Obama urges Iran to accept EU’s nuclear proposal BY DAVID ESPO The Associated Press
PARIS — Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, nearing the end of a fast-paced international campaign trip, warned Iran on Friday, “don’t wait for the next president” to take office before yielding to Western demands to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. “The pressure, I think, is only going to build,” he said at a news conference as he stood beside French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Obama spent less than five hours in the French capital, time enough for his motorcade to drive past curious Parisians gathered along the sidewalks hoping to catch a glimpse, receive a greeting from his host on the steps of the presidential palace and then hold private talks before a news conference. The French president veered close to an endorsement to a man he called “my dear Barack Obama.” Sarkozy recalled that when they first met in 2006 neither was president. “And one of us became president. Well, let the other do likewise, huh? I mean, that’s not meddling” in the U.S. election, Sarkozy said. For his part, Obama observed that when Sarkozy visited the United States two years ago, he met with only two senators — himself and John McCain, now the Republican presidential candidate-in-waiting. “So I would suggest that, for the reporters in the room, if you want to know something about elections, you should talk to the president of France.” Obama said he and Sarkozy agreed that Iran poses “an extraordinarily grave situation,” and the world must send “a clear message to Iran to end its illicit nuclear program.” Obama has spoken frequently of Iran on his trip, stressing that its nuclear ambitions pose a threat to Israel’s existence and threatens to destabilize the entire region. While the United States and other Western nations accuse Iran of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, Tehran says its program is for peaceful purposes. Obama disclosed that earlier in his trip, he had found Israelis curious about a possible shift in Syria’s foreign policy, “that if, in fact, Syrian President Bashar Assad was serious about dealing with their support of Hamas or their support of Hezbollah, that that could be a game-changer.” Obama said, “I think that’s an area worth exploring and having leaders like President Sarkozy help — helping to move that along, I think has enormous potential.” Israel has been in indirect discussions with Syria in recent weeks, though little is known of their content. Obama told reporters that “Afghanistan is a war we have to win.” The Taliban and terrorist groups it supports, he said, pose an unacceptable threat to the U.S., France and other nations. “We’ve got to finish the job,” said Obama, who often has said the Iraq war was an unwise move that distracted the United States from efforts to find Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders and to root out the Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Sarkozy said he agreed that the Taliban must be defeated in Afghanistan, where French troops are part of a multinational force. Obama is on an election-season trip, financed by his campaign, that ends today with talks with British officials. Part of his goal for the trip through the Mideast and Europe has been to allow him to make his debut on an international stage in the hopes of reassuring skeptical voters in the United States about his readiness for the presidency. REMY DE LA MAUVINIERE/THE ASSOCIATED PRESS U.S. Democratic presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama, DIll., left, speaks as French President Nicolas Sarkozy looks on during a press conference at the Elysee Palace in Paris on Friday.
What is this guy doing? Someone needs to remind Obama that he is running for president of the UNITED STATES. This is not an election for a ONE WORLD LEADER for the NEW WORLD ORDER.....or is he?
I find it offensive that our presidential candidate is going to other countries to gain their approval. Other candidates have done it in the past and I found that just as offensive. WE make the ultimate decision on who will govern our country. With all of this time and money being spent on overseas campaigning...perhaps he should focus on the home land he may some day govern.
NOT WITH THE HELP OF MY VOTE!!!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Before you jump to conclusions, I looked into this (also, using the snopes link). The reason the flag was removed from the tail is due to the fact that it was actually the insignia for the company that previously owned the plane (Imagine, Obama walking around, taking test flights on the used airplane lot). Anyway, that had to be removed, but I don't see any reason (besides being anti-patriotic to some point) that there wouldn't be another flag added to the plane, unless he doesn't want people to know that he's a proud American (or maybe because he's not, I'll leave that up to others to decide).
Wal-Mart Stores Inc said on Friday it has held meetings with U.S. store managers warning them of issues that could arise if Democrats win power and pass a law that would make it easier for workers to unionize, but stressed it was not telling workers how to vote.
Wal-Mart opposes proposed legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to unionize by signing a card rather than holding a vote.
"We believe EFCA is a bad bill and we have been on record as opposing it for some time," Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar said. "We feel educating our associates about the bill is the right thing to do."
The Wall Street Journal reported that about a dozen employees who attended meetings in seven states said executives told them employees would be required to pay hefty union dues and get nothing in return, and warned that unionization could force Wal-Mart to cut jobs as labor costs rise.
The Journal report said Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings do not specifically tell attendees how to vote in November's presidential election, but they make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in.
"If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression we were telling associates how to vote, they were wrong and acting without approval," Tovar said.
Wal-Mart, which does not have a unionized U.S. workforce, has been the target of union-backed groups that criticize the retailer for everything from its pay practices to its health care benefits.
(Reporting by Nicole Maestri; Editing by Ted Kerr)
Whitey Need Not Apply by Patrick J. Buchanan (more by this author) Posted 08/01/2008 ET
"Will race be an issue in this campaign?"
Hearing the cable talk-show host solemnly pose the question, I could not suppress a belly laugh.
For the anchor was fearful that some white folks might reject Obama because he is African-American -- even as a Rasmussen poll was reporting that Barack is beating McCain among black voters 94 to 1.
What, other than race, explains how Barack rolled up 90-10 margins among black voters while running against Hillary Clinton, wife of the man novelist Toni Morrison dubbed "our first black president"?
Indeed, so one-sided was the primary coverage in favor of Barack as the first African-American with a real chance to be president, even "Saturday Night Live" took to mocking the mainstream media.
As for black radio, on "The Tom Joyner Morning Show," "Michael Baisden Show" and "The Steve Harvey Morning Show," which together may reach 20 million folks, there is "little pretense of balance," writes Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times. "More often than not the Obama campaign is discussed as the home team."
Black Entertainment Television plans to carry Barack's speech to the Democratic convention live, but has no plans to carry McCain's. Barack's speech "is an historic occasion," says BET Chairman Debra L. Lee, "so that demands some special treatment from us."
As the mainstream media have moved left and talk radio right, and cable is breaking down along political and ideological lines, there is something else afoot now -- the racial Balkanization of the newsroom.
Consider. On Sunday, 6,800 folks showed in Chicago for the 2008 quadrennial convention of UNITY: Journalists of Color. McCain declined an invitation. Bush had been booed at UNITY 2004, while John Kerry got a standing ovation. Featured speaker: Barack. Major concern of the journalists running the show: that their colleagues would lift the roof off the McCormick Place convention center when Barack arrived.
Said Luis Villareal, a producer of NBC's "Dateline," "I don't think it's such a bad thing if for 15 minutes you take off your reporter hat and respond to (Obama) as a human being at an event where you're surrounded by people of color and you're here for a united cause."
And exactly what "cause" might the 10,000 members of UNITY be united behind? The hiring and advancement of journalists of color in all major news organizations in America.
For, as its emblem depicts, UNITY comprises four alliances: the Asian American Journalists Association, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the Native American Journalists Association and the National Association of Black Journalists.
"A New Journalism for a Changing World" is UNITY's motto. And the title of its July 22 press release reveals what the "new journalism" is all about. "Aim of New UNITY Initiative Is More Diversity in Top Media Management."
"With more than 50 percent of the population projected to be people of color in less than a generation," says UNITY President Karen Lincoln Michel, "the nation's news organizations continue to generate dismal diversity numbers year after year. ... 'Ten by 2010' is a significant step in the right direction."
What is Ten by 2010?
UNITY is demanding that 10 major U.S. news organizations, by mid-2010, elevate to a senior management position in the newsroom at least one journalist of color and provide "customized training to help prepare them."
The journalist may be Asian, African-American, Native American or Hispanic, which rules out journalists of Irish, English, Polish, Italian, German or Jewish ancestry, since they are white.
Is this what we have come to 50 years after the triumph of the civil rights movement? Flat-out demands, by American journalists, for the hiring and promotion of colleagues based on race and color?
Is there any evidence major news organizations in this country have engaged in systematic discrimination to keep out men or women of color this last half century? The reverse seems true. They have bent over backward to advance minority journalists.
And if journalists have been hired and promoted based on ability and merit, why in the 21st century should these criteria be thrown out as the standards for advancement -- in favor of race and color?
Isn't this what they did in the days of Jim Crow -- hire and promote based on race? What UNITY is calling for is a return to the old rules but with new beneficiaries -- blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans -- and new victims, all of whom will be white.
On Sunday, McCain came out in favor of an Arizona civil rights initiative that would outlaw any state discrimination either for or against folks, based on race, gender or national origin. Barack said he was "disappointed" with McCain and told UNITY he favors affirmative action "when properly structured."
The Arizona referendum banning preferential treatment based on race is also on the ballot in the swing state of Colorado. It won in California in 1996, in Washington in 2000 and in Michigan in the great Democratic sweep of 2006. It has never lost, and may just win McCain Colorado, and with it the nation.
Trip to Europe won’t give Obama foreign policy cred
Over the last few days, I have been following news of Obama’s trip overseas designed to demonstrate that he has what it takes to work with foreign governments. In the July 23 column, “Foreign policy gap closing for Obama,” E. J. Dionne suggests that Obama can now say he has basically the same credentials as McCain regarding foreign policy. Translation: The polls say that the gap on foreign policy is closing. Dionne gives examples of changes in Bush’s policies which indicate that Bush is following Obama’s lead — the use of the word “time horizon” really meaning “timetable.” The closing statements in the article are very telling, one being “... Obama is playing it safe because he needs to make Americans feel that they would be safe under his leadership.” The whole idea that a trip to visit leaders who will be polite to you since you may be their next money basket in Washington does not make someone savvy about foreign policy. I am going to Kiev in September. I will visit a monastery and talk with Russian monks for a few minutes. Does this make me an expert on the Russian Orthodox Church? I think not. Do politicians and the media think we American voters are so stupid that a quick tour overseas makes any person competent to make policy about the complex and ever-changing relationships between countries that profess to be “on our side,” let alone those who are against us? A quick look at history suggests that real change taked time — look at Northern Ireland, Berlin and the Wall, and, of course, the Middle East. Perhaps Obama should spend his time reading past policies and speaking with experienced foreign diplomats. Wait a minute. A picture of Obama reading past foreign legislation or speaking with an unknown diplomat does not make for good press coverage. So much for that! On to the next photo-op. Besides, he and his staff must read the info on the demographics of his next stomping area and what will “make Americans feel safe.” JANICE WALZ Scotia
Wal-Mart denies pushing anti-union politics BY CHUCK BARTELS AND ANNE D’INNOCENZIO The Associated Press
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s largest retailer, denied a report Friday that it had pressured employees to vote against Democrats in November because of worries that a bill the party supports would make it easier for workers to unionize. The measure, called the Employee Free Choice Act, would allow labor organizations to unionize workplaces without secret ballot elections. It was co-sponsored by Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate, and opposed by John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee. A report in The Wall Street Journal said the Bentonville, Ark.-based discounter — which has rigorously resisted being unionized — had held mandatory meetings with store managers and department supervisors in recent weeks to warn that if Democrats take power in November, they would likely push through the bill, which the company says would hurt workers. Wal-Mart spokesman Dave Tovar told The Associated Press that the company did discuss the bill with its employees, including what it sees as the negative impact, and noted that the company’s stand on the legislation is no secret. “We believe the Employee Free Choice Act is a bad bill, and we have been on the record as opposed to it,” he said. But he said the company wasn’t advocating that its employees vote against backers of the legislation. “If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression ... they are wrong and acting without approval,” said Tovar. “Half of our [political action committee] contributions are to members of each party,” Tovar said. “We regularly educate our associates on issues which impact our company, and this is an example of that.” The Wall Street Journal cited about a dozen unidentified Wal-Mart employees who had attended such meetings in seven states as saying they were told that employees at unionized shops would have to pay big union dues while not receiving any benefits in return. Furthermore, workers said they were told that unionization would mean job losses as costs rise, according to the report. The report said the Wal-Mart human resource managers who held the meetings didn’t specifically tell the employees how to vote but made it clear that a Obama victory would mean unionization. Wal-Mart Watch, a union-backed group that has criticized the company for what it calls skimpy pay and benefits and poor treatment of its workers, said in a statement that the article “demonstrates once again that Wal-Mart intimidates its workers.” The group, which supplied some of the sources to The Wall Street Journal, said the stories cited in the article are consistent with numerous reports it has received in the past week. The development deals a blow to Wal-Mart’s reputation just as the company has started seeing its image improve.
Logged
