On the Southwest Side, the NorthwestSide of Chicago, where theCatholic Church is still a significant institution,there is a difference.And, to a certain extent, within theAfrican-American community, because ofthe strong affiliation with the church, there isstill some resistance.
My attitude is that candidates for office, personsin elected office, areultimately responsible for what they say and whatthey do. I think thequestion is, are they forceful, clear, strongadvocates on behalf of theseissues. Are they doing everything that they can tolobby on behalf of theseissues. They’re not always going to be successful,even within theDemocratic Party. And there are going to be peoplein this U.S. Senate racewho support me who may not feel the same way I do ongay and lesbian issues.That’s going to be true of the other candidates aswell. The important thingis, what do people see me saying publicly, how am Iacting publicly, how amI voting publicly. Because what I do think isunacceptable is saying onething in one forum, and saying something else inanother. What you do haveto expect is consistency, and not playing to aparticular audience.http://outlineschicago.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=3931
as for Barack today he recently invited a transgender girl to dinner and listed it publically on his web site.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/06/25/2007-06-25_transgender_may_ko_barack_dinner-1.html
Barack Obama defends gospel-tour decisions Friday, October 26, 2007 / 04:33 PM
SUMMARY: The senator talks with the Advocate on why a homophobic singer was invited on his tour and whether adding a gay pastor really balances things out.
When Sen. Barack Obama's campaign said Donnie McClurkin would be among the featured singers on the presidential candidate's gospel tour in South Carolina this weekend, it inadvertently stepped into the void between African-American Christians and gay men and lesbians.
McClurkin, an award-winning gospel singer who has struggled with his sexuality for years, has called homosexuality a "curse" and against "the intention of God."
The tour aims to up Obama's numbers among a crucial black demographic that made up 47 percent of South Carolina's Democratic primary voters in 2004 and among whom Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton are running neck-and-neck in recent polls.
Rather than oust McClurkin, the campaign found a third way, adding gay minister Andy Sidden to the lineup Wednesday.
LGBT people might well ask, Weren't Obama and his campaign versed enough in the pain of those he calls his "gay brothers and sisters" to see the McClurkin land mine before they rolled over it?
And can Obama really, as he claims, create the "big tent" movement he's been selling -- among voters who disagree on something as fundamental as what constitutes love?
The Advocate: How did this happen? Was Mr. McClurkin vetted?
Sen. Obama: Obviously, not vetted to the extent that people were aware of his attitudes with respect to gay and lesbians, LGBT issues -- at least not vetted as well as I would have liked to see.
Having said that, we viewed this simply as an opportunity to have a gospel concert as part of our overall outreach, and since he was singing at a concert along with a number of other artists, as opposed to being a spokesperson for us, probably it didn't undergo the same kind of vet that someone who was serving as a surrogate for me might have.
Some black gay activists I've spoken to say this doesn't make them question Obama the senator, but it does make them question the campaign -- do they really understand the nuances of these issues, are they really sitting down and talking with gay folks, because it seems like this decision came purely through the lens of faith?
Look, these kinds of issues are going to crop up inevitably through the course of campaigns. It's important to recognize that these are issues that every Democratic candidate who has African-American ministers as supporters may have to confront. It just so happened that it popped up on the screen in this particular instance. But I assure you, I am not the only candidate who's got a black minister or a white minister who's supporting them prominently who subscribes to similar views.
Part of the reason that we have had a faith outreach in our campaigns is precisely because I don't think the LGBT community or the Democratic Party is served by being hermetically sealed from the faith community and not in dialogue with a substantial portion of the electorate, even though we may disagree with them.
Part of what I have done in my campaign and in my career is be willing to go to churches and talk to ministers and tell them exactly what I think. And go straight at some of these issues of homophobia that exist in the church in a way that no other candidate has done. I believe that's important. We can try to pretend these issues don't exist and then be surprised when a gay-marriage amendment pops up and is surprisingly successful in a state. I think the better strategy is to take it head on and we've got to show up. These people of faith may be operating in part out of unfamiliarity, or they may be insular in terms of how they're viewing LGBT issues, they may not understand how what they say may be hurtful, and the only way for us to be able to communicate that is to show up.
I know you're in a difficult position here trying to balance these two constituencies -- but by keeping McClurkin on the tour, didn't you essentially choose your Christian constituency over your gay constituency?
No, I profoundly disagree with that. This is not a situation where I have backed off my positions one iota. You're talking to somebody who talked about gay Americans in his convention speech in 2004, who talked about them in his announcement speech for the president of the United States, who talks about gay Americans almost constantly in his stump speeches. If there's somebody out there who's been more consistent in including LGBT Americans in his or her vision of what America should be, then I would be interested in knowing who that person is.
One of the things that always comes up in presidential campaigns is, if you've got multiple supporters all over the place, should the candidate then be held responsible for the every single view of every one of his supporters? And obviously that's not possible. And if I start playing that game, then it will be very difficult for me to do what I think I can do best, which is bring the country together.
Look, when I went to Rick Warren's church at Saddleback, he was under enormous heat because, among his constituency, my position on LGBT issues and my position on abortion is anathema. So his position could have been, we will not have Obama speak because he does not subscribe to our views on these two issues. To his credit, he allowed me to speak, in his church, from his pulpit, to 2,000 evangelicals. And I didn't trim my remarks, I specifically told them, "I think you guys are wrong when it comes to issues like condom distribution. " And by the way, I got a standing ovation.
My views on gay issues and on choice issues are well-known. I did not trim my sails in the conversation I had with them. And I think as a consequence of appearances like that, I am helping to encourage understanding that will ultimately strengthen the cause of LGBT rights.
At some point, if we are going to have a conversation on these issues, what I expect to be judged by in the LGBT community is, have I been a strong advocate, have I been a forceful advocate, have I avoided these issues in any way. And If I have not, then that's how I expect to be judged.
Does this tour mark a turning point in the campaign where you're more focused on wooing voters than fund-raising?
I recognize why this has attracted attention in the LGBT community, (but) in terms of our overall campaign strategy, it's just one among multiple things that we've been doing in South Carolina. People in South Carolina listen to gospel music, so we have organized some gospel concerts. Black folks in South Carolina frequent barbershops and beauty shops, so we've had a barbershop-beauty shop strategy. And by the way, I can't vouch for the opinions of every barbershop and beauty-shop owner in South Carolina. But that is where people go, and so we've organized a particular way of reaching out to African-American voters in the barbershops and beauty shops. So this is just part of an ongoing strategy with multiple parts.
You have intimated that Sen. Clinton is perhaps declaring victory too soon. Looking at the polling, things don't look good for you in New Hampshire, Iowa's iffy, South Carolina doesn't look great . . . If you don't win one of those three states, where does your campaign go from there?
Well, I wouldn't agree with the characterization -- we are basically tied in Iowa, we're down in New Hampshire, and in South Carolina it's highly competitive. We have always known that in order to do well we've got to do well in the early states, and we expect to do well in the early states because that's where we're focusing our attention. We never expected to be able to compete in national polls two months before the first vote was cast because we're running against the dominant brand name in the Democratic Party over the last 20 years.
But for your audience, your readership, the one thing that I do want to make sure is included in this article is that on issues from "don't ask, don't tell" to DOMA to the gay marriage amendment to the human rights ordinance in Illinois that is the equivalent of what we've been attempting to do at the federal level, and that I was a chief cosponsor of, and then passed -- there has not been a stronger and more consistent advocate on LGBT issues than I have been.
And it is interesting to me and obviously speaks to the greater outreach that we have to do that that isn't a greater source of interest and pride on the part of the LGBT community. (Kerry Eleveld, The Advocate)
Ever hear of Harold Mayberry? He's a black preacher, too. Like Donnie McClurkin. And he uses his giant 2,800-member Oakland, California, pulpit
http://www.thebarackobamareport.com/
READ:::I read the following letter to the Human RightsCommission and couldn't agree with it more. Not evenSenator Obama's sending a openly Gay minister on theGospel tour in South Carolina is pleasing this groupor any Gay Rights groups, yet they give a pass toHillary Clinton on HER endorsements by people who areDECIDEDLY anti-gay rights. It appears to me to be adouble standard here or are they just AFRAID of herhighness Hillary Rodham Clinton? They examine SenatorObama under a microscope and criticize, urged on bytheir gal and her gang, the Clintonistas, and if hedoesn't bow down to their every demand they attack,just as is the method of Senator Clinton. Attack thesmallest detail and make it in to a big story. Despite the interview given by Mr. McClurkin, anddespite an openly Gay minister being part of theGospel tour, they are still demanding that Mr.McClurkin be removed from the Gospel tour.
The following is the letter written to The HumanRights Commission:
You're Threatening Obama Now? (subject line)
This is unspeakably short-sighted andcounterproductive.
I've always admired and supported the work of theHuman Rights Campaign, But do you honestly believethat any other candidate in this race has greater potential than Barack Obama to move thiscountry further along the path toward being apro-diversity society -- a society that creates more acceptance and opportunity for everyone, includinglesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered people?
I urge you in the strongest possible terms to take adeep breath, then take a good, long look at the forest-- instead of the trees.
Of course, if you insist on going down this misguidedpath, you might consider exercising a little fairnessin the matter. Ever hear of Harold Mayberry? He's a black preacher,too. Like Donnie McClurkin. And he uses his giant2,800-member Oakland, California, pulpit to preach against homosexuality.
When asked about this in 2004, Mayberry gave theclassic "love the sinner, hate the sin" =
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/14/MNGJB5KB9N1.DTL &type=printable
defense:
I'm comfortable in what I believe in. I'm notrejecting people. As God loves, we love. I don'treject thieves, I reject thievery.
But just this past August, Hillary Clinton met withMayberry and thanked him for his "commitment tofighting for civil rights and equality." =
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2857
"""which hillary blames on the bush administration butit was THE 1994 CLINTON CRIME BILL WHICH REMOVED PELLGRANTS FOR PRISONERS"" =
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/mar95wright. htm
"""Pell Grants in Prisons Reduce Crime Rate - New YorkTimes Pell grants are among the very few opportunitiesprisoners have to get ... A tough and dumb crime billwill only add prisons, prisoners and more debt to a...""" = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04EED8153AF935A35751C0A962958260
As a tutor at the Fortune Society, I have seen scores of former prisoners gain self-respect and their high school diploma, and go on to higher education and a productive life. The Hutchison amendment deserves the same fate as the Helms amendment. A tough and dumb crime bill will only add prisons, prisoners and more debt to a deficit that is hindering programs to really reduce crime and get the criminals off the streets. HARVEY ISAAK Bronxville, N.Y., Jan. 27, 1994
Ever hear of Darrell Jackson? Another black preacher.Like Donnie McClurkin. In South Carolina. Like DonnieMcClurkin. He's a State Senator, too. And a political consultant. Busy guy.
In fact, just after Jackson endorsed =http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1339Clinton in February, he admitted that he's alsonegotiated a $10,000-a-month consulting contract with her campaign. =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/19/AR2007021900655.html
.................................................................................................
Welcome to allGLBTforObama and my friends list and thanks for working for change. Make sure you see my blogs for help and see how clinton edwards sidestep on civil unions because in their HRC statements they say they only support civil unions for those in long term relationships while Obama doesn't dicriminate and agrees to civil unions for any length of time and also as you saw in the last debate Obama also only says we can't force all religions to accept marraige but if a religious group does accept it then so does he. he also was against the DOMA defense of marriage act that the clintons passed and still hillary won't agree to repeal all of it just certain provisions but Obama has wanted to repeal the whole thing since 1996. LOGO GAY DEBATES Who got your vote? Any surprises?
http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/13/who-got-your-vote-any-surprises/#comment-1821
All through the weekend since Thursday, visitors to the site here have been asked to “Sound Off” and place a vote for the candidate they’re most behind. Which could mean both who they thought performed well during the VisibleVote08 Presidential Forum on Thursday night (which you can watch again tonight at 9pm ET, if you missed it), and just who they support the most in general. And the results may surprise you… As of 1:50pm today, here are the numbers: WHO’S YOUR CANDIDATE?Barack Obama 45%Dennis Kucinich 25%Hillary Clinton 14%Mike Gravel 8%John Edwards 5%Bill Richardson 3% Surprised? Obviously, Obama inspires and comes off amazingly well. And people respond to him as a maverick and a fresh voice. But is it surprising that he fares so much better than his biggest rival, Hillary Clinton? And would you have expected higher numbers for her? Kucinich and Gravel benefitted from their warmly received, pro-gay performance on Thursday, but it’s hard to know whether Kucinich’s vast jump in the rankings here (he sort of trounced Clinton) translates to any real boost for him. More so, it demonstrates how enthusiastically gay voters respond to a candidate who embraces them and vows to fight for them. And it looks like neither John Edwards nor Bill Richardson won themselves much of a gay boost in support… But might that change? .......................................It seems right to me with how Barack wants to repeal DOMA and has since 1996. Why clinton won't do this is beyond me. Or Edwards for that matter.
Also barack has a forum on his site which is open to discussion whereas the others don't go to http://my.barackobama.com see people scroll down to LGBT issues
http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome
ALSO ON UNITING AMERICAN FAMILIES ACT
Obama and gay immigration rights FROM = chris@citizencrain.com
http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/09/obama-and-gay-i.html
September 06, 2007Obama and gay immigration rights
Score another blow for readers of this blog. Firstthere was Christopher Hubble, who reacted to acomplimentary post I'd written about Bill Richardsonby dredging up his "maricón moment" on the Don Imusshow a year earlier. That resulted in a story on GayNews Watch that was a first important hint that theNew Mexico governor's record on gay rights was moreimpressive than his command of gay issues.
Now Danielle Clark, a Barack Obama supporter, has done some sleuthing that sheds important light on hercandidate's qualified support for gay coupleimmigration rights. She came across a couple of posts I wrote back in June about how both Obama and Clintonwere hedging their support for the Uniting AmericanFamilies Act, which would extend to gay Americans thesame rights straight folks have to sponsor theirspouses for citizenship.
The Human Rights Campaign candidate "scorecard" showedboth Obama and Clinton supporting immigration rightsfor binational couples even though neither had signedon to cosponsor UAFA. It turns out that both of them,in their more detailed responses to the HRCquestionnaire, had raised concerns about the risk offraud under UAFA as written. When I wrote aless-than-complimentary second post tracking Obama'sevolution on the issue, in which he showed sympathybut not full-fledged support, Danielle had had enough.
She fired off an email to the Obama campaign askingfor clarification and got this, rather detailed reply:
Danielle-
Barack believes that LGBT Americans with partners fromother countries should not be faced with a choicebetween staying with their partner and staying intheir country. That's why he supports changingimmigration policy through the Uniting AmericanFamilies Act. He does, however, have some reservationsabout the fraud provisions of the present bill.
Precisely because same-sex couples are not allowed toenter into civil unions, domestic partnerships, orother legally-recognized unions throughout thecountry, he believes we need to make sure that we haveadequate safeguards against fraud.
He wants to make sure that immigration is possible fora partner in committed relationships, but he alsowants to make sure there is a good mechanism fordetermining who qualifies for that status. He wouldlike to see the Act get more specific with regards todefining 'financial interdependence' and thedocumentation required as proof in order to establishrelationships -- which could very well happen once thebill reaches the Senate floor.
Hope this helps clarify.
Alex
Actually, Alex and Danielle, this does help clarifyquite a bit. The Obama camp is right that merelyextending immigration rights to gay Americans doesn'tlevel the playing field because heterosexuals arerequired to marry (or at least be engaged) to thenon-American to sponsor him/her for citizenship. AsAlex rightly suggests, gay Americans can't enter intothat level of commitment because few states havemarriage or civil unions for gay couples, and theDefense of Marriage Act (signed by Mr. HillaryClinton) blocks federal recognition of gay marriagesanyway.
So that makes the fraud provisions of UAFA that muchmore important. Even though it's unfair we can'tmarry, it is fair to require some additional levelproof than just our say-so that we are in a committed,permanent relationship with the non-American we wantto sponsor.
As Alex/Obama also suggests, the UAFA strategy hasbeen to add on fraud-prevention provisions in thehorsetrading that would happen when the bill comes upfor consideration. Adding them now, it's reasoned byImmigration Equality and other pro-UAFA groups, onlymeans vulnerability to some other, more painfulcompromise when push time comes.
It's a judgment call to be sure, but I see Obama'spoint here. Why shouldn't UAFA be written in a formready for passage, rather than holding off onprovisions that ought to be there but aren't. Othercountries that have dealt with this issue of how totest the legitimacy of unmarried couples, includingCanada and the U.K., have required one year ofcohabitation in addition to proof of financialcodependence, etc. It's a draconian provision, as myown vagabond life has proven, but I can't say it'sunreasonable.
So kudos to Danielle and, I have to say, I'm onceagain impressed that Obama and the Obama camp don'tpander and have substantive responses on the issues.Now it's Hillary's turn.
Subject: Re: DIRECT FROM THE LGBT DEPT ATBARACKOBAMA.COM ............................. Date: 9/12/2007 2:14:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: chris@.com Reply To: To: Danielegrl@.com
Here's the link.....
http://tinyurl.com/2vlel5
Chris Crainchris@.com
On Sep 12, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Danielegrl@.comwrote:
In a message dated 9/12/2007 1:19:11 P.M. EasternDaylight Time, chris@.com writes:Danielle: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Hope yousaw the post I did about the reply you received. It'snot the ideal answer, but I respect it anyway.
Thanks for pushing them for the info.Chris
Chris Crainchris@.comActually i am so busy doing events these days ibarely ever get back to my blogs. I will try to lookbut please feel free to email it to me. Danielle
....................................................................................................
from my dear friend Scott says:
It may not be a home run, but Barack Obama was the strongest player in the Aug. 9th HRC/Logo debate on GLBT issues.
It may not be a home run, but Barack Obama was the strongest player in the Aug. 9th HRC/Logo debate on GLBT issues - with unwavering support for repeal of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act and “full civil union” benefits for GLBT couples.
In addition, Obama told those in a private conference call after the debate that he would continue supporting the GLBT community in the general election, speaking to non-gay audiences and Independent and Republican voters, in the same manner he does before gay audiences.
End result: Barack leads the online poll at LOGOonline.org, where you can also view video clips from the debate: He has a strong 42 percent of the vote, followed by Dennis Kucinich with 24 percent, and so-called frontrunner Hillary Clinton lagging behind with only 17 percent of the online vote.
The first ever Democratic “debate” on GLBT issues was actually more a conversation between panelists with the Democratic candidates, one at a time, than it was an actual debate. Sen. Barack Obama was the first at bat - being the first to have responsed to the request to attend the debate.
Nothing substantivively new came of the debate. The candidates’ positions really didn’t change. All three in the top tier held steady with their support for civil unions and against marriages for GLBT Americans.
All three - Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards - also called for a repeal of DoMA, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) that defines marriage between a man and a woman and also authorizes states to pass bills that could either ban marriages between gay couples and/or any equivalent benefits.
But Obama was the only one of the three major candidates who unequivocally stated he remains fully opposed to DomA - and has been, on record, since he ran for the U.S. Senate.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton stuck to her script of wanting to repeal the portion of DomA (section 3) that allows the federal government and states to prevent civil unions but stopped there - indicating she would continue supporting language from the original DoMA signed by her husband that says states don’t have to recognize “relationships between persons of the same sex.” This is in stark contrast to Sen. Obama, who has called for full repeal of DoMA since he ran for the Senate in 2006.
Perhapst the biggest surprise from the evening came when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson suggested that homosexuality is a choice - drawing gasps from those in the audience.
Back to Senator Obama, who handled the conversational tone very well with moderators and was the only candidate who used the word “transgender” in the debate and also the only one who factually mentioned the more than 1,100 benefits that come with marriage - clearly showing he has done some studying on the issue.
“As president of the United States, I’m going to fight hard to make sure that those rights are available,” Obama said - also noting how he addressed the same topic during a forum of black ministers in Tennessee.
“I specifically talked about the degree to which the notion of gay marriage in black churches has been used to divide, has been used to distract,” he said. “I specifically pointed out that if there’s any pastor here who can point out a marriage that has been broken up as a consequence of seeing two men or two women holding hands, then you should tell me, because I haven’t seen any evidence of it.”
The clincher came in a press call after the debate, in which this writer was able to directly ask Senator Obama a question.
The question:When you are the Democratic nominee for president, how will you address GLBT concerns in the general election - and how will you specifically respond to concerns from Independent and conservative voters who misrepresent the fight for GLBT equality as being a fight for “special rights”?
I was very impressed with Barack Obama’s response to me and to all others in the private conference call, in which he cleverly noted the days of “You Tube” and home videos prevent any candidate from pandering to different audiences and getting away with it. He further noted how he will continue to engage all voters in discussion and appeal to their sense of common humanity without changing his principles or his beliefs, reiterating his unequivocal belief in civil rights for GLBT Americans as being one about equality and not one about special rights.
“Truth is easier to remember,” Obama said, then specifically mentioning how he speaks the same whether in a church or at the HRC Forum.
He pledged that he will continue speaking from this place of truth and encourage conservative voters to focus more on the greater issues that have a personal impact on their own lives - such as Iraq and health care - and to move beyond divisive politics because the Republican fear tactics of the past no longer work today.
So while the ball didn’t go out of the park, Barack Obama clearly did make it home by the end of the inning - leaving the other top tier candidates lagging behind with their continued efforts to pander for votes ane make it to base.
It should be noted that lower-tier candidates Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel both showed political courage in calling for full marriage equality in the name of marriage for GLBT couples. I give each a lot of credit for this.
But, overall, I still believe in my heart that Barack Obama has the most authenticity, diplomacy, practicality and leadership skills to effectively navigate the political waters for an election victory that will unite America and bring GLBT Americans closer to the American dream.
African Americans and Gays,Lesbians,Bisexuals,Transgender unite under Obama Tent
Obama Campaign Releases Open Letter From Supporters On Controversial Reverend
Senator Barack Obama's campaign has been struggling with its decision to hold a gospel tour in South Carolina with an anti-homosexual pastor, Donnie McClurkin.
After much criticism from gay rights groups and others, they tried inviting an openly gay minister to appear before McClurkin. But that didn't work - the Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solomonese expressed more disappointment in having the pastor on the stage and only said he hoped Obama "will move forward and facilitate face to face meetings with religious leaders, like Rev. McClurkin, and the GLBT community to confront the issue of homophobia."
Now the senator's campaign is trying to show that he's doing just that. An open letter signed by 16 LGBT and black religious leaders says that Obama is reaching out to bring blacks and homosexuals together. But Obama makes clear that even if he disagrees with African-Americans who are anti-gay, he still wants their votes.
"We believe that Barack Obama is constructing a tent big enough for LGBT Americans who know that their sexual orientation is an innate and treasured part of their being, and for African American ministers and citizens who believe that their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters," the letter states. "And if we are to confront our shared challenges we have to join together, build on common ground, and engage in a civil dialogue even when we disagree."
Update: AmericaBlog's John Aravosis, who has been driving this story, reacts to
the letter here.
The full letter with its signatories can be read after the jump.
To Whom It May Concern:
As representatives of Barack Obama supporters from the African American religious community and the gay community, we are issuing a statement together for the first time. Our letter addresses the recent issue of Pastor Donnie McClurkin singing at Senator Obama's "Embrace the Change" concert series. In the midst of division, we hope and believe that this is a moment to bring together communities that have been divided for far too long.
A few things are clear. First, Pastor McClurkin believes and has stated things about sexual orientation that are deeply hurtful and offensive to many Americans, most especially to gay Americans. This cannot and should not be denied.At the same time, a great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkin's beliefs. This also cannot be ignored.Finally, we believe that the only way for these two sides to find common ground is to do so together. Not at arms length. Not in a war of words with press and pundits. Only together. It is clear that Barack Obama is the only candidate who has made bringing these two often disparate groups together a goal. In gatherings of LGBT Americans and African Americans of faith, Obama has stated that all individuals should be afforded full civil rights regardless of their sexual orientation, and that homophobia must be eradicated in every corner of our nation. If we are to end homophobia and secure full civil rights for gay Americans, then we need an advocate within the Black community like Barack Obama. At the same time, while Obama has said that he "strongly disagrees" with Pastor McClurkin's comments, he will not exclude from his campaign the many Americans including many in the African American community who believe the same as Pastor McClurkin.We believe that Barack Obama is constructing a tent big enough for LGBT Americans who know that their sexual orientation is an innate and treasured part of their being, and for African American ministers and citizens who believe that their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters. And if we are to confront our shared challenges we have to join together, build on common ground, and engage in a civil dialogue even when we disagree.We also ask Senator Obama's critics to consider the alternatives. Would we prefer a candidate who ignores the realities in the African American community and cuts off millions of Blacks who believe things offensive to many Americans? Or a panderer who tells African Americans what they want to hear, at the expense of our gay brothers and sisters? Or would we rather stand with Barack Obama, who speaks truth in love to both sides, pulling no punches but foreclosing no opportunities to engage?We stand with Senator Obama. We stand with him because of the solutions he is proposing for our nation. We stand with him because of his character and his judgment. But the most important reason we stand with him is because today, as he has done all along, Barack Obama is causing us to stand together. That's the kind of President we need, and we are proud to support him. Sincerely,Rev. Dr. Otis Moss, Jr.Olivet Institutional Baptist ChurchChair, Obama National African American Religious Leaders Working GroupCleveland, OhioStampp CorbinChair, Obama National LGBT Leadership CouncilFormer Member of Human Rights Campaign Board of DirectorsColumbus, OhioTobias Barrington WolffChair, Obama LGBT Policy CommitteeProfessor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law SchoolPhiladelphia, PAThe Reverend Stephen John ThurstonPresidentNational Baptist Convention of AmericaChicago, ILThe Reverend Alvin LovePresidentBaptist General State Convention of Illinois, Inc.Bishop E. Earl McCloud, Jr.Office of Ecumenical & Urban AffairsAfrican Methodist Episcopal ChurchAtlanta, GASteven Latasa-NicksPresident, The Phelon Group, Inc.Former Human Rights Campaign Board of GovernorsNew York, NYMaxim ThorneFormer COO, Human Rights CampaignPaterson, NJPhil BurgessFormer Human Rights Campaign Board of DirectorsChicago, ILRev. Dr. Barbara Williams-SkinnerSkinner Leadership InstituteTracy's Landing, MDRev. Michael PflegerSt. Sabina, Chicago
Rev. Edward TaylorSan Jose, CAThe Reverend Robert H. Thompson Exeter, NHSharon MalheiroLGBT ActivistDes Moines, IAHon. Jon CooperMajority Leader, Suffolk County (NY) LegislatureRev. Paul Hobson Sadler, Sr., PastorMt. Zion Congregational UCC
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
OTHER ISSUES:
Immigration is needed as this country grows older and Barack understands the hard work ethic of many immigrants. No they don’t need to be coming here earning money and sending it back home. This should be their home. Barack wants to help them feel this is their home. Drivers liscense are needed for a safe experience on the road as these people will drive hillary on the other hand is pandering to voters who don’t understand the need.
Barack may say things that sound unpopular but i am sure enough voters see the truth and will support him because he speaks the truth.
Edwards is the one working with Hillary to take away voters from Barack. Edwards is a bilderberg candidate and is only in the race to give angry voters a chioce which hurts those of us who know the truth.
The clintons may have saved $ temporarily but the 1994 clinton crime bill which took away pell grants from prisoners have caused us an increase of us now having a 70% recidivism rate and we pay 100k to keep each one in jail. Clinton would never reducew crack cocaine and we pay 100k to keep them in jail. Prisions are now privatized and its big business which is costing the tax payers lots more. We use to have a 30% recidivism rate. Now its 70%.The clintons welfare to work bill passage never funded the mothers for proper education and so marian wright edleman spoke on julky 24th about this to amy goodman at deomcracy now dot org about it and about how hillary hurt children when she was on the board of the childrensdefensefund dot org.
Barack also knew about pakistan and tried to alert the public back in july. Now we all see the problems and how bush is manipulating another war there with mushairf.
Don’t fall for the hype. barack cares and is trying his best to speak out the truth but not enough to get killed. He does care for us and wants to make changes.
AMY GOODMAN from DEMOCRACYNOW.ORG SPEAKS TO MARIAN EDLEMAN ON –>The clintons on Children welfare reform
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/24/1431211
7/24/07Children’s Defense Fund’s Marian Edelman
you can approve it to let all know the clinton hurt kids and people of color through their actions. Don’t be fooled just because bill goes to a couple of black churches.
the CLINTONS and KIDS
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0011,hentoff,13268,6.html
""The Clinton "welfare reform" law mandates a five-year cumulative lifetime cap on the benefits. You are off the rolls forever. The "safety net" that Eleanor Roosevelt and her husband worked so hard to get into law has been torn apart by William Jefferson Clinton—to the applause of his wife""
AMY GOODMAN: Marian Wright Edelman, we just heard Hillary Rodham Clinton. She used to be the head of the board of the Children's Defense Fund, of the organization that you founded. But you were extremely critical of the Clintons. I mean, when President Clinton signed off on the, well, so-called welfare reform bill, you said, “His signature on this pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children.” So what are your hopes right now for these Democrats? And what are your thoughts about Hillary Rodham Clinton?
MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN: Well, you know, Hillary Clinton is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics. We have to build a constituency, and you don’t -- and we profoundly disagreed with the forms of the welfare reform bill, and we said so. We were for welfare reform, I am for welfare reform, but we need good jobs, we need adequate work incentives, we need minimum wage to be decent wage and livable wage, we need healthcare, we need transportation, we need to invest preventively in all of our children to prevent them ever having to be on welfare.
And yet, you know, many years after that, when many people are pronouncing welfare reform a great success, you know, we’ve got growing child poverty, we have more children in poverty and in extreme poverty over the last six years than we had earlier in the year. When an economy is down, and the real test of welfare reform is what happens to the poor when the economy is not booming. Well, the poor are suffering, the gap between rich and poor widening. We have what I consider one of -- a growing national catastrophe of what we call the cradle-to-prison pipeline.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/24/1431211
CDF Issues Report and Holds Summit on America's Cradle to Prison Pipeline® Crisis
CDF recently issued a report, America's Cradle to Prison Pipeline SM, to spotlight an urgent national crisis at the intersection of poverty and race that means that Black boys have a one in three chance of going to jail during their lifetime, and Latino boys a one in six chance of the same fate. Tens of thousands of children and teens are sucked into the Pipeline each year. The report includes:
an overview of the major factors behind the Pipeline
photographs that show the faces of children in the Pipeline
case studies describing how the Pipeline affects children
descriptions of some promising approaches to help keep children out of the Pipeline
research tables and state-by-state data of key child indicators
a call for the hard work and persistence needed to build a transforming movement to put the necessary social and economic foundations beneath all children and families
The report was released earlier this week at CDF's Cradle to Prison Pipeline® Summit held at Howard University in Washington, D.C. The Summit provided the environment for a highly interactive dialogue to explore the underlying causes of the Pipeline, share promising approaches and develop a plan of action to dismantle it. Learn more about the Summit and view a video of Dr. Bill Cosby, one of the Summit's speakers.
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:E_T52L02xVsJ:www.answers.com/topic/marian-wright-edelman+marian+wright+edelman+hillary+clinton+children+prison&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us
In 1997, Edelman criticized President Clinton for his welfare reform package by warning it could lead to record numbers of uninsured children, increased child abuse, and rising firearms deaths. The CDF’s “The State of America’s Children Yearbook 1997″ criticized the package and warned that “if America does not stand up now for its children, it will not stand strong in the new millennium.”
In the same interview, Edelman also criticized the welfare legislation that the Clinton administration created. This legislation cut $54 billion from such programs as food stamps and child and family nutrition. “I’m not trying to defend the former welfare system,” Edelman said. “But I’m for ending child poverty as we know it, not just for ending welfare as we know it.” The CDF developed a volunteer program to document the effects of this legislation, hoping to discover if those who left the welfare program now had jobs, health care, and child care.
......................................................................................................................
the BUSH CLINTON REGIME AND THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX THAT WANTS HER.
The true terrorist are Bush and Clinton who have laid a scam on the american public, where now we are so deeply in debt that we will be paying forever to her chinese friends interest on our debt for the military cost that have put us there.
***House Hearing on the Cost of Operations in Iraq***
Artist / Source C-SPANAUDIO FILE HERE:File Name
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/iraq/iraq102407_budget.rm
SO FAR WE HAVE TO TODAY SPENT ENOUGH FOR 2 KOREA WARS AND 16 YRS OF THE VIETNAM WAR AND THAT DOESN’T EVEN CONSIDER WHAT WE HAVE FOR THE REST OF THIS YEAR AND THE FOLLOWING YR WHICH HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED..
http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&ArchiveDays=100&;;;Page=4
House Hearing on the Cost of Operations in IraqBudget Committee Chairman Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) held a hearing on the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Witnesses include: Amy Belasco, Congressional Research Service, Defense Budget Specialist; Peter Orszag, Congressional Budget Office; and others.10/24/2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 2 hr. 52 min.
NO REPUBLICANS SHOWED UP AT THE HEARING TOO !
Hillary Clinton Piles on Pentagon Earmarks
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-can-boast-wealth-of-earmarks-2007-06-13.html
Weapons Industry Dumps Republicans, Backs Hillary
http://www.alternet.org/story/65869
The U.S. arms industry has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party and is putting their money on Hillary Clinton
****BLOG THIS TO LET AMERICA HOW MUCH HILLARY CLINTON AND BUSH ARE COSTING AMERICA****
.................................................................................................................
I think many of us are tired of division politics.
It does none of us any good.
We need politicians who want to do the real business of we the people.
Will honesty win ?
It will if WE are honest.
If many of us continue seeking a winner versus honesty we all lose.
""People who own races horses try to own all the ponies in the race. That way they can't lose, while the masses in the stands losa at the hands of these owners""
For many many years thats is what the group Bilderberg has done and so we the people in the stands can't see the bigger picture and most of us get taken to the cleaners.
I am tired of being controlled and the only way we can win is to not play their game and elect a president who isn't controlled by the powers to be.
In my research of facts i have found that kerryedwards were also bilderberg candidates (as were BillClinton and Al Gore) and with edwards pushing far leftand hillary pushing far right as they both play in thedemocratic field, Edwards is just trying to break downvoters who would otherwise join Barack in his campaignbut i think eventually that tactic will falter. Barackwho is not in the middle, but in the Truth, will, withhis ability to unite versus using division, bring himto a positive finish.Its just up to us to educate the citizenry to thisunderstanding and we should do so in the same Fashionas Barack has taught us.I am Barack Obama you are Barack Obama we are BarackObama.
FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT FAMILAR WITH BILDERBERG PLEASEREAD MY RESEARCH.THE BIGGER PICTURE OUTSIDE OF USA AND OUR DOMESTICISSUES
please understand yes we all have our own personal issues but we need to look at the bigger world pictureand how for over 50 yrs the USA has been guided by the"POWERS TO BE" You might think in terms of your local community andhow presidents have affected your life and well iunderstand that but you need to see barack is looking at the world picture firstly then he will be able to help local issues in our communities.
a few blogs i wrote you might want to read
IRAQ WAR Background who is fighting + why = how BarackCan bring Peace
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/danielleclarke/Cthg
"When we change presidents, it is understood to meanthat the voters are ordering a change in nationalpolicy. Since 1945, three different Republicans haveoccupied the White House for 16 years, and fourdemocrats have held this most powerful post for 17yrs
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/danielleclarke/Crpz
"Somebody Had to Speak Out. If Not Me, Who?" - Maj.Gen. John Batiste Fired by CBS News for Anti-Iraq War'Advocacy'
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/danielleclarke/CrJC
about Baracks knowledge on Pakistan:read july 25 senate CFR statement http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2007/hrg070725p.html
Here you will see how torn Barack was during the lastweek.He had Hillarys niave statement and he also had todeal with the REAL TRUTHThat lead him to SAY THE RIGHT THINGand that wasn't good for POLLSWe all have heard last Month that Bush says we areclose to being attacked again here in the U. S. A.
I just read the 9-11 commission report.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
page 397 at the bottom you will read about theirconcern with A.Q. Khan
""Pakistan Loosens Some Restrictions on Disgraced Nuclear Scientist"" http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50F14FC3E5A0C708CDDAE0894DF404482
July 3, 2007
Pakistan has eased some restrictions on the disgraced scientist Abdul QadeerKhan, the developer of the country's nuclear bomb, whoconfessed to having run an illicit globalnuclear-proliferation http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0D11FD3C550C7B8DDDAE0894DF404482
July 18, 2007, Wednesday
New intelligence estimate released by White House shows Bush administration strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden's leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan has failed, forcing adminstrationto consider more aggressive measures; ,
http://www.democrats.com/bush-is-losing-and-the-terrorists-are-winning
Bob Fertik says on July 18, 2007 - 12:12pm. That Bush has lost the ability to deal with Al Qaedain Pakistan. Pakistan's Future: Building Democracy, or FuelingExtremism? - Statement Before the Senate Committee OnForeign Relations Washington, DC JULY 25TH 2007http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/danielleclarke/CpFC
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
HILLARY says anything ..she says yes.. she says no ..she doesn't know
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo
PASS IT ON
SO ALL CAN KNOW THE TRUTH OF HER LIES
Hillary's behind-the-scenes slime machine
Remember how we learned from a Washington Post article that it was Hillary's campaign that spread a HuffPo article about McClurkin at the gospel tour to all the news outlets?Well, thanks to Salon.com, what we've suspected all along, and now knowfor a fact, this was hardly an isolated incident. It seems the Hillary campaign goes out of it's way to send possible damaging articles about her opponents to all the news outlets regularly. And as Salon.com readily states, they've never once had the Obama or Edwards campaign dothe same.If you thought Bill Clinton strongarming GQ into not running a negativepiece on Hillary was a good indicator of how they work behind the scenes, here is some more.This woman has the audacity to have her campaign whine about being 'piled on' at the debate, while she and her attack dogs have been secretly sliming her opponents in about the most cowardly and unprincipled way. The woman who proudly proclaimed at the debate, 'you shouldn't always tell people what you're thinking' and who hides the record of her so-called experience until 2012, is once again revealedto be as secretive and conniving and underhanded as our present commander in corruption.Here's a link to the article. Kudos to Salon.com. Funny no other news outlet has seen fit to let on about the shady behind the scenessmearing by the Clinton campaign.~
====================
TUESDAY, OCT. 30, 2007 13:36 EST
The politics of hope
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/10/30/hope/index.html
We all know she censored herself at the debates but lost it a while but to see the true hillary clinton go to Hillary! Uncensored - Banned By The Media http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019
Hillary Uncensored" Finally Premiered Fridayhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305485,00.html
http
.....................................................................................................
Democracy Now!: Clinton Campaign’s Corporate & GOP Ties.
YOUTUBE
videoLink = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edzv_L8j5f0&&
DemocracynowDOTorg transcripts::
Link = http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/31/1412212
Clinton bucks the trend and rakes in cash from the USweapons industry
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3075691.ece
By Leonard Doyle in Washington Published: 19 October 2007 The US arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton forPresident and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party. Mrs Clinton has also emerged as Wall Street's favourite. Investment bankers have opened their wallets in unprecedented numbers for the New York senator over the past three months and,in the process, dumped their earlier favourite, BarackObama. Mrs Clinton's wooing of the defence industry is allthe more remarkable given the frosty relations between Bill Clinton and the military during his presidency.An analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defence industry employees are pouring money into her war chest in the belief that their generosity will berepaid many times over with future defence contracts. Employees of the top five US arms manufacturers –Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, GeneralDynamics and Raytheon – gave Democratic presidentialcandidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to theRepublicans. "The contributions clearly suggest the arms industry has reached the conclusion thatDemocratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed,"said Thomas Edsall, an academic at Columbia Universityin New York. Republican administrations are by tradition much stronger supporters of US armaments programmes and Pentagon spending plans than Democratic governments.Relations between the arms industry and Bill Clinton soured when he slimmed down the military after the endof the Cold War. His wife, however, has been careful not to make the same mistake. After her election to the Senate, she became the firstNew York senator on the armed services committee,where she revealed her hawkish tendencies bysupporting the invasion of Iraq. Although she nowfavours a withdrawal of US troops, her position onIran is among the most warlike of all the candidates –Democrat or Republican. This week, she said that, if elected president, she would not rule out military strikes to destroy Tehran's nuclear weapons facilities. While on the armed services committee, Mrs Clinton has befriended key generals and has won the endorsement of General Wesley Clarke, who ran Nato's war in Kosovo. A former presidential candidate himself, he is spoken of as a potential vice-presidential running mate. Mrs Clinton has been a regular visitor to Iraq andAfghanistan and is careful to focus her criticisms of the Iraq war on President Bush, rather than the military. The arms industry has duly taken note. So far, Mrs Clinton has received $52,600 incontributions from individual arms industry employees.That is more than half the sum given to all Democratsand 60 per cent of the total going to Republicancandidates. Election fundraising laws ban individualsfrom donating more than $4,600 but contributions areoften "bundled" to obtain influence over a candidate. The arms industry has even deserted the biggestsupporter of the Iraq war, Senator John McCain, who isalso a member of the armed services committee and adecorated Vietnam War veteran. He has been only$19,200. Weapons-makers are equally unimpressed by theformer New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Despite acampaign built largely around the need for anaggressive US military and a determination to stay thecourse in Iraq, he is behind Mrs Clinton in theaffections of arms executives. Mr Giuliani may besuffering because of his strong association with thefailed policies of President Bush and the fact he ishe is known as a social liberal. Mrs Clinton's closest competitor in raising cash fromthe arms industry is the former Massachusetts governorMitt Romney, who raised just $32,000. "Arms industry profits are so heavily dependent ongovernment contracts that companies in this field wantto be sure they do not have hostile relations with theWhite House," added Mr Edsall. The industry's strong support for Mrs Clinton indicates that she is their firm favourite to win theDemocratic nomination in the spring and thepresidential election in November 2008. In the last presidential race, George Bush raised more than$800,000 – twice the sum collected by his Democratic rival John Kerry. Mr Edsall's analysis of the figures reveals that, overthe past 10 years, the defence industry has favoured Republicans over Democrats by a 3-2 margin, making Mrs Clinton's position even more remarkable.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
BELOW YOU WILL SEE THE FALSE HYPE ON BARACK BEING A MUSLIM
WELL WHO DO YOU THINK HELPED TO TELL PEOPLE LIES??
OBAMA IS NOT A MUSLIM Find the relevant, factual 'responses' in sources such as:
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/Barack_obama
http://www.newshounds.us/barack_obama/
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp
Hussein: Named after his father, first name Barack is Swahili word for "Blessed", respect it or else more black voters will be pushed into voting for him that weren't going to already, because ignoring or belittling such a beautiful Swahili name to focus on what happens to be the name of a dictator is insulting. For that matter, our American Revolution was against a King George! The madrassa thing: Bullocks. Elementary school with Christians too, for pity's sake, with no political leanings whatsoever. The only prayer was Islamic just as it would be Christian here if we make prayer mandatory in public schools; Indonesia claims it's an Islamic country just as we claim we're a Christian one. Others can worship as they choose, but we have a dominant religion here too. BO is a Christian, no less so than George W. Bush, whose conversion came later in life. BO never practiced any other faith, not Islam, not Catholicism, not Judaism. He was raised agnostic, he studied all faiths, he chose his Christian church.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0011,hentoff,13268,6.html
excuse me i had to post the full article because knowing the clintons they might try to get this site pulled.
Nat HentoffHillary and the Death Penalty ‘Executions Are Class Warfare’ by Nat HentoffMarch 15 - 21, 2000
Hillary, Eleanor Roosevelt would love you. —Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, February 6, Purchase, New York
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s ‘official’ declaration of how privileged we will be if she is the next senator from New York had all the trappings of the opening ceremonies of the Olympics—with Moynihan ending his career in the Senate by passing the torch to her.
All that was missing was Janet Reno singing "Battle Hymn of the Republic."
During that afternoon of beatification, Hillary's acolytes told the throng that as soon as HRC occupied her White House office, she hung a picture of Eleanor Roosevelt on the wall.
Indeed, HRC has revealed that she has been in communication with Eleanor Roosevelt—through a form of "channeling."
She has not revealed whether Eleanor Roosevelt, during those inspirational moments, informed HRC of her fervent, long-lasting opposition to the death penalty.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, like her husband, is an unbending supporter of capital punishment. And no administration in our history has done more to speed executions.
In 1996, the president pushed for and signed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. This law gutted the oldest fundamental right in the English-speaking world—habeas corpus, which allows prisoners to try to prove they've been wrongfully convicted. When James Madison was writing a draft of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson urged him to make sure that habeas corpus was clearly in that document, and so it is.
The way habeas corpus works for those on death row is that it allows lawyers—after all their post-conviction appeals have failed in the state courts—to find a federal judge to review the condemned man or woman's court record. Did the prosecution hide exculpatory evidence? Did crucial prosecution witnesses later recant and admit they lied? Is there new evidence to prove the defendant's innocence?
Clinton and the Republicans in Congress, along with loyal Democrats, arranged to give people on death row only one year—with rare exceptions—to find a federal judge to grant their petition for habeas corpus.
Since 1976, when capital punishment resumed in this country, 618 people have been executed—and that number will go up this week. Eighty-five other condemned prisoners—some only hours away from execution—have been released because they were wrongfully convicted and finally got a federal or state judge to hear them. The average time these nearly doomed men spent on death row was seven and a half years.
If they had been put on death row after the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act was signed into law by Clinton, many of the 85 prisoners would be dead.
It is sad that Pat Moynihan is ending a truly distinguished career by anointing this "New Democrat," as she proudly proclaims herself. In 1996, Moynihan vehemently opposed Clinton's evisceration of habeas corpus in that law.
Afterward, expressing his disgust that only a handful of senators had voted with him against this violation of so basic a right, Moynihan then denounced the indifference of the press to this reverse landmark in American history.
"Except for you," Moynihan said to me, "where was the press?"
For another example of HRC's and Moynihan's revising the history concerning Eleanor Roosevelt, there is Hillary's strong support of her husband's "welfare reform" law.
As Senator Paul Wellstone has said on the Senate floor: "Over two-thirds of a million low-income persons lost Medicaid coverage and became uninsured due to welfare reform. Sixty-two percent were children. Moreover, the number of people who lose health coverage due to welfare reform is certain to grow rather substantially in the years ahead. In every state there is a drop-dead certain date when families are going to be eliminated from all assistance." (Emphasis added.)
The Clinton "welfare reform" law mandates a five-year cumulative lifetime cap on the benefits. You are off the rolls forever. The "safety net" that Eleanor Roosevelt and her husband worked so hard to get into law has been torn apart by William Jefferson Clinton—to the applause of his wife.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan opposed the Clintons' Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act—their "welfare reform" law. When it was passed, Moynihan called it "the most brutal act of social policy since Reconstruction."
With regard to Eleanor Roosevelt and capital punishment, Allida Black, a history professor at George Washington University, is an expert chronicler. (Her book, Casting Her Own Shadow, is published by Columbia University Press.)
Professor Black tells me that starting in the 1940s, Eleanor Roosevelt was involved in trying to get the president, her husband, to stop executions. And she powerfully came out against the death penalty in the 1950s.
"Eleanor Roosevelt was convinced," says Professor Black, "that the death penalty was not equally enforced when it came to blacks, and she also had moral objections to capital punishment."
My friend Steve Bright is an active lawyer for people on death row, director of the Southern Center for Human Rights, and a lecturer at Yale Law School. As he says:
"We are sentencing to death children, we are sentencing to death people with mental retardation, we are sentencing to death the mentally ill. The death penalty has become class warfare, being fought top-down against the poorest and most powerless people in our society."
I would vote for either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Rudy Giuliani, for the Senate or any office, only under torture. So far as the presidency is concerned, thank the Constitution Ralph Nader is running.
THE HYPOCRISY OF BILL CLINTON'S NEW BOOK 'GIVING' By Chris Hedges, Truthdig Bill Clinton has written a new book about charity, a "fitting subject" for a president who betrayed the poor and led his party into the arms of corporate America.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/62812/
Bill Clinton has written a new book. It is called Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World. He will give a portion of the proceeds to charity. Giving, the former president informs us, gives us fulfilment in life and is “the fabric of our shared humanity.”
His book is the political equivalent of Marley & Me . It is filled with a lot of vapid, feel-good stories about ordinary and wealthy Americans setting out to make the world a better place. etcetcetc
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
ETC
Well of course we are pushing to get out of Iraq. We went to Iraq because Sadam was selling his oil in Euro's. What americans need to do is learn to conserve energy. The republicans would rather send our children to fight for oil so they can drive their large SUV's. Yes i am sure many democrats drive them as well. They need to learn to conserve as well. It would take 3 planet earths if all the people of the world abused oil as we in america do. I started a recycling center in 75 after i got out of the USMC after the first oil crisis. I also built green homes in Pennsylavania in the 90's. I am a caregiver to an 84 yr old woman and i sleep on her couch and share her home and have insulated her attic. We have changed all her light bulbs. We barely ever use air. We keep heat at 65 and wear sweaters. Did you know every time you go on a drive your killing soldiers fighting for oil? Its all of us who need to change. We also need to stop borrowing money from china and the middle east to support these wars. Its a negative cycle that keeps us hurting ourselves. What will you do??
Friday I was at the Pennsylvania democratic state committee meeting in camp hill Pa. They were holding a meeting with over 300 hundred Pa. democrats in attendanceThere was a woman = Renee George Martin (special assistant for legislative affairs for the commonwealth of Pennsylvania) Who shared the following . She spoke about The USA fighting Iraq due to Sadam Husein selling oil in euro's versus dollars. She also mentioned Iran was doing the same and this was the reason Bush wants to attack Iran. She also mentioned that Pemex was the Mexican petroleum company that was altering its sales to America She said Mexico's petroleum corporation PEMEX would only sell America oil for 7 more years. She said they need it for their future use. She said Mexico's "Pemex" is our number 2 supplier. She said Canada was our number 1 supplier. She said Brazil and two other countries also sold their oil in euro's. She said if all oil producing countries sold their oil in euro's that America would collapse. She said china owns almost a trillions US dollars in bonds as well as the middle east owns even more in American bonds. She said the middle east holds the most and china is number 2. Renee mentioned Henry Kissinger who cut a deal in the 70's with all the oil producing countries to sell their oil in dollars.I know Governor Ed Rendell is working hard to get windmills and solar and smart meters for Pennsylvania's citizens I am wondering how open other states are with regards to what seems to be an incredible great opening of the truth by the democratic party to its people here in Pennsylvania.When i googled PEMEX and 7 years i got many links about corruption of their petroleum company.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=TSHB,TSHB:2006-45,TSHB:en&q=pemex+sales+to+united+states+ends+in+7+years
and i found this link here talking about the end of oil from Pemex which is what she said would happen = http://survivalacres.com/wordpress/?p=813
And when i googled it in reference with china and euro's and dollars i got
http://moralequivalentofwar.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/china-threatens-nuclear-option-of-dollar-sales
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
ETC
BARACK OBAMA "STEPS IT UP" ENVIROMENTALLY !
(Step It Up, an energetic, innovative organization promoting a national day of climate action, is asking our country's leaders to take on the most important challenge of our time - global warming. Barack Obama addresses that challenge in the response below)
SEE STEP IT UP LINKS = http://www.stepitup.org / http://events.stepitup2007.org
NOW BARACK is STEPPING IT UP http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/EFOBlog/CSfJ
Now we all know Barack is a very enviromentally minded person, yet he is busy but he has set aside time for this call to action.
Note: If you are a moveon dot org member you might remember the email they sent about a month ago begging all moveon members to call Hillary clinton and ask her to be "more like Obama"
SEE MY BLOG http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/danielleclarke/CS7t
TO READ EMAIL "MOVEON ASK HILLARY TO BE MORE LIKE BARACK - Dear MoveOn member, Please call Senator Clinton today and ask her to make sure polluters have to pay for pollution credits, so we can finance the transition to a clean energy economy."
BARACK SAYS:(To read more about my accomplishments and my plans to stop global warming, please visit barackobama dot com/issues/energy )
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy
FIRED UP !
READY TO GO !
STEPITUP
PS: I DO NEED SOMEONE WHO IS A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO PUT ALL THESE LINKS IN A COMPLETE FORM / DIARY SO THE WORLD AT LARGE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THE CLINTONS HURT PEOPLE OF COLOR THE MOST BY THEIR USING CRACK COCAINE AGAINST PEOPLE OF COLOR AND THE INNER CITY POOR AND THEN SEND THEM TO PRISON FOR LONGER TERMS AND THEY GOT THEIR CAMPAIGN FUNDS FROM IMPORTING DRUGS INTO ARKANSAS THROUGH TEXAS WHILE BUSH WAS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS AND CLINTON WAS GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS AND WHILE BUSH SR WAS PRESIDENT AND EVEN BEFORE THIS WAS SET UP WHILE REAGAN WAS PRESIDENT AND BUSH SR WAS A VICE PRESIDENT AND EVEN BEFORE THAT WHEN BUSH SR WAS THE CIA CHIEF ALLOWING THESE DRUG CARTELS TO FUNCTION AND IMPORT DRUGS INTO THE USA.NO !!!
