Kenya urges AU to suspend Mugabe
Raila Odinga calls for Robert Mugabe's suspension
Kenyan PM Raila Odinga has urged the African Union to suspend Robert Mugabe from the bloc until he allows free and fair elections in Zimbabwe.
The call came as the Zimbabwe opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) said the country faced a constitutional crisis.
The Zimbabwe crisis has overshadowed the African Union summit in Egypt.
Correspondents say the AU's response to the Zimbabwe crisis will be a major test of the bloc's effectiveness.
Mr Mugabe claimed a landslide victory as the sole candidate in the presidential election re-run after the MDC's leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, withdrew.
But African observers said the election had been undermined by pre-poll violence.
Speaking to reporters in Nairobi, Mr Odinga said: "They should suspend him and send peace forces to Zimbabwe to ensure free and fair elections."
Mr Odinga, a vocal critic of Mr Mugabe, says the AU would set a dangerous precedent by accepting him as "a duly elected president".
The UN has urged African leaders to try to negotiate a solution to the crisis.
No talks
The South African presidency said it would consider reports from election observers together with other members of the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) before adopting a unified position regarding the result.
The MDC says the way forward must reflect the outcome of the first round of voting in March, when Mr Tsvangirai won more votes than President Mugabe.
The opposition is prepared to take part in a transitional arrangement or a government of national unity, but it says there are no negotiations currently under way between Mr Tsvangirai and the ruling Zanu-PF party.
The BBC's southern Africa correspondent Peter Biles says that apart from the recent political violence in Zimbabwe, there is continuing economic hardship, with inflation in the region of nine million per cent and the country heading for the worst harvest in 60 years
Monday, June 30, 2008
Iran sentences man to death for spying for Israel
Iran sentences man to death for spying for Israel
Mon, Jun 30 01:50 PM
By Hashem Kalantari
TEHRAN (Reuters) - An Iranian court on Monday sentenced to death an Iranian businessman on charges of spying for Israel after a two-day trial, media said.
The Tehran court handed down its sentence at a time of high tension between Israel and the Islamic Republic amid speculation of a possible Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear installations.
Iranian media identified Ali Ashtari as the manager of a company selling communications and security equipment to Iran's government.
He was accused of "engaging in espionage for (Israel's) Mossad intelligence service," the ISNA news agency said. He had confessed and asked for clemency.
"I apologise to the Iranian people and to any organisation which has been damaged because of my acts and I request Islamic clemency," the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted 43-year-old Ashtari as telling the court in Tehran.
Ashtari said he had accepted a loan of $50,000 from Israeli agents as he had been in financial straits, Fars said. He was detained a year and a half ago.
His name indicated he was a Shi'ite Muslim but Iranian media did not specify his religion. The media reports did not say whether he would appeal against the sentence.
Israeli government officials declined to comment on the issue on Monday. On Saturday, an official in Israel's Foreign Ministry said it was not familiar with the case.
Iran, which does not recognise Israel, has previously reported breaking up spy networks and accused the United States and "Zionists" of trying to destabilise the country.
SATELLITE PHONES
In 2000, 10 Jews from the city of Shiraz were convicted of spying in a closed door trial that sparked international outrage. The last five detained were released in 2003.
Fars quoted Ashtari as telling the court that three Israeli agents had presented themselves to him as foreign bank representatives looking for a commercial partnership.
Meetings with the agents, two of whom were called Jack and Tony, took place in Thailand and Turkey and they provided him with a laptop computer for coded communication as well as satellite phones, the news agency said.
Fars said Ashtari's company had branches in Tehran, Dubai and in a third country it did not name.
Speculation of an Israeli attack on Iran has risen since a U.S. newspaper reported this month that the Jewish state had practiced such a strike against the Iran's nuclear facilities.
Tehran says its nuclear programme is peaceful and aimed at generating electricity. But the West and Israel fear Iran is seeking to build atomic bombs. Israel is believed to be the only Middle Eastern state with nuclear arms.
The standoff between the West and Iran, the world's fourth largest oil producer, has been a factor pushing oil prices to record highs. Crude hit a record level on international markets near $143 a barrel on Friday.
Washington has said it wants diplomacy to end the nuclear row but has not ruled out military action should that fail.
(Additional reporting by Avida Landau in Jerusalem)
Mon, Jun 30 01:50 PM
By Hashem Kalantari
TEHRAN (Reuters) - An Iranian court on Monday sentenced to death an Iranian businessman on charges of spying for Israel after a two-day trial, media said.
The Tehran court handed down its sentence at a time of high tension between Israel and the Islamic Republic amid speculation of a possible Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear installations.
Iranian media identified Ali Ashtari as the manager of a company selling communications and security equipment to Iran's government.
He was accused of "engaging in espionage for (Israel's) Mossad intelligence service," the ISNA news agency said. He had confessed and asked for clemency.
"I apologise to the Iranian people and to any organisation which has been damaged because of my acts and I request Islamic clemency," the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted 43-year-old Ashtari as telling the court in Tehran.
Ashtari said he had accepted a loan of $50,000 from Israeli agents as he had been in financial straits, Fars said. He was detained a year and a half ago.
His name indicated he was a Shi'ite Muslim but Iranian media did not specify his religion. The media reports did not say whether he would appeal against the sentence.
Israeli government officials declined to comment on the issue on Monday. On Saturday, an official in Israel's Foreign Ministry said it was not familiar with the case.
Iran, which does not recognise Israel, has previously reported breaking up spy networks and accused the United States and "Zionists" of trying to destabilise the country.
SATELLITE PHONES
In 2000, 10 Jews from the city of Shiraz were convicted of spying in a closed door trial that sparked international outrage. The last five detained were released in 2003.
Fars quoted Ashtari as telling the court that three Israeli agents had presented themselves to him as foreign bank representatives looking for a commercial partnership.
Meetings with the agents, two of whom were called Jack and Tony, took place in Thailand and Turkey and they provided him with a laptop computer for coded communication as well as satellite phones, the news agency said.
Fars said Ashtari's company had branches in Tehran, Dubai and in a third country it did not name.
Speculation of an Israeli attack on Iran has risen since a U.S. newspaper reported this month that the Jewish state had practiced such a strike against the Iran's nuclear facilities.
Tehran says its nuclear programme is peaceful and aimed at generating electricity. But the West and Israel fear Iran is seeking to build atomic bombs. Israel is believed to be the only Middle Eastern state with nuclear arms.
The standoff between the West and Iran, the world's fourth largest oil producer, has been a factor pushing oil prices to record highs. Crude hit a record level on international markets near $143 a barrel on Friday.
Washington has said it wants diplomacy to end the nuclear row but has not ruled out military action should that fail.
(Additional reporting by Avida Landau in Jerusalem)
CAIR WARNS OF INVASIVE BODY SCANS AT U.S. AIRPORTS
CAIR WARNS OF INVASIVE BODY SCANS AT U.S. AIRPORTS
Muslim group reminds passengers of their right to request an alternative measure
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 6/13/08) The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today warned American Muslims and others concerned with personal privacy of a security procedure recently implemented by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) that scans full-body images of passengers through their clothing, revealing intimate body parts to screeners.
According to USA Today, the body-scanning machines are being used on randomly-selected passengers at airports in Phoenix, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Denver, Albuquerque, and New York’s JFK airport. They are scheduled to be installed at airports in Dallas, Detroit, Las Vegas, Miami, and Reagan National Airport near Washington, D.C. this month.
SEE: 10 Airports Install Body Scanners (USA Today)
The TSA website describes the process through which the machines bounce harmless radio waves off the passenger’s body, which constructs a three-dimensional image that is projected on a monitor in the security scanner’s room. The TSA characterizes the procedure as a “voluntary alternative to a pat-down,” and says it blurs passengers’ faces and does not store the images to protect privacy.
SEE: Whole Body Imaging - Millimeter Wave
However, concerns have been raised over the level of detail shown by the machines, which are capable of projecting graphic images of a person’s body, revealing private body parts and other intimate details.
SEE: ACLU Backgrounder on Body Scanners and ‘Virtual Strip Searches’
Muslim group reminds passengers of their right to request an alternative measure
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 6/13/08) The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today warned American Muslims and others concerned with personal privacy of a security procedure recently implemented by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) that scans full-body images of passengers through their clothing, revealing intimate body parts to screeners.
According to USA Today, the body-scanning machines are being used on randomly-selected passengers at airports in Phoenix, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Denver, Albuquerque, and New York’s JFK airport. They are scheduled to be installed at airports in Dallas, Detroit, Las Vegas, Miami, and Reagan National Airport near Washington, D.C. this month.
SEE: 10 Airports Install Body Scanners (USA Today)
The TSA website describes the process through which the machines bounce harmless radio waves off the passenger’s body, which constructs a three-dimensional image that is projected on a monitor in the security scanner’s room. The TSA characterizes the procedure as a “voluntary alternative to a pat-down,” and says it blurs passengers’ faces and does not store the images to protect privacy.
SEE: Whole Body Imaging - Millimeter Wave
However, concerns have been raised over the level of detail shown by the machines, which are capable of projecting graphic images of a person’s body, revealing private body parts and other intimate details.
SEE: ACLU Backgrounder on Body Scanners and ‘Virtual Strip Searches’
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rape
Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rape
Article Tools Sponsored By
By DAVID STOUT
Published: June 26, 2008
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Wednesday that sentencing someone to death for raping a child is unconstitutional, assuming that the victim is not killed.
“The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
The dissenters were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., generally regarded as the conservative wing of the tribunal.
Not since 1964 has anyone been executed in the United States for a crime other than murder, and of about 3,300 inmates now on death row, only two are facing execution for an offense that did not involve a killing — and both of those inmates are in Louisiana. Patrick Kennedy, was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter and the other is Richard Davis, who was condemned for assaulting a 5-year-old girl.
The case of Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343, was the latest in a series in which the justices have weighed particular applications of capital punishment. In 2002, for instance, the Supreme Court barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants, and in 2005 it banned the execution of people for crimes they committed before they were 18.
But, as Chief Justice Roberts observed when Kennedy v. Louisiana was argued on April 16: “This is quite different. It is focused on the nature of the offense.” Indeed, a theme that ran through the argument was that, while the death penalty is a punishment like no other, the rape of a child is a crime like no other.
In 1977, the Supreme Court banned death sentences for rape. But the victim in that case, Coker v. Georgia, was a young married woman, and the ruling did not specifically discuss the rape of a child. Over the past 13 years, several states have reacted to public outrage over crimes against children by amending their statutes to make the rape of a child punishable by death.
Louisiana was the first state to do so, amending its death-penalty law in 1995 to include rape of a child under the age of 12. But unlike Louisiana, the other states with similar provisions (Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas) generally limit the death penalty to defendants previously convicted of sex crimes against children.
Mr. Kennedy’s lawyer, Jeffrey L. Fisher, argued before the justices that it was “at odds with national values” for the state to execute his client, who had never committed such a crime before.
But Justice Scalia pressed Mr. Fisher on that assertion, noting that the recent trend has been “more and more states permitting the capital punishment” for the rape of a child.
As for the case at hand, Juliet L. Clark, an assistant district attorney from Gretna, La., countered that Mr. Kennedy, who weighs 300 pounds, had committed “a very savage rape” that caused serious injuries to his victim. And R. Ted Cruz, the Solicitor General for the State of Texas, who argued as a “friend of the court” on the side of Louisiana, said that Mr. Kennedy (like Mr. Davis, the other child-rape defendant on Louisiana’s death row) had “committed crimes that are just unspeakable.”
Responding to a question from Justice Ginsburg, Ms. Clark said the Louisiana child-rape law could apply regardless of the sex of the criminal or that of the victim.
And in support of her argument that crimes against children have long been viewed with special revulsion, and as deserving of special punishment, Ms. Clark pointed out that the Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that states can make it a crime to possess child pornography even in one’s home.
That ruling, in Osborne v. Ohio, carved out an exception to a 1969 Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution protects the possession of obscene material in the privacy of one’s residence. Justice Byron R. White wrote for the 6-to-3 majority in the Osborne case, reasoning that Ohio was justified in trying to “destroy a market for the exploitative use of children.”
Of the current Supreme Court, only Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Stevens took part in the 1990 Osborne decision. Justices Scalia and Kennedy were in the majority; Justice Stevens joined with Justices William J. Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall in finding the Ohio law to be unconstitutionally broad.
Article Tools Sponsored By
By DAVID STOUT
Published: June 26, 2008
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Wednesday that sentencing someone to death for raping a child is unconstitutional, assuming that the victim is not killed.
“The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
The dissenters were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., generally regarded as the conservative wing of the tribunal.
Not since 1964 has anyone been executed in the United States for a crime other than murder, and of about 3,300 inmates now on death row, only two are facing execution for an offense that did not involve a killing — and both of those inmates are in Louisiana. Patrick Kennedy, was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter and the other is Richard Davis, who was condemned for assaulting a 5-year-old girl.
The case of Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343, was the latest in a series in which the justices have weighed particular applications of capital punishment. In 2002, for instance, the Supreme Court barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants, and in 2005 it banned the execution of people for crimes they committed before they were 18.
But, as Chief Justice Roberts observed when Kennedy v. Louisiana was argued on April 16: “This is quite different. It is focused on the nature of the offense.” Indeed, a theme that ran through the argument was that, while the death penalty is a punishment like no other, the rape of a child is a crime like no other.
In 1977, the Supreme Court banned death sentences for rape. But the victim in that case, Coker v. Georgia, was a young married woman, and the ruling did not specifically discuss the rape of a child. Over the past 13 years, several states have reacted to public outrage over crimes against children by amending their statutes to make the rape of a child punishable by death.
Louisiana was the first state to do so, amending its death-penalty law in 1995 to include rape of a child under the age of 12. But unlike Louisiana, the other states with similar provisions (Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas) generally limit the death penalty to defendants previously convicted of sex crimes against children.
Mr. Kennedy’s lawyer, Jeffrey L. Fisher, argued before the justices that it was “at odds with national values” for the state to execute his client, who had never committed such a crime before.
But Justice Scalia pressed Mr. Fisher on that assertion, noting that the recent trend has been “more and more states permitting the capital punishment” for the rape of a child.
As for the case at hand, Juliet L. Clark, an assistant district attorney from Gretna, La., countered that Mr. Kennedy, who weighs 300 pounds, had committed “a very savage rape” that caused serious injuries to his victim. And R. Ted Cruz, the Solicitor General for the State of Texas, who argued as a “friend of the court” on the side of Louisiana, said that Mr. Kennedy (like Mr. Davis, the other child-rape defendant on Louisiana’s death row) had “committed crimes that are just unspeakable.”
Responding to a question from Justice Ginsburg, Ms. Clark said the Louisiana child-rape law could apply regardless of the sex of the criminal or that of the victim.
And in support of her argument that crimes against children have long been viewed with special revulsion, and as deserving of special punishment, Ms. Clark pointed out that the Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that states can make it a crime to possess child pornography even in one’s home.
That ruling, in Osborne v. Ohio, carved out an exception to a 1969 Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution protects the possession of obscene material in the privacy of one’s residence. Justice Byron R. White wrote for the 6-to-3 majority in the Osborne case, reasoning that Ohio was justified in trying to “destroy a market for the exploitative use of children.”
Of the current Supreme Court, only Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Stevens took part in the 1990 Osborne decision. Justices Scalia and Kennedy were in the majority; Justice Stevens joined with Justices William J. Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall in finding the Ohio law to be unconstitutionally broad.
Obama Dismisses Dobson Criticism About Bible
Obama says Dobson 'making stuff up' in claim candidate distorted the Bible
By SARA KUGLER Associated Press Writer
LOS ANGELES June 25, 2008 (AP)
The Associated Press
Barack Obama said Tuesday that evangelical leader James Dobson was "making stuff up" when he accused the presumed Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., talks during a town hall style meeting at the Springs Preserve, a cultural and historic attraction, in Las Vegas, Nevada Tuesday, June 24, 2008.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
(AP)
Dobson used his Focus on the Family radio program to highlight excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.
Speaking to reporters on his campaign plane before landing in Los Angeles, Obama said the speech made the argument that people of faith, like himself, "try to translate some of our concerns in a universal language so that we can have an open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us."
Obama added, "I think you'll see that he was just making stuff up, maybe for his own purposes."
In his program, Dobson focused on examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy. For instance, Obama said Leviticus suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination. Obama also cited Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."
"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said in the speech.
"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said.
Asked about Dobson's assessment, Obama said "somebody would be pretty hard-pressed to make that argument" that he was distorting the Bible.
Obama supporters also responded to Dobson.
The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a Methodist pastor from Texas and longtime supporter of President Bush who has endorsed Obama, said Tuesday he belongs to a group of religious leaders who, working independently of Obama's campaign, launched a Web site to counter Dobson at http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com. The site highlights statements from Obama and Dobson and asks visitors to compare them.
Caldwell said he has great respect for Dobson's advocacy for families, but said the criticism of Obama was "a bit over the top" and "crossed the line."
"There has been a call for a higher level of politics and politicking," Caldwell said. "So to attack at this level is inappropriate and I think unacceptable and we at least want to hold everybody accountable."
Tom Minnery, a senior vice president at Focus on the Family, responded: "Without question, Dr. Dobson is speaking for millions of evangelicals because his understanding of the Bible is thoroughly evangelical."
———
AP Religion Writer Eric Gorski in Denver contributed to this report.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
By SARA KUGLER Associated Press Writer
LOS ANGELES June 25, 2008 (AP)
The Associated Press
Barack Obama said Tuesday that evangelical leader James Dobson was "making stuff up" when he accused the presumed Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., talks during a town hall style meeting at the Springs Preserve, a cultural and historic attraction, in Las Vegas, Nevada Tuesday, June 24, 2008.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
(AP)
Dobson used his Focus on the Family radio program to highlight excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.
Speaking to reporters on his campaign plane before landing in Los Angeles, Obama said the speech made the argument that people of faith, like himself, "try to translate some of our concerns in a universal language so that we can have an open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us."
Obama added, "I think you'll see that he was just making stuff up, maybe for his own purposes."
In his program, Dobson focused on examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy. For instance, Obama said Leviticus suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination. Obama also cited Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."
"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said in the speech.
"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said.
Asked about Dobson's assessment, Obama said "somebody would be pretty hard-pressed to make that argument" that he was distorting the Bible.
Obama supporters also responded to Dobson.
The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a Methodist pastor from Texas and longtime supporter of President Bush who has endorsed Obama, said Tuesday he belongs to a group of religious leaders who, working independently of Obama's campaign, launched a Web site to counter Dobson at http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com. The site highlights statements from Obama and Dobson and asks visitors to compare them.
Caldwell said he has great respect for Dobson's advocacy for families, but said the criticism of Obama was "a bit over the top" and "crossed the line."
"There has been a call for a higher level of politics and politicking," Caldwell said. "So to attack at this level is inappropriate and I think unacceptable and we at least want to hold everybody accountable."
Tom Minnery, a senior vice president at Focus on the Family, responded: "Without question, Dr. Dobson is speaking for millions of evangelicals because his understanding of the Bible is thoroughly evangelical."
———
AP Religion Writer Eric Gorski in Denver contributed to this report.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Gore throws his support to Obama
Gore throws his support to Obama
By Associated Press / June 17, 2008
DETROIT - Al Gore announced his endorsement yesterday of Barack Obama and promised to help him achieve what eluded the former vice president - the presidency.
more stories like this
"The outcome of this election will affect the future of this planet," Gore said last night, addressing about 20,000 people at Detroit's Joe Louis Arena. "We've got to have new leadership. Not only a new president, but new policies."
In 2000, Gore won the popular vote but lost the disputed 2000 election to George W. Bush, who captured Florida and its electoral votes after a divided Supreme Court ended the recount. Since then, Gore has made combating global warming his signature issue, and has been recognized worldwide for his efforts.
"It means a lot, obviously," Obama said of Gore's support, as he greeted workers outside a General Motors plant in Flint. "He's somebody who is a visionary, not just for the party, but for the country."
Gore is one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party, but he maintained a low profile in the primary campaign.
It is the second time that Obama has rolled out a major endorsement in Michigan, a state he did not campaign in during the primary because its election violated the party rules. Last month, he appeared with 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards in Grand Rapids, as party leaders united behind Obama as their nominee .
Yesterday, Gore also asked for donations to help fund Obama's effort - the first time he has asked members of his website, AlGore.com, to contribute to a political campaign.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
By Associated Press / June 17, 2008
DETROIT - Al Gore announced his endorsement yesterday of Barack Obama and promised to help him achieve what eluded the former vice president - the presidency.
more stories like this
"The outcome of this election will affect the future of this planet," Gore said last night, addressing about 20,000 people at Detroit's Joe Louis Arena. "We've got to have new leadership. Not only a new president, but new policies."
In 2000, Gore won the popular vote but lost the disputed 2000 election to George W. Bush, who captured Florida and its electoral votes after a divided Supreme Court ended the recount. Since then, Gore has made combating global warming his signature issue, and has been recognized worldwide for his efforts.
"It means a lot, obviously," Obama said of Gore's support, as he greeted workers outside a General Motors plant in Flint. "He's somebody who is a visionary, not just for the party, but for the country."
Gore is one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party, but he maintained a low profile in the primary campaign.
It is the second time that Obama has rolled out a major endorsement in Michigan, a state he did not campaign in during the primary because its election violated the party rules. Last month, he appeared with 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards in Grand Rapids, as party leaders united behind Obama as their nominee .
Yesterday, Gore also asked for donations to help fund Obama's effort - the first time he has asked members of his website, AlGore.com, to contribute to a political campaign.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Nepal's deposed king leaves palace for last time
Nepal's deposed king leaves palace for last time
KATMANDU, Nepal (AP) — Nepal's deposed king has left the royal palace for the last time but has no plans to leave the Himalayan country.
Former King Gyanendra says he wants to stay to "help establish peace" as the country moves from a monarchy to a republic.
Hundreds of people came to see Gyanendra leave Katmandu's royal palace Wednesday night. His departure marks the end of the final chapter of the world's last Hindu monarchy.
Nepal was declared a republic last month after elections that saw the country's former communist rebels win the most seats in a special assembly charged with rewriting the constitution.
KATMANDU, Nepal (AP) — Nepal's deposed king has left the royal palace for the last time but has no plans to leave the Himalayan country.
Former King Gyanendra says he wants to stay to "help establish peace" as the country moves from a monarchy to a republic.
Hundreds of people came to see Gyanendra leave Katmandu's royal palace Wednesday night. His departure marks the end of the final chapter of the world's last Hindu monarchy.
Nepal was declared a republic last month after elections that saw the country's former communist rebels win the most seats in a special assembly charged with rewriting the constitution.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Chinese Persecute Tibetans
Tibetans who fled Lhasa after March 10 crackdown recount horrors of life
Mon, Jun 9 09:05 PM
Dharamshala, June 9 (ANI): With eyes still wide with fear, Tibetan protesters recount how the Chinese guns silenced the recent protests in Lhasa.
Police went door-to-door in midnight swoops as they searched for Tibetans who participated in the protests that flared up in March, one of the protesters said.
Kunsang Sonam, a 38-year-old textile trader and father-of-one said in Dharamsala that he saw at least six Tibetans die from gunshot and knife wounds.
Sonam said he feared for his life and so he sneaked across the Nepal border-- a major transit point for those fleeing Tibet to come to Dharamsala in India, the seat of the Tibetan government-in-exile.
"On March 10, we held a peaceful demonstration against the Chinese rule and on March 14, we had a bigger demonstration held in Tibet. At that time, lots of Chinese police came to Lhasa and they started firing on us. Chinese soldiers also came up and they were arresting people and were firing on us with tanks, guns, and they were bombing us with tear gas bombs," Sonam said..
Days of monk-led marches in Tibet's capital Lhasa devolved into a citywide riot on March 14 that saw Chinese shops thrashed and burned and cars overturned. China says about 20 "innocent" civilians were killed by mobs. The government-in-exile says more than 100 protesters were killed by Chinese troops. Hundreds of rioters have been arrested.
Sonam is one of the few who managed to escape from Tibet after the outbreak of violence.
He said the Tibetans in his homeland were living in perpetual fear-especially those who participated in the demonstrations.
The protests were the climax to years of resentment towards the Chinese policy of filling up the Tibetan areas with people of Chinese origin, outnumbering and outranking the ethnic Tibetans in their own land, he said.
"Those who have been arrested by the Chinese police, they are being tortured badly. Those who have not been arrested are living in fear of when the Chinese police will come and arrest them. Tibetan people are not allowed to move around freely-- this is the situation inside Tibet," said Sonam.
The dormitories in Dharamsala may be drab, but they offer much relief and happiness to the Tibetans who have fled their home country to be with their leader.
They are free to stick up any number of smiling pictures of the Dalai Lama or wave Tibetan flags -- both prohibited activities in Tibet.
Almost all of the 2,500 to 3,000 Tibetans who escape from the country each year pass through the centre in Dharamsala-- a small Himalayan foothill town teaming with tourist-filled cafes and souvenir shops stuffed with Indian crafts.
However, officials at the refugee centre say the number of fresh arrivals from Tibet has dropped sharply over the past couple of months- mainly because of stricter border patrols by the Chinese authorities, which makes it nigh impossible for Tibetans to escape.
Sonam yearns to return to his family - daughter, wife, brother and father-- but that is now impossible.
Mingyur Youdon, one of the workers at the refugee centre said the condition of the monks inside Tibet was depressing.
"Chinese authority- they also stop supplying food, water, and electricity to the monastery. Monks are dying because of starvation inside monastery," Youdon said as tears welled up her eyes.
Monks caught with images of the Dalai Lama were forced to curse his name or be jailed, she added.
The Dalai Lama is pressing world leaders to urge China to ease the crackdown on Tibet and his envoys held talks with officials in China last month, but Beijing blames the rioting on the India-based Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader. (ANI)
Mon, Jun 9 09:05 PM
Dharamshala, June 9 (ANI): With eyes still wide with fear, Tibetan protesters recount how the Chinese guns silenced the recent protests in Lhasa.
Police went door-to-door in midnight swoops as they searched for Tibetans who participated in the protests that flared up in March, one of the protesters said.
Kunsang Sonam, a 38-year-old textile trader and father-of-one said in Dharamsala that he saw at least six Tibetans die from gunshot and knife wounds.
Sonam said he feared for his life and so he sneaked across the Nepal border-- a major transit point for those fleeing Tibet to come to Dharamsala in India, the seat of the Tibetan government-in-exile.
"On March 10, we held a peaceful demonstration against the Chinese rule and on March 14, we had a bigger demonstration held in Tibet. At that time, lots of Chinese police came to Lhasa and they started firing on us. Chinese soldiers also came up and they were arresting people and were firing on us with tanks, guns, and they were bombing us with tear gas bombs," Sonam said..
Days of monk-led marches in Tibet's capital Lhasa devolved into a citywide riot on March 14 that saw Chinese shops thrashed and burned and cars overturned. China says about 20 "innocent" civilians were killed by mobs. The government-in-exile says more than 100 protesters were killed by Chinese troops. Hundreds of rioters have been arrested.
Sonam is one of the few who managed to escape from Tibet after the outbreak of violence.
He said the Tibetans in his homeland were living in perpetual fear-especially those who participated in the demonstrations.
The protests were the climax to years of resentment towards the Chinese policy of filling up the Tibetan areas with people of Chinese origin, outnumbering and outranking the ethnic Tibetans in their own land, he said.
"Those who have been arrested by the Chinese police, they are being tortured badly. Those who have not been arrested are living in fear of when the Chinese police will come and arrest them. Tibetan people are not allowed to move around freely-- this is the situation inside Tibet," said Sonam.
The dormitories in Dharamsala may be drab, but they offer much relief and happiness to the Tibetans who have fled their home country to be with their leader.
They are free to stick up any number of smiling pictures of the Dalai Lama or wave Tibetan flags -- both prohibited activities in Tibet.
Almost all of the 2,500 to 3,000 Tibetans who escape from the country each year pass through the centre in Dharamsala-- a small Himalayan foothill town teaming with tourist-filled cafes and souvenir shops stuffed with Indian crafts.
However, officials at the refugee centre say the number of fresh arrivals from Tibet has dropped sharply over the past couple of months- mainly because of stricter border patrols by the Chinese authorities, which makes it nigh impossible for Tibetans to escape.
Sonam yearns to return to his family - daughter, wife, brother and father-- but that is now impossible.
Mingyur Youdon, one of the workers at the refugee centre said the condition of the monks inside Tibet was depressing.
"Chinese authority- they also stop supplying food, water, and electricity to the monastery. Monks are dying because of starvation inside monastery," Youdon said as tears welled up her eyes.
Monks caught with images of the Dalai Lama were forced to curse his name or be jailed, she added.
The Dalai Lama is pressing world leaders to urge China to ease the crackdown on Tibet and his envoys held talks with officials in China last month, but Beijing blames the rioting on the India-based Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader. (ANI)
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Obama Declares Victory: FULL SPEECH
FULL SPEECH: Obama Declares Victory
Barack Obama Delivers First Speech as Presumptive Democratic Nominee
June 3, 2008
The following remarks are the text as prepared for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., on June 3, 2008, his first speech after declaring victory in the Democratic nomination contest over Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. The speech was delivered in St. Paul, Minnesota, site of the Republican National Convention in August 2008.
On June 3, 2008, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., declared victory in the race for the Democratic nomination.
Tonight, after fifty-four hard-fought contests, our primary season has finally come to an end.
Sixteen months have passed since we first stood together on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Thousands of miles have been traveled. Millions of voices have been heard. And because of what you said – because you decided that change must come to Washington; because you believed that this year must be different than all the rest; because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another – a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.
I want to thank every American who stood with us over the course of this campaign – through the good days and the bad; from the snows of Cedar Rapids to the sunshine of Sioux Falls. And tonight I also want to thank the men and woman who took this journey with me as fellow candidates for President.
At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office. I have not just competed with them as rivals, I have learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party, and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.
That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.
We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning – even in the face of tough odds – is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as First Lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency – an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
There are those who say that this primary has somehow left us weaker and more divided. Well I say that because of this primary, there are millions of Americans who have cast their ballot for the very first time. There are Independents and Republicans who understand that this election isn't just about the party in charge of Washington, it's about the need to change Washington. There are young people, and African-Americans, and Latinos, and women of all ages who have voted in numbers that have broken records and inspired a nation.
All of you chose to support a candidate you believe in deeply. But at the end of the day, we aren't the reason you came out and waited in lines that stretched block after block to make your voice heard. You didn't do that because of me or Senator Clinton or anyone else. You did it because you know in your hearts that at this moment – a moment that will define a generation – we cannot afford to keep doing what we've been doing. We owe our children a better future. We owe our country a better future. And for all those who dream of that future tonight, I say – let us begin the work together. Let us unite in common effort to chart a new course for America.
In just a few short months, the Republican Party will arrive in St. Paul with a very different agenda. They will come here to nominate John McCain, a man who has served this country heroically. I honor that service, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. My differences with him are not personal; they are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign.
Related
The Clinton Campaign: Will She Stay or Go?
WATCH: Preprimary Superdelegate Count
Obama Clinches Democratic Nomination; Clinton Refuses to Concede
Because while John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign.
It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush ninety-five percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.
It's not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college – policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.
And it's not change when he promises to continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians – a policy where all we look for are reasons to stay in Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn't making the American people any safer.
So I'll say this – there are many words to describe John McCain's attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush's policies as bipartisan and new. But change is not one of them.
Change is a foreign policy that doesn't begin and end with a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged. I won't stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years – especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.
We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in - but start leaving we must. It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It's time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care they need and the benefits they deserve when they come home. It's time to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda's leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century – terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That's what change is.
Change is realizing that meeting today's threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy – tough, direct diplomacy where the President of the United States isn't afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for. We must once again have the courage and conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy. That's what the American people want. That's what change is.
FULL SPEECH: Obama Declares Victory
Barack Obama Delivers First Speech as Presumptive Democratic Nominee
FONT SIZE
EMAIL
PRINT
SHARE
RSS
Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and workers who created it. It's understanding that the struggles facing working families can't be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving a the middle-class a tax break, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation. It's understanding that fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity can go hand-in-hand, as they did when Bill Clinton was President.
John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy – cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota – he'd understand the kind of change that people are looking for.
Related
Obama First Black Major Party Nominee
WATCH: Obama Beats Clinton: More Analysis Here
BLOG: Obama-Clinton Battle Ends
Maybe if he went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can't pay the medical bills for a sister who's ill, he'd understand that she can't afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and wealthy. She needs us to pass health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That's the change we need.
Maybe if he went to Pennsylvania and met the man who lost his job but can't even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he'd understand that we can't afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators. That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future – an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. That's the change we need.
And maybe if he spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, he'd understand that we can't afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education; to recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; to finally decide that in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the wealthy few, but the birthright of every American. That's the change we need in America. That's why I'm running for President.
The other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a debate I look forward to. It is a debate the American people deserve. But what you don't deserve is another election that's governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon – that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.
Despite what the good Senator from Arizona said tonight, I have seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I have brought many together myself. I've walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the South Side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools. I've sat across the table from law enforcement and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent thirteen innocent people to death row. And I've worked with friends in the other party to provide more children with health insurance and more working families with a tax break; to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure that the American people know where their tax dollars are being spent; and to reduce the influence of lobbyists who have all too often set the agenda in Washington.
In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.
So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union; and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.
Related
Dowd: How Obama Won and Clinton Lost
George Discusses Hillary for Vice President
Clinton Backers Send Parting Shot to Obama
So it was for the Greatest Generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny, and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.
So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines; the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause.
So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better, and kinder, and more just.
And so it must be for us.
America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
Barack Obama Delivers First Speech as Presumptive Democratic Nominee
June 3, 2008
The following remarks are the text as prepared for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., on June 3, 2008, his first speech after declaring victory in the Democratic nomination contest over Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. The speech was delivered in St. Paul, Minnesota, site of the Republican National Convention in August 2008.
On June 3, 2008, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., declared victory in the race for the Democratic nomination.
Tonight, after fifty-four hard-fought contests, our primary season has finally come to an end.
Sixteen months have passed since we first stood together on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Thousands of miles have been traveled. Millions of voices have been heard. And because of what you said – because you decided that change must come to Washington; because you believed that this year must be different than all the rest; because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another – a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.
I want to thank every American who stood with us over the course of this campaign – through the good days and the bad; from the snows of Cedar Rapids to the sunshine of Sioux Falls. And tonight I also want to thank the men and woman who took this journey with me as fellow candidates for President.
At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office. I have not just competed with them as rivals, I have learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party, and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.
That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.
We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning – even in the face of tough odds – is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as First Lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency – an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
There are those who say that this primary has somehow left us weaker and more divided. Well I say that because of this primary, there are millions of Americans who have cast their ballot for the very first time. There are Independents and Republicans who understand that this election isn't just about the party in charge of Washington, it's about the need to change Washington. There are young people, and African-Americans, and Latinos, and women of all ages who have voted in numbers that have broken records and inspired a nation.
All of you chose to support a candidate you believe in deeply. But at the end of the day, we aren't the reason you came out and waited in lines that stretched block after block to make your voice heard. You didn't do that because of me or Senator Clinton or anyone else. You did it because you know in your hearts that at this moment – a moment that will define a generation – we cannot afford to keep doing what we've been doing. We owe our children a better future. We owe our country a better future. And for all those who dream of that future tonight, I say – let us begin the work together. Let us unite in common effort to chart a new course for America.
In just a few short months, the Republican Party will arrive in St. Paul with a very different agenda. They will come here to nominate John McCain, a man who has served this country heroically. I honor that service, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. My differences with him are not personal; they are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign.
Related
The Clinton Campaign: Will She Stay or Go?
WATCH: Preprimary Superdelegate Count
Obama Clinches Democratic Nomination; Clinton Refuses to Concede
Because while John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign.
It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush ninety-five percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.
It's not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college – policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.
And it's not change when he promises to continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians – a policy where all we look for are reasons to stay in Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn't making the American people any safer.
So I'll say this – there are many words to describe John McCain's attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush's policies as bipartisan and new. But change is not one of them.
Change is a foreign policy that doesn't begin and end with a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged. I won't stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years – especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.
We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in - but start leaving we must. It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It's time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care they need and the benefits they deserve when they come home. It's time to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda's leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century – terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That's what change is.
Change is realizing that meeting today's threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy – tough, direct diplomacy where the President of the United States isn't afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for. We must once again have the courage and conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy. That's what the American people want. That's what change is.
FULL SPEECH: Obama Declares Victory
Barack Obama Delivers First Speech as Presumptive Democratic Nominee
FONT SIZE
SHARE
RSS
Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and workers who created it. It's understanding that the struggles facing working families can't be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving a the middle-class a tax break, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation. It's understanding that fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity can go hand-in-hand, as they did when Bill Clinton was President.
John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy – cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota – he'd understand the kind of change that people are looking for.
Related
Obama First Black Major Party Nominee
WATCH: Obama Beats Clinton: More Analysis Here
BLOG: Obama-Clinton Battle Ends
Maybe if he went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can't pay the medical bills for a sister who's ill, he'd understand that she can't afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and wealthy. She needs us to pass health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That's the change we need.
Maybe if he went to Pennsylvania and met the man who lost his job but can't even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he'd understand that we can't afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators. That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future – an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. That's the change we need.
And maybe if he spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, he'd understand that we can't afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education; to recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; to finally decide that in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the wealthy few, but the birthright of every American. That's the change we need in America. That's why I'm running for President.
The other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a debate I look forward to. It is a debate the American people deserve. But what you don't deserve is another election that's governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon – that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.
Despite what the good Senator from Arizona said tonight, I have seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I have brought many together myself. I've walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the South Side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools. I've sat across the table from law enforcement and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent thirteen innocent people to death row. And I've worked with friends in the other party to provide more children with health insurance and more working families with a tax break; to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure that the American people know where their tax dollars are being spent; and to reduce the influence of lobbyists who have all too often set the agenda in Washington.
In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.
So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union; and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.
Related
Dowd: How Obama Won and Clinton Lost
George Discusses Hillary for Vice President
Clinton Backers Send Parting Shot to Obama
So it was for the Greatest Generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny, and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.
So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines; the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause.
So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better, and kinder, and more just.
And so it must be for us.
America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
