BARACK OBAMA SPEAKS ABOUT FAITH AND CHURCH

The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He's drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Email
Print
Comments
Buzz up!on Yahoo!Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It's a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

With Rev. Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright's statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.



This expresses BArack Obama's true feelings! we shouls ALL listen!

Why Hillary Clinton will fight on

Why Hillary Clinton will fight on

Clinton is fighting on and she's even winning.

She said it only increased her resolve to keep running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

I am upset with this article because i don't like Hilary Clinton and i don't want her to become president.

Obama's 'Sweetie': Spontaneous or Sexist?

Obama's 'Sweetie': Spontaneous or Sexist?

The recent flap over Sen. Barack Obama calling a female reporter "sweetie"
sparked a national dialogue over what is acceptable language between men and
women in the workplace.
The moment came at a campaign stop in Detroit, when Peggy Agar, a reporter
at ABC's Detroit affiliate WXYZ-TV, asked Obama this question: "Senator, how are
you going to help the American autoworkers?"
"Hold on a second, sweetie.
We'll hold a press avail," replied Obama, referring to a structured question and
answer session with the media.
Hours later, Obama left Agar a voicemail,
apologizing for not answering her question and for calling her "sweetie."
"That's a bad habit of mine," Obama said in the message. "I do it sometimes
with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on
that front."
It apparently is a habit. In an earlier campaign stop, Obama
said to a woman, "Sweetie, if I start with a picture I will never get out of
here."
And then: "Sweetie if I start doing autographs I just won't be … I am
really late."

This article was really stupid. I don't see why a man calling a woman sweetie is sexist. Like he said it is just a habit he has. If a girl Hillary Clinton would have said that to a woman no one would even notice, but because Obama is a man then it is a huge deal. This is just plain stupid and I don't understand why it needs to have its own article.

Defying President Bush, Senate Passes Farm Bill

Defying President Bush, Senate Passes Farm Bill

The 81-to-15 Senate vote, like the 318-to-106 House vote on Wednesday, attracted broad bipartisan support and received far more than the two-thirds that would be needed to override Mr. Bush’s veto, should he keep his pledge to wield his pen.

Mr. Bush has said he wants to sharply limit government subsidies to farmers at a time of near-record commodity prices and soaring global demand for grain. Most legislators were not swayed by Mr. Bush’s description of the bill as bloated, expensive and packed with “a variety of gimmicks.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, defended the measure as “one of compromise.”

“That’s what legislation is all about,” Mr. Reid said just before the vote.

The bill includes a $10.3 billion increase in spending on nutrition programs, including food stamps, that supporters called “historic,” as well as increases for rural development and land conservation programs.

It also extends many existing federal subsidies that the president and other critics say are difficult to justify in such flush times for agricultural producers.

Mr. Bush had sought an adjusted gross income limit of $200,000 above which farmers could not qualify for any subsidy payments. The bill passed by the Senate and House, however, allows farm income of up to $750,000 and nonfarm income of $500,000 per individual.

That $750,000 limit applies to only one subsidy program, so-called direct payments that are disbursed based on land acreage and regardless of current market conditions or even whether the land is still actively farmed.

While Mr. Bush has long called for curtailing subsidy programs, the farm bill is viewed as vital legislation both across rural America and in impoverished urban centers.

Only two Democratic senators, Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, both of Rhode Island, voted against the bill. The 13 Republicans who voted against it included Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, a former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, who has called the measure fiscally irresponsible.

The three presidential candidates, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, both Democrats, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona, were absent. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, also did not vote.

The willingness of so many Republicans to break with the White House reflected both the strong support for the bill and a growing alarm among many lawmakers about their election prospects in November.

Mr. Bush himself made a similar political calculation in 2002, ultimately deciding to sign the farm bill that year even though he had strongly opposed it. A senior official at the time said the White House had concluded it would be “political suicide” in the midterm elections to veto the bill that year.

This year, though, Mr. Bush seems intent on refusing to sign the bill. He has criticized it for months, and on Wednesday he issued a forceful veto threat. He urged Congress to approve a one-year extension of current law, which he said would be better than adopting the new measure.

“Today’s farm economy is very strong, and that is something to celebrate,” he said. “It is also an appropriate time to better target subsidies and put forth real reform.” The bill, he said, “spends too much and fails to reform farm programs for the future.”

On Wednesday evening, Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesman, reiterated the president’s opposition. “With its massive expansion of subsidies, special interest earmarks and budget gimmicks, this bill is wrong for American taxpayers,” he said. “The president will veto it.”

But in debate on the House floor on Wednesday, some Republicans were just as forceful in pledging to defy Mr. Bush should he use his veto pen.

“I know there is a veto threat from the White House,” said Representative Robin Hayes, Republican of North Carolina. “If the president decides to follow through I will be there voting to override him because we need this update for our nation’s policies.”

Should it reach that point, it would be only the second veto overriden during Mr. Bush’s presidency. The first was in November when Congress overwhelmingly rejected the president’s veto of a $23.2 billion water resources bill that authorized popular projects around the country.

In the House chamber on Wednesday, longtime critics of farm subsidies in both parties echoed Mr. Bush’s complaints about the current bill.

“Where’s the beef?” asked Representative Ron Kind, Democrat of Wisconsin, standing in the House floor next to a poster showing sharp increases in commodity prices — 126 percent for wheat, 57 percent for soybeans, 45 percent for corn. “Where’s the real reform?” he said.

Some critics have also pointed to earmarks in the bill, including a tax break for racehorse owners added by the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and $170 million to benefit the salmon industry inserted by House Democrats from the West Coast.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, in her own speech on the House floor, responded directly to Mr. Kind, whose proposals would drastically overhauling farm subsidies she had supported before the Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006.

Although the legislation is universally known as the farm bill, it actually directs far more money to feeding the poor than it does to helping farmers — about $209 billion for nutrition programs like food stamps, according to the Congressional Budget Office, compared with $35 billion for agricultural commodity programs.

In her speech, Ms. Pelosi praised the bill and said the increase on food stamps alone was reason to support it. She said that while more change would be needed, the bill made important improvements to farm policy.

“With this legislation we will help families facing high food prices,” she said.

At a news conference, the Agriculture Committee chairman, Representative Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota, said he expected the bill to reach the president by May 20 and a veto override to be approved before Congress leaves for a Memorial Day recess.

Both Mr. Peterson and the committee’s senior Republican, Representative Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, said the bill represented a strong bipartisan compromise.

“I am very pleased that both parties cast a majority of votes for this farm bill,” Mr. Goodlatte said. “We don’t have a two-to-one majority. We have a three-to-one majority.”

He added: “I believe that we now have the opportunity to say to America that this is a farm bill that truly does assure that we continue to have the safest, most affordable, most abundant food supply in the world. We have addressed the needs of America’s farmers and ranchers.”

WHY BARACK OBAMA WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT

Theo Caldwell: Why Barack Obama will never be president
Posted: April 21, 2008, 4:01 PM by Marni Soupcoff
Theo Caldwell


If he becomes the Democratic Party's nominee for president, Sen. Barack Obama will lose the general election for this reason: When the smiles and platitudes are set aside, Obama's campaign and the philosophy of his cadre amount to one big put-down of America.

Anomalous among Western leaders, the president of the United States serves as head of both state and government. Moreover, he is elected directly by the voters, unlike in a parliamentary system whereby a leader attains power through the success of his party. As such, the president represents something very personal to Americans. He is, for four or more years, the personification of their country, embodying the aspirations and goodness of the land that they love. A president may disappoint after assuming office, but America is not in the habit of electing candidates who hold their country in contempt.

Not only have the comments of Obama's wife, Michelle (who has referred to America as "downright mean" and stated that she was not proud of her country until her husband started winning primaries) and his minister, Jeremiah Wright (whose hateful, anti-white, anti-American diatribes are available for sale in Obama's church, or for free on YouTube) revealed the tired, leftist scorn for America that Obama represents — the Senator's own remarks have exposed this ugly, unelectable side.

Speaking to a fundraiser in San Francisco, Obama attempted to explain his persistent deficit in Pennsylvania primary polls by describing small-town Americans as "bitter" people who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." This is hard stuff, and patronizing, besides. Add to this Obama's characterizations of the "typical white person" (in the context of describing his grandmother, whom he had originally tossed under the campaign bus in order to create a false equivalence with Wright's racism), and one finds something far more damaging than a simple series of gaffes --it is a window into how the Senator sees his countrymen.

Obama's associations, even beyond Wright, speak to this unappealing point of view. William Ayers, a domestic terrorist of Weathermen infamy, enjoys a friendly relationship with the Obamas. As general-election voters will learn, Ayers bombed the Pentagon on May 19, 1972, and fondly recalls, "The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them." Ayers and his accomplices also bombed the U.S. Capitol, the State Department, as well as banks, police stations and courthouses.

In one's associations, as in other aspects of life, mistakes are made. But a hallmark of a leader is the willingness to make them right. For this, Obama has shown little talent or enthusiasm.

Obama has defended Wright by insisting that he merely represents the convention of "Black Liberation Theology," as though this were just some quaint offshoot of traditional Christianity. One need not pore over the tenets of Black Liberation Theology or its founder, James Hal Cone — although a Google search of either would provide a world of clarity to the undecided voter -- to recognize that a would-be President who cannot utterly disassociate himself from such racist, anti-American rubbish lacks sufficient character and affinity for his country's ideals to be its leader.

The bumper-sticker slogan "dissent is patriotic" has for decades been employed to legitimize any insult to America, no matter how hateful or moronic. But Americans understand that their president's instinct ought to be to defend the nation against unfair invective, not embrace those who purvey it — or, in the case of Ayers, seek to blow it up altogether.

With his demonstrable view of America, and considering his cohorts, Obama would be wise to make himself very comfortable in the Senate.

theojpcaldwell@yahoo.com

— Theo Caldwell, president of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.

Obama warns Republicans about critical ads

Obama warns Republicans about critical ads

Obama said Americans want "change in this election," and they especially care about health care, jobs, gasoline prices, college affordability and the Iraq war.

"The Republican Party better be prepared to debate issues," he said, "because that's what people are focused on right now."

Still, Obama faces several challenges, including the need to attract working-class voters who sided heavily with Hillary Rodham Clinton in many states. She beat him by 41 percentage points in West Virginia's primary this week, a shellacking that Obama tried to explain to reporters.

"Part of the issue with West Virginia was, we just didn't have a lot of time to get there" to campaign, he said. "I'm not well-known there. You know, some of these e-mails and rumors that we talked about have penetrated in West Virginia more deeply than they have in some other states. Debunking that stuff is relatively simple if you are on the ground talking to people. If you're not, then it's tough."

Obama said his primary losses to Clinton in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other places do not mean he cannot carry such states in November against McCain.

"I would just take a look at where the national polls are right now," he said. "We're beating McCain handily, we're doing really well among independents. There may be concerns among some voters because they don't know me that well. And I think that the longer we campaign, and the better they get to know me and my agenda, the better we'll do."

Obama is on a roll. i think that this article is good because it tells us about how good obama is doing and also about things that are fake. I think that this just shows how obama is going to win because he is real and not fake and he tells us everything he knows and dont leave stuff out.

Edwards rules out vice presidential run with Obama

Edwards rules out vice presidential run with Obama

Former presidential contender John Edwards said on Friday he would not be Democratic front-runner Barack Obama's running mate, but did not rule out taking a role in an Obama administration.

[...]

Edwards said Obama had told him, "I want you on my team. I want to help you both in the campaign and with the work we want to do when I'm the president."

I am shocked due to the actions of Edwards..

Obama to speak out on Bush 'appeasement' charge

Obama to speak out on Bush 'appeasement' charge

The blowup over President Bush's remarks to Israel's parliament equating talks with rogue regimes to appeasement will be front and center another day.

Barack Obama, who saw himself as the target of Bush's criticism, is expected to directly rebut the president later today at a campaign event in South Dakota.

His top foreign policy adviser, Susan Rice, said this morning on MSNBC that Obama will deliver a "very vigorous response to what was an outrageous, unprecedented, and divisive attack from President Bush yesterday which was patently dishonest."

She argued that Republican presidents, including Ronald Reagan, have talked to renegade countries. And she said Obama has made "absolutely clear" he will not deal with terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

While the White House officially denied the remarks were aimed at Obama, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain used the opportunity to argue again that Obama's willingness to negotiate shows he is naive and inexperienced in the ways of foreign policy.

But in an opinion piece published today in The Washington Post, former Clinton State Department official James Rubin accused McCain of hypocrisy and attempting to smear Obama.

McCain has attempted to link Obama to Hamas, which the State Department calls a terrorist group, citing a Hamas political adviser's comments praising Obama's foreign policy.

But Rubin said when he interviewed McCain two years ago for a British TV network, McCain suggested the United States should be willing to talk to Hamas officials in Gaza.

"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so ... But it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that," McCain said, according to Rubin.

The McCain campaign today issued this response: “There should be no confusion, John McCain has always believed that serious engagement would require mandatory conditions and Hamas must change itself fundamentally -– renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept a two state solution. John McCain’s position is clear and has always been clear, the President of the United States should not unconditionally meet with leaders of Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah. Barack Obama has made his position equally clear, and has pledged to meet unconditionally with Iran’s leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the leaders of other rogue regimes, which shows incredibly dangerous and weak judgment,” Tucker Bounds, a campaign spokesman, said in a statement.

Its good that he is speaking out on this suject and matter

Obama to speak out on Bush 'appeasement' charge

Obama to speak out on Bush 'appeasement' charge

Barack Obama, who saw himself as the target of Bush's criticism, is
expected to directly rebut the president later today at a campaign event in
South Dakota.
His top foreign policy adviser, Susan Rice, said this morning
on MSNBC that Obama will deliver a "very vigorous response to what was an
outrageous, unprecedented, and divisive attack from President Bush yesterday
which was patently dishonest."
While the White House officially denied the remarks were aimed at Obama,
presumptive Republican nominee John McCain used the opportunity to argue again
that Obama's willingness to negotiate shows he is naive and inexperienced in the
ways of foreign policy.
The McCain campaign today issued this response: “There should be no
confusion, John McCain has always believed that serious engagement would require
mandatory conditions and Hamas must change itself fundamentally -– renounce
violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept a two state
solution. John McCain’s position is clear and has always been clear, the
President of the United States should not unconditionally meet with leaders of
Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah. Barack Obama has made his position equally clear, and
has pledged to meet unconditionally with Iran’s leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and
the leaders of other rogue regimes, which shows incredibly dangerous and weak
judgment,” Tucker Bounds, a campaign spokesman, said in a statement.

This article was interesting. I agree with McCain that Obama is naive and inexperienced when it comes to foreign policy and he shows that with his willingness to negotiate. Bush was not singling out Obama and criticizing him in his speech.

US elections: Barack Obama accuses President George W Bush over Israel speech

US elections: Barack Obama accuses President George W Bush over Israel speech

Mr Obama has previously argued for unconditional talks between America and Iran. While Mr Bush did not mention the Democratic presidential candidate, the Obama campaign interpreted his remarks as an attack and responded immediately.

"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicisation of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally, Israel."

But the White House denied that Mr Bush had been making an oblique reference to Mr Obama. Dana Perino, the president's press secretary, said that Mr Bush had merely been arguing that talking to terrorists was futile.

Referring to Mr Obama, she said: "I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."

I agree with barack all the way. i also think that it is very imature for the white house to deny that bush did not mean anything like that. if you going to talk about someone or something dont be a coward and deny it. Also for whoever said that comment back to obama has no idea what she is saying. They think that obama is slow but guess what he aint.

"Influence"

The influence of money in politics is very strong. I think that most politicians care nothing about the issues, most of them only care about the money. But you need a certain amount of money to keep your campaign going, The more money that a candidate has, the bigger influence that they will make on the people.

How you can use money to influence an election!!!

You can use money to influence and election by giving a lot of money to a certain candidate which basically secures them a high position in the upcoming election. So money really does influence an election and pretty much depends on it.

How can money influence and election?

How can money influence an election?

Some people dont really pay attention to what the candidate is saying or what they stand for. The amount of money could effect how much they have towards campaigning and then they get the most votes.

Influence

Influence plays a big role in elections. If a candidate can influence the public to donate to their campaign, then they could win just on that. Candidates also put out a lot of advertisements to influence your vote. They uncover information about their opponents' past (usually bad), just so they can make themselves look good. And it is up to the public to decide on who is good for them.

"Money Influence on Election"

It contains how much the candidate can spend on campaigning. The people don't really pay attention to the candidates stands on the issues. They care more about how they campaign and the way they campaign has to do with how much money they send on campaigning.

Money

Money, does it make the world go round?
People take things in life for granted if they have money
money just currupts the world. Of course it is essential in life
but not to the extent that most people think..

Lesbians

Lesbians, women with a homosexual orientaion but still the same as all of us. Not something to be ashamed of. People shouldnt be so homophobic and should get to actually know them before thay start to judge.

Money Money Money

Money does effect politics it contraols what get fixed and how the candidates campiagn. It is good and bad because good becuase its suppose to go to the community and help people the bad is that they do bad stuff with the money sometimes. That they should only get an specific amount and they should only use it to help the people and anything that is broken.

OUR GROUP TOPIC: LeSbIaNs

Lesbians are human beings just like you and I. I believe that having a different particular personal preference doesn't give society the right to ostracize you. America is a free country, and we should start acting like it. No...I'm not condoning it...but I have no problem with self expression in that way.

Group

Our group topic is lesbians. I personally don't have anything against them. You should do what feels right to you... and not care about what other people think.

ELECTIONS

Elections are time consuming...and probably stressful for people involved in politics. I don't really care for them too much. And I don't believe they are always accurate in determining who is president.

Lesibens

I have nothing against lesibens it doesn't bother me one bit. They should have the rights as anybody else in the world.

Money and politics

politics abuse the money they are given. i think its wrong.

Money in Politics

Politics is all about the money and I think it is wrong and unconstitutional.

our group topic is about lesbians

lesbians are just like you and me. their no different. you shouldn't judge a person by their choice of who they like. Lesbians go through a lot by friends and family members and random people and i dont think its fair.

Group Topic

Our group topic is lesbians. I don't really have anything against lesbians or gay people for that matter and I think that they should be able to get married if they so choose to.

ELECTIONS

elections are boring!!!

MONEY

i believe that money rules politics. For example, in the presidential race,if no one thinks enough of you to endorse you no one will give money to your campaign, and therefore making iit harder to get around the country to all American voters

Money.....=D

Money affects politics greatly... we don't even know about some of our candidates because they were not rich enough to get their name out there, or raise enough money for their campaign. I would say this is really bad... we shouldn't base elections on how rich a person is. The wealthy candidate may turn out to be the worst person for the job. Money in politics should mean less than it does. It should be more about what the candidate has to offer to the people. It's not all about money...

Elections

Elections are great, because I can vote now! yay!

Electionz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Electionz are very monotonous...I like the outcome...but the process is very tedious...Sorry!

Elections

Elections...very very complicated.
Complicated as well as time consuming.
To me it seems like a bunch of adults acting like little kids
gossiping and starting rumors about the other candidates.

Electionz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Electionz are very

Elections Voting

We are playing proviso west today and we are going to win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!