Saturday, July 19, 2008



McCain 'Accidentally' Leaks Details of

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




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



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


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


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




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


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


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


In fact, McCain was furious when the press reported on his son serving in Iraq -- he feared the coverage would make him a target.
NOTE from B4B: We added the word 'accidentally' to the Huff title because we just know that McCain wouldn't do something this foolish on purpose.....right? But if he can't handle proper procedures for the security of one man, how will he handle securing our country. Finally, imagine the media uproar if this had been reversed.

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

SPREAD THE WORD....BLOCK THE TRIP !

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


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


Friday, July 18, 2008



Finally....The TRUTH About Off-Shore Drilling

From Michael Schwartz


Dean Baker of Truthout recently published a wonderful article about McCain's plan for oil drilling off the Florida coast.



Baker makes three very important points about this plan.
First, there is simply not enough oil there to make any kind of difference in terms of the energy crisis: "The Energy Information Agency (EIA) projects that if we go the drilling route, we could hit peak production of 200,000 barrels a day by 2030." This is a trivial quantity, amounting to about 0.2% of the world's production at that time, and about 1% of the U.S. consumption right now. It would increase domestic production by less than 3%. So offshore drilling would do nothing at all to reduce the price of oil or to "reduce dependency on foreign oil," to invoke everyone's favorite slogan.



Second, Baker makes the point that the media has severely distorted the debate between McCain and Obama:
"The media have portrayed the disagreement between Senators Obama and McCain as to whether to allow drilling in the currently protected offshore areas as a question of values. Senator Obama values the environment, while Senator McCain wants to bring down energy prices and promote economic growth."



This portrayal of the debate is a complete misrepresentation, since "McCain's plan will have no measurable impact on the price of oil or on economic growth. In other words, Senator McCain is willing to jeopardize the environment in these protected areas for nothing."
Finally, Baker makes this telling point, that there are easy-to-execute conservation measures that would do far more to reduce the oil crunch:


"There are alternatives to drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive areas that can produce real results. Conservation is the most obvious.... Suppose we raised average fuel efficiency to 40 MPG by 2030; this would save us more than 5 million barrels of oil per day, 25 times as much as we would get from Senator McCain's offshore drilling. Since many cars sold today already get more than 40 MPG, this is hardly an unrealistic target. Wherever we set our targets, the simple arithmetic shows that it is far easier to have an impact on oil markets through conservation than drilling in environmentally sensitive areas."


Baker did not, however, ask this question: Why would McCain advocate such a plan, instead of the straightforward conservation measures that are much better?



There are two answers to this question.


First, though McCain's plan for off shore drilling will not ease the energy crisis, it is a dandy piece of patronage for the oil industry. Halliburton and other oil service companies will get huge contracts to drill there, while the big distributors (Exxon and the gang) will be able to make very nice profits from extracting and selling the 200,000 barrels per day. (Profits from this amount of oil could easily exceed three billion dollars per year). The fact that taxpayers will foot the bill for government support of the project (including guarding the platforms, protecting them from weather, etc) and then pay the environmental price of its impact is of no never mind to McCain, since he can depend on the media to portray these expenses as the price we pay for alleviating the oil crisis.


Second, McCain does not want to impose 40 mpg on auto manufacturers because this would cut into their profitability by forcing them to develop hybrid and alternate fuel automobiles. These are expensive and problematic projects that the manufacturers know would cut into their already fragile profits. McCain, for his part, does not want to make the already struggling auto manufactuers "take one for the team." The same goes for all the other conservation measures (like cogeneration, which would reduce manufacturing profits, or insulation, which would reduce housing contractor profits).


The big point is this. During the energy crisis, Washington is conducting "politics as usual": exploiting public alarm to enact destructive policies that are profitable to a key corporate clients, and avoiding constructive policies that would probably reduce the profits of key corporate clients.



What can we learn from all this? One lesson is that policies relating to the big problems facing our country turn out to be deeply entangled with the loyalty of government officials to the short term profits of the biggest corporations. Another lesson is that government officials can depend on the media to help them "justify" their service to industries by concealing the real impact of their policies.


Time 4 Judgement....TIME 4 OBAMA !


Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

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

MEET THE ENEMY !
The 'People' Behind The Barack/Michelle Smears
To thwart off the many mistruths and smears against Michelle and Barack Obama, the 'O' Camp has launched a website called 'Fight The Smears' which dispels the many falsehoods. But just who is behind these orchestrated Obama smears? Well, here's a list:





David Bossie, who runs Citizens United, has paired with Floyd Brown for years. Bossie and Brown harassed the Clintons throughout Bill Clinton's administration, with even George H.W. Bush calling his behavior in the 1992 presidential election (which included harassing the family of a recent suicide victim) "filthy campaign tactics." After writing a 2000 book about Al Gore that went little-noticed, in 2004, Brown and Floyd Bossie, working as the group Citizens United, made a movie called Celsius 41.11 and ran television ads attacking John Kerry. In 1998, Bossie was fired from his job with the House Committee investigating Bill Clinton. When Bossie selectively released tapes, removing information that exonerated the Clintons, and improperly obtained phone records, even Newt Gingrich said he was "embarrassed for the conference at the circus that went on."
Then-President George Bush: "We will do whatever we can to stop any filthy campaign tactics." [Press Conference, 7/15/92]
Current President George W. Bush sent a letter to 85,697 major donors urging them not to contribute to the Bossie/Brown groups in 1992. [Washington Post, 7/15/92]
George H.W. Bush's campaign, referred to Bossie, Floyd Brown, and their associates as "the lowest forms of life." [Hunting of the President]
Newt Gingrich: "I'm embarrassed for myself, and I'm embarrassed for the conference at the circus that went on" under Bossie in the House investigation of Clinton-Gore campaign finances. [Washington Post, 5/7/98]
Dan Burton, Bossie's Boss in the House: "He released information on Mr. Huang's telephone records without my knowledge or approval. I have told him in no uncertain terms that I do not allow my staff to release any information, including documents, without my approval, and that I do not expect this to happen again." [Roll Call, 11/25/96]


Floyd Brown, the leader of the National Campaign Fund, the Legacy Committee, Citizens for a Safe and Prosperous America and the Policy Issues Institute, once bragged he was part of the "the heart and soul of the right-wing conspiracy," and has a history of surfacing every four years to make right-wing attacks against Democrats in presidential elections. Most infamously, Brown was responsible for the 1988 "Willie Horton" ad against Michael Dukakis. Brown harassed the Clintons throughout Bill Clinton's administration, with even George H.W. Bush calling his behavior in the 1992 presidential election (which included harassing the family of a recent suicide victim) "filthy campaign tactics." After writing a 2000 book about Al Gore that went little-noticed, in 2004, Brown and Floyd Bossie, working as the group Citizens United, made a movie called Celsius 41.11 and ran television ads attacking John Kerry.
USA Today: "[Brown has] established himself as one of the nation's dirtiest political strategists." [USA Today, 10/26/92]
George Stephanopoulos: "Floyd Brown is a slimy thug for hire."[Washington Post, 4/19/94]
Mary Matalin: "I'm not a big fan of Floyd Brown...He gave us the Willie Horton ads that the Republican Party has had to eat for two election cycles now."[New York Times, 4/24/94]
Salon: "If there is a racist odor to the coming general election campaign, it is likely to emanate from his vicinity."[Salon, 4/25/08]


Bob Perry is one of the biggest Republican donors in the country and was the main financier of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004, giving $4.5 million. The ads produced by the Swift Boat effort were so disingenuous that John McCain himself denounced them as “dishonest and dishonorable.”
In 2006, Perry was again the top contributor to 527 groups, giving them more than $9 million.
His contributions were more than the next two biggest donors combined. Perry even funded an anti-gay ad in Montana that referred to “Brokebank Democrats” and ads featuring the home phone numbers of Democratic candidates.


Craig Shirley, who runs Stop-Him-Now.com, was a McCain campaign consultant and endorser until the campaign was faced with the possible illegal arrangement. Shirley, another member of the team that produced the Willie Horton ads in 1988, harassed the Clinton administration for years, staging the press conference where Paula Jones was introduced. Shirley not only represented “Unlimited Access,” a book described as “second-hand, unsubstantiated sexual rumors about and bitter attacks against President and Mrs. Clinton,” but also represents Ann Coulter’s books.


Bruce Hawkins, the Executive Director of the National Campaign Fund, has been involved in Republican campaigns for 20 years. Hawkins was recently disbarred in Washington state for violating four rules of professional conduct, running a business that promised to reduce credit card debt (but did not), and lying about conflict of interest. The same year, Hawkins was "permanently enjoined" by the justice department "from promoting tax-fraud schemes" after setting up illegal offshore tax shelters.


James Lacy is the treasurer and general counsel of the National Campaign Fund. He was the treasurer for the Legacy Committee; is the contact for the Policy Issues Institute; and is the treasurer for Citizens for a Safe and Prosperous America. Lacy is a "long-time conservative activist" and a "soldier in the conservative movement for many, many years." Lacy, who served as a lawyer for the Minutemen, once said he was "willing to do whatever it takes to preserve the Minuteman Project." Lacy also co-founded the United States Justice Foundation, an organization that got its start in "reverse-discrimination" suits.

Visit Fight The Smears regularly to help
SHARE THE TRUTH !

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

Thursday, July 17, 2008


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


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


U.S. To Set Up Diplomatic Mission In Iran

(Oh Really !)


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


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


Obama Camp Elated Over
$52 Million June Donations



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


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


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


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


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



KEEP IT COMING !



Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

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

Together, We WILL Make A Difference !

Cindy McCain:

Drugs, Lies, Intimidation,

Theft and Cindy McCain


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, July 16, 2008


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


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

Tuesday, July 15, 2008



Israel ‘Will Attack Iran’ Before New US

President Sworn In, John Bolton Predicts


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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Obama has said he will open high-level talks with Iran “without preconditions” while Mr McCain views attacking Iran as a lesser evil than allowing Iran to become a nuclear power.
William Kristol, a prominent neo-conservative, told Fox News on Sunday that an Obama victory could prompt Mr Bush to launch attacks against Iran. “If the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out,” he said.

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

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

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

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

NOTE: The Previous Post

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Obama's NAACP Speech


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


Thank you.

Sunday, July 13, 2008


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

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


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

I Was Right ! Bush Wants Israel To Bomb Iran !

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


President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran


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

Saturday, July 12, 2008


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

Sat. July 12, 2008

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

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

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


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


(See Updated Post from B4B)

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