US Features
By M&C News Apr 4, 2008, 17:27 GMT
In photos: 'USA King Assassination 40th Anniversary'
And Also
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Tiger Woods' slightly injured in car mishap (Roundup)
- 2. It's official: Tiger Woods' injuries were slight (3rd Lead)
- 3. Tiger Woods treated after car accident (2nd Lead)
- 4. Tiger Woods seriously injured in car accident (1st Lead)
- 5. REPORT: Tiger Woods seriously injured in car accident
Older Talkback
page: 1
Honk once if you loved Dr. King.
Honk twice if you think Dr. King was over-rated.
I got your 'poll' right here, cracker..
-John Shaft
Stupid comment from 'stupid name'. I guess the operative word with you is 'stupid'.
tell you Mr. Shaft??, You must be a cotton pickin' idiot. Nobody is named John Shaft except a fifth grade drop out with parents who are imbeciles. Fetch boy.........
way John, you haven't honked yet. Once or twice boy???????
Yeah yeah cracker boy, keep it up on the internet... Ill be out widening your sister.
[...]
Like many of Obama’s contradictions, his stated belief in the individual rights view of the Second Amendment is at odds with his support for DC’s categorical ban on handguns. That law is currently being challenged in District of Columbia v. Heller, now pending before the Supreme Court. Fifty five senators and 250 house members (including many Democrats in both chambers) signed a brief in that case supporting the individual rights view. Obama was not one of them.
And now we know why. As has been reported all week, in 1996 Obama filled out a candidate questionnaire where he revealed his true beliefs on all sorts of subjects, from abortion to school choice.
One question that has not gotten much attention, however, asks if Obama supports legislation to, “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” His one-word answer—uncommonly direct and lacking the flowery eloquence we’ve come to expect from him—was “Yes.”
His answer could cost him the presidency. Since gun control became a partisan political issue in the late 1960s, the only two Democrats to win the White House (Carter and Clinton) have done so by portraying themselves to America as moderate, “common-sense” politicians in sync with Middle America. Supporting an absolute ban on owning any pistol or revolver is at odds with a vast super-majority of Americans, and shows Barack Obama to be far outside the mainstream of American politics.
National Democrat leaders don’t support an absolute ban on handguns. Some far-left politicians from liberal strongholds such as San Francisco, Chicago (where Obama is from) and New York City may tout such extremist measures, but not anyone trying to carry Pennsylvania, Michigan or Ohio in a presidential election. The last time a Democrat nominee supported a ban on handguns was Michael Dukakis, and we all know how that election ended.
Millions of hard-working voters in swing states like Pennsylvania are staunch gun owners. Many of them don’t have a problem with what some people call “reasonable regulations” on guns, but when you start talking about banning guns outright, they vote against you. Barack Obama is now on record with just such a radical agenda.
A smoking gun in the form of a tape recording cost Richard Nixon the presidency in 1974. Another smoking gun in the form of a questionnaire could cost Barack Obama the presidency in 2008. And 90 million American gun owners will be better off if it does.
www.townhall.com/columnists/SandyFroman/2008/04/04/obama%E2%80%99s_smok ing_gun
The FEC currently has just two out of its six board members because of a Senate dispute over the nomination of Hans Von Spakovsky. For months, Barack Obama had a hold on Von Spakovsky's nomination because of Democratic anger over his activities at the Department of Justice (although he has recently been vindicated). Now Obama has released the hold, but Democrats are holding out for a stand-alone vote on the nomination -- instead of the traditional bloc vote -- in order to defeat him. Without a quorum of the board, the FEC is unable to take any enforcement actions. As a result, it cannot implement the bundling rule that Barack Obama and the Democrats are so proud of:
Under last year's ethics and lobbying law revisions, campaign and political action committees affiliated with lawmakers should have completed their first quarter of tracking and identifying the lobbyists who raised large amounts of money by 'bundling' smaller contributions.
But the new disclosure requirement cannot take effect without publication of final rules by the FEC, whose work ground to a halt late last year in a congressional showdown over the six-member commission's makeup...
Bundling allows lobbyists to increase their influence with politicians by collecting campaign checks from clients and lumping them with their own contributions. Under current rules, the name of the bundler, who is often a lobbyist, is not revealed.
Barack Obama and Russ Feingold derailed Von Spakovsky's nomination last year, placing a hold on him right before he was to be confirmed. Now that he has been cleared, will Obama call on his Democratic colleagues to allow the FEC to do its work? Or is Obama too beholden to lobbyist fundraisers to allow disclosure to go forward?
Love-in between Obama and the Black Panthers renewed
An anti-white and virulently anti-Semitic black supremacist party has once again endorsed Sen. Barack Obama on the presidential candidate's own website, WND has learned. Following criticism earlier this month of an online endorsement from the New Black Panther Party, or NBPP, Obama's campaign removed the controversial organization from the presidential candidate's official website. The NBPP had been a registered team member and blogger on Obama's 'MyObama' campaign site. But the NBPP endorsement was reposted on Obama's official website today.
'Obama is capable of stirring the 'melting pot' into a better 'molten America,'' states the NBPP endorsement posted on Obama's site. The NBPP is a controversial black extremist party whose leaders are notorious for their racist statements and for leading anti-white activism.
Malik Zulu Shabazz, NBPP national chairman, who has given scores of speeches condemning 'white men' and Jews, confirmed his organization's endorsement of Obama in a recent interview with WND. 'I think the way Obama responded to the attack on him and the attempt to sabotage his campaign shows true leadership and character. He had a chance to denounce his pastor and he didn't fall for the bait. He stood up and addressed real issues of racial discord,' stated Shabazz. Shabazz boasted he met Obama last March when the politician attended the 42nd anniversary of the voting rights marches in Selma, Ala. 'I have nothing but respect for Obama and for his pastor,' said Shabazz, referring to Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of nearly 20 years.
It is Wright's racially charged and anti-Israel remarks that were widely circulated this month, landing the presidential candidate in hot water and prompting Obama to deliver a major race speech in which he condemned Wright's comments but not the pastor himself. Speaking to WND, Shabazz referred to Obama as a man with a 'Muslim background, a man of color.' Shabazz's NBPP's official platform states 'white man has kept us deaf, dumb and blind,' refers to the 'white racist government of America,' demands black people be exempt from military service and uses the word 'Jew' repeatedly in quotation marks.
www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=60325
Obama not in Memphis on King Assassination Anniversary
Media giving the golden child the pass on not being in Memphis today.
'Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton, possible opponents in the fall campaign, will both be in Memphis Friday to mark the anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King Jr., who was assassinated in this city 40 years ago. They may appear together on a special edition of NBC Nightly News Friday night. Sen. Barack Obama was also invited but declined, citing a scheduling conflict.
In Memphis, McCain also plans a speech to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference written by a new speechwriter, Matthew Scully, one-time wordsmith for President Bush. Clinton's schedule was unclear.'
'Scheduling conflict'? The 40th anniversary of King's death has been coming for a while but the Candy Man can't fit it in? This day is getting world wide coverage because everyone - networks, news papers, cleared their schedules for it. Just my guess, but it most likely has to do with potential photo ops with Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson who will be there. After Wright the last thing he wants is more coverage with the 'radical brethren'.
Jennifer Rubin
Gail Collins writes an entire column bemoaning that the Democratic primary race is “now all about white men.” Obama tries to bond with these voters over bowling, but his “37” brings howls of derision and fretting from liberal columnists. But why should they be surprised? For many presidential elections Democrats have bombed with white males. According to exit polling, John Kerry got only 38% of white males in 2004. In the four elections before that, the Democratic presidential candidate got between 36 and 38% of the white male vote.
Does this mean Obama and the Democrats need not be concerned? After all, if Democrats consistently have lost white male voters, but still won elections, they could do so again. Perhaps what the liberal media and establishment Democrats are hesitant to say is that Obama’s appeal to all white voters, not just men, seems to be evaporating. Indeed, some are downright unhinged. Matthew Yglesias went so far as to bizarrely postulate that John McCain’s Bio Tour was a racist appeal to whites. He wrote that:
it’s the best way I can think of to try to take advantage of older people’s potential discomfort with the idea of a woman or a black man in the White House that doesn’t involve exploiting racism or sexism in a discreditable way.
Only a liberal blogger could argue with impunity that patriotism appeals just to whites.
But Democrats concerned about electability should be worried if Obama turns out not to be the “post- racial candidate” his supporters have lauded him as. Even before his association with Reverend Wright was reported, Obama’s appeal to whites and Hispanics was collapsing.
Hillary Clinton gained impressive wins in Ohio and Texas in large part because the multi-racial coalition which Obama seemed to have constructed began to crumble. In Ohio Obama lost 27-70% among white Democrats, while carrying Black voters 88-12%. In Texas he lost among white Democrats 37-62% and by an even larger margin (30-69%) among Hispanic Democrats.
It’s easy for liberal pundits to attack the “angry white male” voters whom Democrats continually fail to attract. But the fact remains that if Obama is not post-racial in his appeal, he can’t win the presidency. It is not just support from white men, but whites of both genders and Hispanics as well that Obama will need. If he can’t win key swing states like Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Florida (which require him to appeal to whites and Hispanics in large numbers) then the presidency will be out of his reach.
That, much more than bowling scores, should keep Obama supporters up at night.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Senator Obama: What Would You Do About The Qods Force?
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 10:39 AM
From the Times of London:
IRANIAN forces were involved in the recent battle for Basra, General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, is expected to tell Congress this week.
Military and intelligence sources believe Iranians were operating at a tactical command level with the Shi’ite militias fighting Iraqi security forces; some were directing operations on the ground, they think.
Petraeus intends to use the evidence of Iranian involvement to argue against any reductions in US forces.
Senator Obama is within a few weeks of clinching the Democrats' nomination and he has not been pressed on Iran. When the subject has come up at all, Obama has retreated into his trade-mark ambiguity dressed up in soaring rhetoric. His generalities about meeting with Ahmadinejad underscore that Obama's not prepared or even informed on the subject, but the MSM is allowing him to march to Denver without engaging in an extended conversation about what to do with the increasing militancy of Iran (and its proxy Hezbollah). This is one of the greatest failures of American journalism. Imagine the 1940 campaign being conducted without FDR or Wilkie commenting on the war in Europe.
When Jimmy Carter campaigned in 1976, no one knew that Tehran would be engulfed in revolution and that they Ayatollah Khomeini would dominate Carter and his foreign policy.
In 2008 everyone should know that Khomeini's successors will present the greatest challenges to America over the next four years. Letting one of the candidates slide past a searching inquiry of his views on how to either contain or confront Iran is astonishing.
'We Need More White People'
Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 10:31:28 am PDT
When Michelle Obama spoke at Carnegie Mellon University last week, her event organizers had a very specific purpose in mind as they handpicked the people who sat behind her: Michelle Obama speaks at presidential rally in Skibo Gym.
While the crowd was indeed diverse, some students at the event questioned the practices of Mrs. Obama’s event coordinators, who handpicked the crowd sitting behind Mrs. Obama. The Tartan’s correspondents observed one event coordinator say to another, “Get me more white people, we need more white people.” To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, “We’re moving you, sorry. It’s going to look so pretty, though.”
“I didn’t know they would say, ‘We need a white person here,’ ” said attendee and senior psychology major Shayna Watson, who sat in the crowd behind Mrs. Obama. “I understood they would want a show of diversity, but to pick up people and to reseat them, I didn’t know it would be so outright.”
Mothafuckas betta stop with that racist sgit cuz dis aint the 5o's or 60's and I got guns and whips too bitches!!!!!!!!!!
Foreal.... It's 2009. Ain't no chains. Black peoplpe is whopping ass now days so be easy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story