Read today's headlining article at Yahoo news and tell me no agenda gainst Obama

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

 Obama says he's outraged by former pastor's comments

By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. - Barack Obama angrily denounced his former pastor for "divisive and destructive" remarks on race, seeking to divorce himself from the incendiary speaker and a fury that threatens to engulf his front-running Democratic presidential campaign.
ADVERTISEMENT

Obama is trying to tamp down the uproar over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright at a tough time in his campaign. The Illinois senator is coming off a loss in Pennsylvania to rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and trying to win over white working-class voters in Indiana and North Carolina in next Tuesday's primaries.

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Obama told reporters at a news conference Tuesday.

His strong words come just six weeks after Obama delivered a sweeping speech on race in which he sharply condemned Wright's remarks but did not leave the church or repudiate the minister himself, who he said was like a family member. After weeks of staying out of the public eye while critics lambasted his sermons, the former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago made three public appearances in four days to defend himself.

On Monday, Wright criticized the U.S. government as imperialist and stood by his suggestion that the United States invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against minorities. "Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything," he said.

And perhaps even worse for Obama, Wright suggested that the church congregant secretly concurs.

"If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected," Wright said. "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

Obama stated flatly that he doesn't share the views of the man who officiated at his wedding, baptized his two daughters and been his pastor for 20 years. The title of Obama's second book, "The Audacity of Hope," came from a Wright sermon.

"What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for," Obama said. "And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that I am about trying to bridge gaps and I see the commonality in all people."

Although Obama leads in pledged delegates, no Democrat can win the nomination without the support of the superdelegates, the elected officials and party leaders who can vote their preference. The Wright furor forces those Democrats to wonder about Obama's electability in November.

Facing that reality, Obama sought to distance himself further from Wright.

"I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992, and have known Reverend Wright for 20 years," Obama said. "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago."

The Illinois senator said of Wright's statements Monday: "All it was was a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth."

"Obviously, whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed," Obama said. "I don't think he showed much concern for me, more importantly I don't think he showed much concern for what we're trying to do in this campaign."

Obama said he heard that Wright had given "a performance" and when he watched news accounts, he realized that it more than just a case of the former pastor defending himself.

"His comments were not only divisive and destructive, I believe they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate," Obama said. "I'll be honest with you, I hadn't seen it" when reacting initially on Monday, he said.

Wright had asserted that criticism of his fiery sermons was an attack on the black church. Obama rejected that notion.

"He has done great damage, I do not see that relationship being the same," said Obama.

Wright recently retired from the church. He became an issue in Obama's presidential bid when videos circulated of Wright condemning the U.S. government for allegedly racist and genocidal acts. In the videos, some several years old, Wright called on God to "damn America." He also said the government created the AIDS virus to destroy "people of color."

Obama said he didn't vet his pastor before deciding to seek the presidency. He said he was particularly distressed that the furor has been a distraction to the purpose of a campaign.

"I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia explaining that he's done enormous good. ... But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS. ... There are no excuses. They offended me. They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced."

While Obama said he remains a member of the church "obviously this has put a strain on that relationship.

"There wasn't anything constructive out of yesterday," said Obama. "All it was was a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth."

At one point, Obama said he understood the pressures Wright faced but wouldn't excuse his comments.

"I think he felt vilified and attacked and I understand him wanting to defend himself," Obama said. "That may account for the change but the insensitivity and the outrageousness of the statements shocked me and surprised me."

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080429/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pastor

^^ Notice even in the picture they chose an angry looking Obama

[virtuoso]

Don't worry you will be supporting Obama's wars if he gets into power. You think you are against the establishment when you attack Bush but Bush is just the latest in a long line and before him there was Clinton and despite the massive murder list on Clinton's books, you support and like him.

[M Dogg™]

Don't worry you will be supporting Obama's wars if he gets into power. You think you are against the establishment when you attack Bush but Bush is just the latest in a long line and before him there was Clinton and despite the massive murder list on Clinton's books, you support and like him.

oh god... the guy is refusing to go by mainstream politics, and is now finally getting attacked by the media. At first, the media loved him, he was not seen as a threat to Hillary winning the nomination, and the American people felt his way of new politics was refreshing. I read an article, were his staffers said most of the summer, when he was down in the polls, did not seem like the Obama they knew. He said in debates he would attack Pakaistan if we found Bin Laden there, which is something his staffers say he regrets saying but now plays it off. He thought America wanted him to be tougher. Then when he didn't increase in the polls, he decided to go the other direction, and become himself. That's when he jumped right in and said he'd talk to Iran, and that the president of the United States is not so high as to talk to a foreign leader. He started rising in the polls and then went on a huge winning streak. This is when the press had the goods to bring him down. They have had that Rev. Wright footage for a while now, and when Obama was sounding different, not talking about Pakistan anymore (he'd generally brush it off, or try to say that Bush did it) and focus on peace relations with Iran, and getting soldiers out of Iraq, and he was winning, Rev. Wright appeared. In the last debate, more people paid attention to his Flag Pin answers than what Hillary said about war with Iran. Hillary was beating war drums, and all people can talk about was Obama's association with a 60's left-wing extremist that bombed government buildings. Obama said they just happened to be part of the same board, and when Hillary tried to press, Obama mentioned that Bill Clinton partoned members of the group. The man in question now is a professor and when he was caught, Obama was 8, so it's not like Obama had anything to do with this. But here we are, talking about Obama's faults, when he didn't even mention defending Israel in his answer, saying that a hypothical Iran attack on Israel would get a responsible response from the United States, Hillary talking blanket nuclear war. Obama is refusing to go along with politics, and there's rumor that Howard Dean is going to step and and force the Super Delegates to vote Hillary for the nomination and overturn the actual popular and delegate vote. If I was Obama, I wouldn't accept any VP offer I have, I'd let the Democrats hang in 2008, this is the year we are suppose to win the White House, we have a great person for the job in Barack Obama, in a change year, he is someone talking about a complete overhaul program equal Apollo Space program to research a new energy source to break our oil dependency, have a talking relation with Iran, who's actual people are very into American culture and would actually be a great allie to us, and change the face of the United States. But for now, We are getting McCain and another Clinton. If Dean steals the nomination from Obama, then this votes for Nader.

[M Dogg™]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/cJ4OPYAwVNU&amp;hl=en" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/cJ4OPYAwVNU&amp;hl=en</a>

[Teddy Roosevelt]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080429/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pastor

^^ Notice even in the picture they chose an angry looking Obama

[7even]

Don't worry you will be supporting Obama's wars if he gets into power.

[Real American]

LOL the mainstream media is 100% behind Obama you idiot.

Why do you think Saturday Night Live did a skit mocking the MSNBC debate for the way the moderators kissed Obama's asses and gave all the hard questions to Hilary?

[Turf Hitta]

LOL the mainstream media is 100% behind Obama

of course they are. thats why they made a big deal out of his pastor making comments that were true.

[virtuoso]

Obama has enjoyed massive press coverage from the very get go. It's ironic isn't it Real American can't recognised the theatre which is staged around Fox News and the white house and yet is able to pick it up straight away when it concerns the democrats. Now of course that is not to say that he has been annointed and yes the Wright could cripple him but they have allowed him this far. Compare and contrast this to Ron Paul he was given less time to answer questions in the debates than anyone else, was given less questions and was largely ignored by the media. They could have shunned Obama to but there was no need to, he is as anti war as Stalin was, he has the same corporate agenda as the other fucks, that is why he has not been shunned.

The guy is CFR
The guy is run by an extremely dangerous and intelligent u.s coporate imperialist
The guy is financed by financial insitutions but yet according to infinite it's the financial institutions which are the problem.

But hey don't worry there are some muslims in Obama's ancestory and the guy is half black so everything must be wonderful! You have to see things for how they are instead seeing things for they should be only then can there be CHANGE.

[M Dogg™]

Obama has enjoyed massive press coverage from the very get go. It's ironic isn't it Real American can't recognised the theatre which is staged around Fox News and the white house and yet is able to pick it up straight away when it concerns the democrats. Now of course that is not to say that he has been annointed and yes the Wright could cripple him but they have allowed him this far. Compare and contrast this to Ron Paul he was given less time to answer questions in the debates than anyone else, was given less questions and was largely ignored by the media. They could have shunned Obama to but there was no need to, he is as anti war as Stalin was, he has the same corporate agenda as the other fucks, that is why he has not been shunned.

The guy is CFR
The guy is run by an extremely dangerous and intelligent u.s coporate imperialist
The guy is financed by financial insitutions but yet according to infinite it's the financial institutions which are the problem.

But hey don't worry there are some muslims in Obama's ancestory and the guy is half black so everything must be wonderful! You have to see things for how they are instead seeing things for they should be only then can there be CHANGE.

First off, your a guy that thinks the USDA is bad, so the fact that you dislike the CFR is evil is not surprising. The CFR is not a secret club where these evil men decide we go to war. It's a committee of senators that focus on our issues abroad. Hell, you can watch their meetings on CSPAN.

[jeromechickenbone]

Don't worry you will be supporting Obama's wars if he gets into power. You think you are against the establishment when you attack Bush but Bush is just the latest in a long line and before him there was Clinton and despite the massive murder list on Clinton's books, you support and like him.

oh god... the guy is refusing to go by mainstream politics, and is now finally getting attacked by the media. At first, the media loved him, he was not seen as a threat to Hillary winning the nomination, and the American people felt his way of new politics was refreshing. I read an article, were his staffers said most of the summer, when he was down in the polls, did not seem like the Obama they knew. He said in debates he would attack Pakaistan if we found Bin Laden there, which is something his staffers say he regrets saying but now plays it off. He thought America wanted him to be tougher. Then when he didn't increase in the polls, he decided to go the other direction, and become himself. That's when he jumped right in and said he'd talk to Iran, and that the president of the United States is not so high as to talk to a foreign leader. He started rising in the polls and then went on a huge winning streak. This is when the press had the goods to bring him down. They have had that Rev. Wright footage for a while now, and when Obama was sounding different, not talking about Pakistan anymore (he'd generally brush it off, or try to say that Bush did it) and focus on peace relations with Iran, and getting soldiers out of Iraq, and he was winning, Rev. Wright appeared. In the last debate, more people paid attention to his Flag Pin answers than what Hillary said about war with Iran. Hillary was beating war drums, and all people can talk about was Obama's association with a 60's left-wing extremist that bombed government buildings. Obama said they just happened to be part of the same board, and when Hillary tried to press, Obama mentioned that Bill Clinton partoned members of the group. The man in question now is a professor and when he was caught, Obama was 8, so it's not like Obama had anything to do with this. But here we are, talking about Obama's faults, when he didn't even mention defending Israel in his answer, saying that a hypothical Iran attack on Israel would get a responsible response from the United States, Hillary talking blanket nuclear war. Obama is refusing to go along with politics, and there's rumor that Howard Dean is going to step and and force the Super Delegates to vote Hillary for the nomination and overturn the actual popular and delegate vote. If I was Obama, I wouldn't accept any VP offer I have, I'd let the Democrats hang in 2008, this is the year we are suppose to win the White House, we have a great person for the job in Barack Obama, in a change year, he is someone talking about a complete overhaul program equal Apollo Space program to research a new energy source to break our oil dependency, have a talking relation with Iran, who's actual people are very into American culture and would actually be a great allie to us, and change the face of the United States. But for now, We are getting McCain and another Clinton. If Dean steals the nomination from Obama, then this votes for Nader.

I was going to read that but it was far to difficult.  Use paragraphs or spacing or some shit for gods sake.

[virtuoso]

Yes the CFR is benevolent, the Trilateral Commission is benevolent, the IMF are benevolent to right?

You know absolutely nothing I will try and make this a little easier for you by using their own words or more specifically the president of the CFR

CFR President says: ''State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era''



International Politics In the age of globalization, states should give up some sovereignty to world bodies in order to protect their own interests

By Richard Haass
Taipei Times
Tuesday, Feb 21, 2006, Page 9

For 350 years, sovereignty -- the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states -- has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion.

The world's 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.

As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the UN General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organizations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.

Less is more

Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the WTO because on balance they benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.

Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the US, China, and India, accept emissions limits or adopt common standards because they recognize that they would be worse off if no country did.

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization. At its core, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity, and importance of flows -- within and across borders -- of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty's fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control. Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary...

This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan's Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, the US' preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection.

Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue -- correctly -- that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.

Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilizing refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.

The NATO intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

Conditions needed

Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation.

The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.

[b]The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens rather than from what states do to one another.

Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The Opportunity: America's Moment to Alter History's Course.


I thought there was no plan for a world governance, I thought that idea was something only muttered by "conspiracy theorists".

I can see the double think readying itself, suddenly you will concede ok maybe they do want to take away sovereignty but it's only to protect us!. Therefore the underlying goal of the CFR is not to empower America, they are actually working against the nation to control and centralise power within an elite few who give a fuck about me and you, this is about absolute power and dependance. These terrorists that they speak of as the great threat to the world, are ran by the CIA, the Kosovo has been documented as a provocateured event driven by the CIA using terrorists to attack serbian cities knowing that when they responded they could then portray it in a black and white version. One side being painted as the defenceless victims and the other side as the genocidal maniacs. This is not my opinion that was the conclusions of the senate congrssional committee when they published their report into Kosovo.

Don't you get it, they smack you upside the head with the threat of terrorism then if the effect of this move seems to be wearing, they then launch the fear of global warming (which has now turned into global cooling i might add) oil scarcity, food scarcity, carbon taxes, environmental green taxes, it's all being done to destroy the state.

"The CFR is just a bunch of senators" is it, is that why the owners of the biggest media corporations are also members!. We are not talking about a group of angels creating their system of global government (as bad as that would be), we are talking about lying evil deceitful scumbags.

[M Dogg™]

Globalization has been around since the Silk trade with China and Europe. Open your mind and see the modern world.

You worry about a global government, what in the world is the UN. Should we pull out the UN? Let me know. Obama is a child of the world, African parent and Kansas mother. Myself, Native American and Mexican. To me, you are a foreigner because your European. This nation is deep in globalization. This is a nation of immigration, a global nation that you can eat Menudo for breakfast, Sushi for lunch and Italian for dinner. This nation is one of the few truly global nation in the world. Canada is really global too in it's large cities. But in the US, you go to small town, USA you get Mexican immigrants, some Eastern Europeans, and a few Asians. This country is a place were everyone from the world comes.

As for your global government, if there was a global government, you can better believe we would be in charge. I highly doubt Obama wants a global government. What you speak is basically Ron Paul garbage.

[virtuoso]

This is written by the President of the CFR, these are his words, I know you have great difficulty in understanding english but it's really not that difficult. Global government = global totalitarianism, that is what this fuck is brazenly calling for, you are truly dumb.

Don't you get it? coining terms like child of the world, globalisation is the way forward, is habitualising you with the notion that sovereignty should not exist, you will say that there is no plan for this when that contradicts what he is saying, you can say if you close your eyes, that the sky doesn't exist but it's still there.!

Camron's rhymes make more sense than your nonsensical retorts, damn man you are making him seem more insightful every time you contribute your point of view. It's not that even mean to trivialise the issue, it's just apparent that it has to be dumbed down for you.