Organizing for America | Posts with the tag 17

Posts with the tag 17

By WEBMASTER - Dec 13th, 2008 at 2:26 am EST

Also listed in: 9 groups

The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.

Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.

Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when

individuals and organizations understand that alternative energy technology exists and
when people see the economic benefits of using alternative energy technologies

Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.

Alternative Energy
Source: David Apperson

url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

Barak Obama Wins U.S. Election

By memanni - Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am EDT

Also listed in: 1,000,000 Americans for Obama | Action Wire | People of Faith for Obama

Barack Obama Wins

http://www.jcer.info/

http://www.jcer.info/candidates

http://www.jcer.info/about_us

http://www.jcer.info/media_center

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1015396.html

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Debunking Some Myths About Obama One-By-OneShare

By Michelle - Sep 11th, 2008 at 9:38 am EDT

My mom just called me flabbergasted about the support for McCain in Miami among Cubans and Cuban-Americans -- hardly a surprise to me or her for that matter. What was surprising to us is the reasons these people give for supporting McCain and therefore voting against Obama. Because I have heard these same "myths" as reasons for not supporting Senator Barack Obama from others outside of the Cuban sector, I thought it would be beneficial to take a "mythbusters" type approach to each and debunk them all, one-by-one. After all, if they are all false, then that leaves no reason not to vote for Obama, now does it?

"OBAMA IS RACIST AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE" or "OBAMA IS NOT REALLY BLACK"

Obama is biracial, born of a white mother and a Kenyan father. He is an African-American male who has never denied his African roots and has embraced both the issues facing Black people in America and the importance of his culture and upbringing. As Time Magazine stated on February 1, 2007:

"Back in the real world, Obama is married to a black woman. He goes to a black church. He's worked with poor people on the South Side of Chicago, and still lives there. That someone given the escape valve of biraciality would choose to be black, would see some beauty in his darker self and still care more about health care and public education than reparations and Confederate flags is just too much for many small-minded racists, both black and white, to comprehend.Barack Obama's real problem isn't that he's too white — it's that he's too black. "

When people say that Obama is racist against Black people (or anyone else for that matter), I can't help but wonder if that is their way of hiding the fact that they are too racist to vote a Black man into the oval office, but are too afraid to be politically incorrect and racist enough to say so. And when they say he is not Black enough, I wonder what more they want? As the same Time article said, Obama has been called "the 'first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,' implying that the black people who are regularly seen by whites are none of these things. Clearly the problem lies in those evaluating Obama's "Blackness" not in Obama himself.

Looks like this myth is BUSTED.

OBAMA IS A MUSLIM

Throughout his time in public office there has been much controversy about Barack Obama's religion, many believing he either grew up Muslim or is still Muslim.

As Newsweek points out, Obama was "born to a Christian-turned-secular mother and a Muslim-turned-atheist African father, [growing] up living all across the world with plenty of spiritual influences, but without any particular religion." Growing up appreciating all religions but ascribing to none, he found Christianity and was baptized in the early 1990s as a Christian in Chicago at Trinity United Church of Christ.

Of his time at Trinity, Obama stated:

"For one thing, Trinity insisted on social activism as a part of Christian life. It was also a family place. Members refer to the sections in the massive sanctuary as neighborhoods; churchgoers go to the same neighborhood each Sunday and they get to know the people who sit near them. They know when someone's sick or got a promotion at work."

In the same Newsweek article, Obama states that "[his] family says grace at mealtime, and he talks to the children about God whenever they have questions." He also says that, on the campaign trail, "thanks to the efforts of his religious outreach team, he has an army of clerics and friends praying for him and e-mailing him snippets of Scripture...to think about during the day."

Looks like this myth is BUSTED.

OBAMA'S MOM HAD HIM AT 18. THAT SHOWS NO FAMILY VALUES.

You know, I'd rather not go here given the grace that the Democratic party has show on this issue thus far, so I will keep it short and sweet. Yes, Obama's mother had him at the young age of 18. His mother's decision to bring him into this world, however, does not affect who he is as a Senator or the family values that he instills in his two young children. We all know by now that Palin's unwed daughter, Bristol, is pregnant at age 17. How can a McCain supporter back the McCain/Palin ticket where Palin's own daughter is 17, unwed and pregnant and yet attack Obama for being brought into this world by an 18 year old mother. While Palin had the chance to instill family values in Briston to make informed decisions on sex, Obama did not have the same chance to influence his mother and her decision to have him.

As Obama said, "I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits." Let's hope that the Republican party has the same respect and leaves Obama's mother out of the family values debate.

ESPECIALLY FOR CUBANS - MCCAIN HAS BETTER POLICIES FOR CUBANS

I know that since the time of Kennedy, Cubans have held contempt for Democrats and have thrown their vote into the Republican hat. Rather than continue to follow this blindly, I ask that Cubans evaluate where Republican policies have gotten us since and whether it is wise to continue being led by the Republican party and it's promises of a non-Communist Cuba. Reagan didn't end the reign of Castro. Bush didn't end it either. And now that Castro's brother, Raul, is in power, what makes you think McCain will be any different?

McCain has said that "Obama's policy of offering talks with the Cuban regime and easing some US trade restrictions 'would send the worst possible signal to Cuba's dictators,'" but where has the strict Bush-era embargo gotten us with Cuba? The answer is - nowhere different than we were before. Cuban-Americans that have decided not to follow blindly and to actually evaluate what is being said by Obama and McCain are supporting "Obama's call for lifting parts of the five-decade-old sanctions against Cuba. . . amid frustration over travel and money transfer restrictions imposed by President George W. Bush in 2004."

The media in Miami does not always provide the full story and it's time Cuban-Americans focus on the facts and disallow themselves to be led by a party spouting what they know Cuban-Americans want to hear for the sheer purpose of garnering another vote. How does the embargo help Cubans on the island? After the island was recently hit by Gustav, CNN reported that two prominent Cuban dissidents wrote a letter asking "President Bush to loosen restrictions temporarily on travel and sending money to the communist-run island to help tens of thousands left homeless by Hurricane Gustav." The Republicans talk about smaller government but when it comes to sending food and money to your family members left in Cuba that are suffering in the wake of a tragic storm do you want to wait for your government to decide if it's okay for you to help your family? How much bigger can government get than this?

A Washington Post article notes that "if elected, the Illinois senator would lift restrictions imposed by the Bush administration and allow Cuban-Americans to visit their relatives more frequently, as well as ease limits on the amount of money they can send to their families." The article also notes that:

" 'Senator Obama feels that the Bush administration has made a humanitarian and a strategic blunder,' spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in an e-mail. 'His concern is that this has had a profoundly negative impact on the Cuban people, making them more dependent on the Castro regime, thus isolating them from the transformative message carried by Cuban-Americans.' "

Before the Bush-era restrictions on Cuba, Cuban Americans could visit their family once a year and send up to $3,000 but now, Cuban-Americans can only visit the island once every three years and can only send quarterly remittances of up to $300 per household to immediate family members. (Washington Post)

The embargo has been in place for 45 years and now, Cuban-Americans have less ability to see or help their families than ever before and less of a chance to have any ties to their homeland. Obama is gaining ground with leading Cuban exile groups for this reason.

Joe Garcia, a former head of the Cuban-American Foundation said of Obama and his stance towards bringing change to Cuba and its people:

"It shows courage, and it shows commitment to move beyond the status-quo politics of rhetoric, which is all the Cuban-American community has received from any party for the last half century."

It is time Cuban-Americans stand to bring real change to Cuba, to bring down the communism that cripples the Cuban people and to have control over when they visit Cuba and how and when they can help their family. So far, the Republican party has offered nothing but words -- 45 years and the embargo has not helped Cuba one bit.

Looks like Obama is the better choice here too. This myth is BUSTED.

Conclusion
Hopefully, this helps debunk some of the myths that I have heard of late about Obama. If you have others you have heard that you would like facts on to see what is true and what is not, please leave a comment. I'd be more than happy to check out their veracity and include it in a future note. Read More »

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

Palins daughters pregnancy is not off limits, it's a conservative issue.

By R - Sep 4th, 2008 at 12:59 pm EDT

I responded to a post a little bit ago and I'd like to share it with you...

I guess Obama's camp doesn't have anything better to do that try to dig up dirt on McCain & Palin. They must be really desperate when a pregnant unwed 17 yr old is front page news when half the people in Hollywood (Obama pals) have broods with no marriage license. Straight shooters like McCain & Palin are always a threat to "politics as usual" candidates like Obama & Biden.

Posted by:______

My Response:

______,

This is not a desperate attack. Let's not get caught up here in the wrong argument. I will clear up some of the conservative backpedaling rhetoric for you:

This argument was never about how terrible it is for a 17 year old girl to get pregnant. The argument has always been about the irony, the hypocrisy, the juxtaposition of the republicans pick for VP's daughter getting pregnant when one of their major platforms is "ABSTINENCE ONLY"!

The fact is, they, the conservatives, the republicans, the religious right believe that this works!...hmmmm...

The argument has always been about this fact and this fact only.

"Abstinence programs, which cost $US176 million in 2007, have been controversial since a congressional committee report found teens were being wrongly taught that HIV can spread via sweat and tears, and that condoms failed to stop transmission of HIV up to 31 per cent of the time in heterosexual intercourse"

And now, we find out that after all the rhetoric, all the tax payer money, all the mis-information and after so many of us said that this program doesn't work, alas, it is proven that the program is a sham! The poster child of the conservative republicans platform's daughter is pregnant...the program didn't work!

$176,000,000!?!?! I thought republicans were all about cutting useless programs and putting a stop to the big bad government reaching into our pockets? Seems like yet another flip-flop.

And then, in the end, after all the push by republicans and conservatives to stop teen sex (a futile effort) to advocate abstinence, one of their own their VP's daughter is pregnant! And what do they do? They turn a blind eye, they congratulate her on being a strong mom. Uh, Mom, Palin, excuse me, maybe if you had allowed your children the opportunity to have condoms, to take birth control, your daughters youth wouldn't be stripped away from her and she wouldn't be catapulted into mother-hood at...ummm...well....17!!!

I'm fine with her being pregnant. It happens. It'll be tough, it will be a challenge, but again, I never said that teenagers weren't going to have sex. I never advocated against the distribution of condoms when, in fact, we know teenagers have sex. I never stood up against birth control for teens.

The republicans did. The conservatives did preach against birth control, against condoms, against the little known fact that teens have sex, and fought hard for abstinence. There in lies the hypocracy, there in lies the irony, there in lies the argument. The fact that even in light of the VP's daughter preganant, a clear sign of the programs inadequacy, the republicans didn't turn around and admit fault. They just turn a blind eye and congratulated Palin on marrying off her 17 year old pregnant daughter.

The argument lies with the issues, not the daughter. So no, it's not desperate, and no, it's not off limits. The republicans made it fair game when they made teen pregnancy a platform issue, stood by a failing program, and watched as it failed one of their own, their rockstar, their beauty queen and her own daughter. That's an issue worth talking about, not a baseless attack.

-R

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

Why I Want to be a Delegate for the 17th District

By Kurtis - Apr 8th, 2008 at 9:51 pm EDT

Also listed in: Clark County for Obama-Delegates | Vancouver for Obama

Hi there.

I am currently a delegate for the Clark County Convention coming up on the 19th, and I am (of course) pledged to Barack H Obama.

At the Clark County training session last weekend, we briefly discussed setting up a group on this website for the 17th Legislative District, and that it would be a great place for everyone interested in being a state delegate to make their case to the others. Unfortunately, it seems that setting up this group may take more time than we all had hoped. So, I thought I would post my case here.

If anyone has questions of me, they can let me know before the County Convention. Now, with the preamble out of the way, I will try to make a quick case for voting for me.

1. I am a lifelong Democrat.

2. I have been a fan of Senator Obama since his keynote speech at the Democratic National convention four years ago. Watching in a group with a couple of Republican friends, I saw the power he had to unite people of both parties. One of the Republicans said, "Now that's a man I could vote for." I was sold.

3. I have been actively supporting Obama (financially and otherwise) since he entered the race. This includes donating to a political campaign for the first time in my life.

4. I am a former Captain in the US Army. This could be helpful in convincing others of the Senator's popularity among the military. I believe and can make the case that his "Anti-Iraq" strategy plays well with "the troops."

5. I actually enjoy speaking in public.

6. I have the good fortune to be employed in a position that allows for flexible hours. Therefore, if I am elected to go to Spokane (and by some miracle Denver), finding the time or funds will not be a significant problem for me.

I thank each of you for your consideration.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

17 Year Old Seeking Change

By Richard - Feb 22nd, 2008 at 6:09 pm EST

Also listed in: NEPA for Obama

Hey everyone! Letters to the editors are big deals. They get your information out to a wide audience; I encourage everyone to do it.
My article, as follows, reached print. Thanks for the support!
Dear editor:

I like Barack Obama. Not just as a candidate, but as a politician, a man, and a human being.

The reason why I like him? He allows my dream to exit. He proves that a young man from the middle class can defy the odds to excel quickly in his career, all while following his dreams. Obama’s platform rebels against the standards set today by politicians from an old era. And not only would Obama simply achieve his dream. He would leave a lasting impression on our country and inspire millions of minorities and young people to partake in the elections.

Hs ideas and platform not only evoke hope and great enthusiasm for an individual philosophy, but they make one believe in a new generation of politics and ideas that may evolve into the modern day face of reform. IT would be a great chapter in American History to elect a young, fresh, mildly experienced candidate into the role of chief executive. He would be a young president in a country that is seeing issues arise on diverse topics that senior politicians simply can’t relate to. Obama is the change we speak of. We want to move on from the so-called “experience” of Dick Cheney and Hilary Clinton, and move forth toward a new style of thought and government. One that can help people who personally bring down unemployment rates by working 3 “Wal-Mart” jobs. Analogously, through this new political movement, Obama is doing to American politics what Tiger Woods did to golf.

The opposition’s best tactic is to keep challenging the Obamians to explain what this change is. It is hard to explain, because what it is is a philosophy; A strong modern-day social liberalism. Obama’s reforms would be reminiscent to FDR’s New Deal, allowing a new movement in Government. Barack truly represents what the modern-day democrat is.

We are the United States of America. Our country is a Republican Democracy, not a Constitutional monarchy. Should we enter 30 straight years of Bush and Clinton family rule? The Young people want something new. The American People want something new. That is what we mean by change. Change to the Presidency, change to the Congress, change to the ruling party’s last name. If Obama’s dream becomes reality, then the much needed American Dream will live on as well. Keep the dream alive.

~ Richard Maopolski
Old Forge, PA

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

Outrage! Three million unheard voices!

By Katie from Brookfield, WI - Feb 19th, 2008 at 2:05 am EST

Also listed in: Teens For Obama | United Teens of America

So, we all know Gwen Moore made a mistake in getting the hopes of the 17 year olds up. God knows I've spent the last hour calling representatives and looking through legal sites to find legislation on whether or not people who will be 18 for the november election can vote in their primaries, Wisconsin especially.

Turns out, no, 10 months can make a lot of difference. Apparently 18 is a magical number, and until that exact day, the exact hour you were born, you are mentally incapable of picking a presidential candidate or even an alderman. If your primary is on tuesday but your 18th birthday is on wednesday, the government apologizes to you but in that extra 24 hours you go through vast mental changes that render you capable of choosing a leader for your country only after the 18th revolution of the earth around the sun.

(But of course, you won't even actually be choosing in November, it's the electors from the lovely electoral college who pick the president. Who, guess what, have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to vote in proportion to the popular vote in their state. This is why Bush is President. But this is a complaint for another day.)

Apparently "State Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison) pushed a bill last year that would have allowed primary voting by 17-year-olds who turn 18 by the general election, but he abandoned the bill because of opposition from local election clerks." (Credit to JSOnline.com)

Who are these local election clerks? Can you imagine how many people, 18 years ago, were born in America between the months of January and November? That's 10 months! We'll round it up. If, roughly, there are 4,138,349 births per year (this is using 2005 stats, I can't find 1990. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm) and 83% (10 months out of 12)of those kids are not able to vote in january or february, this means roughly 3,434,829 teenagers are 17 and unable to vote in their primaries unless they are one of the people in the 8 states that allow it.

That's right. Roughly 3 million people in America will not be 18 by their primary elections. Is it just me, or could that make a vital difference in who the candidates are?

Email Sen.Risser@legis.wisconsin.gov and proclaim your outrage. There are not 3 million "local election clerks", so let's overpower their voices that seem to make him squemish enough not to push this bill through.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Posts

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.