Organizing for America | Seattle Eastside

Seattle Eastside

Seattle Eastside; Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Issaquah, and other eastside cities

Page 1 of 6 | Next | Last

Washington.CAN - The Next Step - Join Today

By Wayne - Jan 25th, 2009 at 11:55 pm EST

Also listed in: 10 groups

Hello Wonderfully Active People:It's time to move forward as one. We made it through the election and inauguration - and now we must bring our Washington together and work towards organizing county .CAN groups to work at all levels of government to achieve the Change we voted for.

You're invited to join a group on My.BarackObama.com:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/WashingtonCAN

We are writing to invite everyone to please come out and join the President's Grassroots Team to support Barack as we roll out Government 2.0.
In his recent video (http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/thefuture) Barack Announces Organizing For America.  He mentioned that in a few days you would get instructions by email.  These are the instructions.

1.  We need you to find your State.CAN group in MyBO and join these two groups:

USA.CAN

Washington.CAN

2.  Each of you must update your Personal profile on MyBO with real contact information so we can interact accordingly.

3.  This is our team building nationwide project...to form ranks.  To give you a heads up, February 7th is when the call has been put out for all CAN groups to have their first meetings across the country.  We are asking all MyBO members who want to participate in Government 2.0 to reach out to all their MyBO groups and have them join their State.CAN group as well.  At your face to face meetings across your state and in each county you will elect officers, assign issue teams by individual interests, and make plans to work across CAN groups with all others who might share that issue focus in order to join forces and see solutions implemented.   This is the plan we make in support of President Barack Obama's upcoming legislation and programs.  All issues that we are focusing on to begin with are posted at www.whitehouse.gov.

4.  Overall mandate on what we are to do:

• Organize support for legislation at all levels of government.  This includes supporting President Obama's agenda as well as organizing around state and local laws/initiatives.
• Build grassroots electoral strength at all levels by training and developing grassroots leaders to organize and serve in their communities.
• Be an organ of two-way communication between the White House and the grassroots, so that each knows and responds to the priorities of the other.
• Launch a national, grassroots-driven renewal of civic engagement, again at both the local and national levels.

Lisa Lindo
National USA.CAN Group Administrator (Community Action Networks)
Associate Producer Vote For Change Campaign
Internet Community Organizer
Economic URL: IfTheBuckStopsHereShootIt.com
Vote For Change: http://obeygiant.com/voteforchange/

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

"Organizing for America" Events near Seattle?

By Cathy from Issaquah, WA - Jan 24th, 2009 at 1:57 pm EST

Also listed in: 4 groups

I live in Issaquah and couldn't find "Organizing for America" community service events taking place on the Eastside of Seattle, say near Issaquah, Redmond, Bellevue, Kirkland, Renton, etc.. I checked at moveon.org and democrats.org sites, and my 41st legislative district website. Anyone know of events open to folks from the Eastside in support of President Obama's newly announced grassroots-outreach program? Thanks.

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

Goodbye Past; Hello Future

By Gary Fancher, Sno-Pass PCO - Nov 5th, 2008 at 4:36 pm EST

Also listed in: 7 groups

I am happy to say goodbye to the administration and politics of the last eight years. I hope to remember this election for my life, for I did what I could to talk to all my neighbors, friends, and community about my support for Sen. Obama. I am glad that you all also feel that he is the right person at this time to lead our country into renewable energy, close the war in Iraq, finish the war in Afghanistan, redo the 2000 congress’s failure of legislating Wall Street, and most importantly, end the fear mongering tactics and divisive politics of the last eight years.

“Yes We Can” means that we all must work toward achieving these efforts. In my 37th year of life, I now have fully awoken and feel a responsibility to community and country. For all that our history has done to bring us today, I refuse to let it go to religious idealism over science and facts, corporate over public interest, and carbon emissions over renewable energy.

Join with me in making sure change happens.

Sincerely,

Gary

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

Street signs stolen

By Eldar Musayev - Oct 30th, 2008 at 12:37 pm EDT

Also listed in: Seattle Eastside | Sammamish for Obama

I noticed that Obama-Biden and "Veterans for Obama" signs on Inglewood and Eastlake Sammamish (Sammamish, WA 98074) disappeared. I first noticed it yesterday and today when driving to work kept an eye for them and there were none. Looks like somebody stole them leaving only an abundance of McCain-Palin signs.

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

Progressive Voters Guide

By Allison Rae Hannigan - Oct 25th, 2008 at 12:35 am EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

http://progressivevotersguide.org/2008/washington/county/King/5th/ Read More »

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

E-mails that Dems Caused the Credit Crisis

By Gary Fancher, Sno-Pass PCO - Oct 21st, 2008 at 5:19 pm EDT

Also listed in: 6 groups

I got an e-mail that Dems caused the credit crisis. Here is my response that you can use.

Actually, although no one factor solely caused the credit crisis, deregulation and failures to regulate have a central importance.

The Fed had authority to regulate the sale of mortgage loans and failed to do so, even as it became increasingly clear that there were widespread flaws in the process, particularly with nonconforming loans (those that do not meet Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac requirements). Admittedly, this was a failure to regulate, not deregulation.
The SEC, in a textbook example of deregulation, allowed large brokerage firms such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers to voluntarily use lower capital requirements, relying primarily on their own risk management models. (The Times itself had a good article about this.) That was probably the key regulatory decision that led to their failures. They and Goldman were regular buyers of sub-prime loans often not performing manual due diligence on loans they purchased because of the high market interest in buying the mortgage backed securities or REITs.
Congress exempted credit default swaps from regulation when it amended the Commodity Exchange Act in 2000 (Guess who controlled the 2000 congress? Republicans). Credit default swaps were the central factor requiring AIG’s bailout. What is clear is that the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, although contributory to the crisis, were considerably less important than those regulatory decisions.

Remember, only about 6% of all mortgages are in default. 6% of mortgages going into default should not have threatened the entire economy the way it has. It did because of the bets (insurance) against mortgage defaults, i.e., the credit-default swaps, were valued too highly and when the mortgages started to default, the CDSs fell in value. That brought down Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, etc. Had the CDS’s been regulated or, depending on how you look at it, had the banks not specifically avoided regulation by hiding CDS’s from regulators, their failure wouldn’t have threatened the entire economy.

I know even more regarding mortgage broker and borrow fraud plus lack of FBI enforcement interest that contributed to the issue given my 10 years in the financial and mortgage industry originating consumer loans and managing policies and procedures.

Gary Fancher

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

HOA's Blocking Political Signs is Against WA Law

By Gary Fancher, Sno-Pass PCO - Oct 20th, 2008 at 2:52 pm EDT

Also listed in: 6 groups

No HOA Sign convent can be enforced over political signs. Please share as needed so our candidates get as much advertising as possible.

Sincerely,

Gary

Washington State law RCW 64.38.034:
Political yard signs -- Governing documents.

(1) The governing documents may not prohibit the outdoor display of
political yard signs by an owner or resident on the owner's or
resident's property before any primary or general election. The
governing documents may include reasonable rules and regulations
regarding the placement and manner of display of political yard signs.

(2) This section applies retroactively to any governing documents in
effect on July 24, 2005. Any provision in a governing document in
effect on July 24, 2005, that is inconsistent with this section is
void and unenforceable.

For more information, please see:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=64.38.034

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

13 factcheck.org lies Palin said at the debate.

By YES WE NEED TO DO IT NOW!!! - Oct 3rd, 2008 at 6:27 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Here's just a few of Palin's lies called out by factcheck. org in the debate last night....

1.) Palin mistakenly claimed that troop levels in Iraq had returned to “pre-surge” levels. Levels are gradually coming down but current plans would have levels higher than pre-surge numbers through early next year, at least.

2.)Palin repeated a false claim that Obama once voted in favor of higher taxes on “families” making as little as $42,000 a year. He did not. The budget bill in question called for an increase only on singles making that amount, but a family of four would not have been affected unless they made at least $90,000 a year.

3.) Palin claimed McCain’s health care plan would be “budget neutral,” costing the government nothing. Independent budget experts estimate McCain's plan would cost tens of billions each year, though details are too fuzzy to allow for exact estimates.

4.) Palin wrongly claimed that “millions of small businesses” would see tax increases under Obama’s tax proposals.
At most, several hundred thousand business owners would see increases

5.) Palin got her numbers wrong on troop levels when she said "and with the surge that has worked, we're now down to pre-surge numbers in Iraq.
"

The surge was announced in January 2007, at which point there were 132,000 troops in Iraq, according to the Brookings Institute Iraq Index. As of September 2008, that number was 146,000. President Bush recently announced that another 8,000 would be coming home by February of next year. But even then, there still would be 6,000 more troops in Iraq than there were when the surge began.

6.
) Palin repeated a false claim about Barack Obama's tax proposal:

Palin: Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year. That's a lot of middle income average American families to increase taxes on them. I think that is the way to kill jobs and to continue to harm our economy.

Obama did not in fact vote to increase taxes on "families" making as little as $42,000 per year. What Obama actually voted for was a budget resolution that called for returning the 25 percent tax bracket to its pre-Bush tax cut level of 28 percent. That could have affected an individual with no children making as little as $42,000. But a couple would have had to earn $83,000 to be affected and a family of four at least $90,000. The resolution would not have raised taxes on its own, without additional legislation, and, as we've noted before, there is no such tax increase in Obama's tax plan. (The vote took place on March 14 of this year, not last year as Palin said.
)

Palin also repeated the exaggeration that Obama voted 94 times to increase taxes. That number includes seven votes that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on corporations or affluent individuals; 23 votes that were against tax cuts; and 17 that came on just 7 different bills. She also claimed that Biden and Obama voted for "the largest tax increase in history." Palin is referring here to the Democrats' 2008 budget proposal, which would indeed have resulted in about $217 billion in higher taxes over two years. That's a significant increase. But measured as a percentage of the nation's economic output, or gross domestic product, the yardstick that most economists prefer, the 2008 budget proposal would have been the third-largest since 1968, and it's not even in the top 10 since 1940.

7.) Palin claimed that McCain's health care plan would be "budget-neutral," costing the government nothing.

Palin: He's proposing a $5,000 tax credit for families so that they can get out there and they can purchase their own health care coverage. That's a smart thing to do. That's budget neutral. That doesn't cost the government anything ... a $5,000 health care credit through our income tax, that's budget neutral.

The McCain campaign hasn't released an estimate of how much the plan would cost, but independent experts contradict Palin's claim of a cost-free program.

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain's plan, which at its peak would cover 5 million of the uninsured, would increase the deficit by $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Obama's plan, which would cover 34 million of the uninsured, would cost $1.6 trillion over that time period.

The nonpartisan U.S. Budget Watch's fiscal voter guide estimates that McCain's tax credit would increase the deficit by somewhere between $288 billion to $364 billion by the year 2013, and that making employer health benefits taxable would bring in between $201 billion to $274 billion in revenue. That nets out to a shortfall of somewhere between $14 billion to $163 billion – for that year alone.

Palin also said that Obama’s plan would be "universal government run" health care and that health care would be "taken over by the feds." That's not the case at all. As we’ve said before, Obama’s plan would not replace or remove private insurance, or require people to enroll in a public plan. It would increase the offerings of publicly funded health care.

8.
) Palin's Small Business Balderdash

Palin repeated a falsehood that the McCain campaign has peddled, off and on, for some time:

Palin: But when you talk about Barack's plan to tax increase affecting only those making $250,000 a year or more, you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category. So they're going to be the ones paying higher taxes thus resulting in fewer jobs being created and less productivity.

As we reported June 23, it's simply untrue that "millions" of small business owners will pay higher federal income taxes under Obama's proposal. According to an analysis by the independent Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, several hundred thousand small business owners, at most, would have incomes high enough to be affected by the higher rates on income, capital gains and dividends that Obama proposes. That counts as "small business owners" even those who merely have some sideline income from such endeavors as freelance writing, speaking or running rental properties, and who get the bulk of their income from employment elsewhere.

9.
) Biden and Palin got into a tussle about military recommendations in Afghanistan:

Biden: The fact is that our commanding general in Afghanistan said today that a surge – the surge principles used in Iraq will not – well, let me say this again now – our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan, not Joe Biden, our commanding general in Afghanistan. He said we need more troops. We need government-building. We need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan.

Palin: Well, first, McClellan did not say definitively the surge principles would not work in Afghanistan. Certainly, accounting for different conditions in that different country and conditions are certainly different. We have NATO allies helping us for one, and even the geographic differences are huge but the counterinsurgency principles could work in Afghanistan. McClellan didn't say anything opposite of that. The counterinsurgency strategy going into Afghanistan, clearing, holding, rebuilding, the civil society and the infrastructure can work in Afghanistan.

Point Biden. To start, Palin got newly appointed Gen. David D. McKiernan's name wrong when she called him McClellan. And, more important, Gen. McKiernan clearly did say that surge principles would not work in Afghanistan.
As the Washington Post reported:

Washington Post: "The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge,' " McKiernan stressed, saying that what is required is a "sustained commitment" to a counterinsurgency effort that could last many years and would ultimately require a political, not military, solution.

10.) Palin said that Obama had accused American troops of doing nothing but killing civilians, a claim she called "reckless" and "untrue.
"

Palin: Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment, again, hurts our cause.

Obama did say that troops in Afghanistan were killing civilians.
Here’s the whole quote, from a campaign stop in New Hampshire:

Obama (August 2007): We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.

The Associated Press fact-checked this one, and found that in fact U.S troops were killing more civilians at the time than insurgents: "As of Aug. 1, the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can’t be attributed to one party." Afghan President Hamid Karzai had expressed concern about these civilian killings, a concern President Bush said he shared.

Whether Obama said that this was "all we're doing" is debatable. He said that we need to have enough troops so that we're "not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians," but did not say that troops are doing nothing else.

11.) Palin said that McCain had sounded the alarm on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago.

Palin: We need to look back, even two years ago, and we need to be appreciative of John McCain's call for reform with Fannie Mae, with Freddie Mac, with the mortgage-lenders, too, who were starting to really kind of rear that head of abuse.

Palin is referring to a bill that would have increased oversight on Fannie and Freddie. In our recent article about assigning blame for the crisis, we found that by the time McCain added his name to the bill as a cosponsor, the collapse was well underway. Home prices began falling only two months later. Our colleagues at PolitiFact also questioned this claim.

12.) Palin said, "We're circulating about $700 billion a year into foreign countries" for imported oil, repeating an outdated figure often used by McCain. At oil prices current as of Sept. 30, imports are running at a rate of about $493 billion per year.

13.) Palin threw out an old canard when she criticized Obama for voting for the 2005 energy bill and said, “that’s what gave those oil companies those big tax breaks.” It’s a false attack Sen. Hillary Clinton used against Obama in the primary, and McCain himself has hurled. It’s true that the bill gave some tax breaks to oil companies, but it also took away others. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the bill created a slight net increase in taxes for the oil industry.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (2) | Report Objectionable Content

You realize, of course, this means war

By Steven Silverman - PCO for Obama and Democrats, SNQ 05-3514 - Sep 23rd, 2008 at 10:51 am EDT

Also listed in: 6 groups

An open letter to my friend George and other Republicans:

Please put aside ideological emotion and read this as a note from a very concerned friend, not a person who supports a candidate. The only basis I can see one holding strong to our nation's current path is if he is committed to undoing our Constitutional Democracy in favor of theocracy or another approach.

This election is about freedom. Specifically my freedom, that of my children, that of of which our Founders and Framers wrote, fought and died.

I believe that the Republican party has been hijacked. They will continue to drive to outsource our government to private companies that take our money and fail, while making a profit. I also believe that the neo-conservatives are misnamed and that they will continue to destroy the liberties we had under the constitution until 1980 (take RVW out of it if you want for now). I believe that the move toward a theocracy is anathema (as did Goldwater and other neo-cons) to the Founders' and Framers' beliefs otherwise they themselves would have managed our country that way from day one – which they did not. Moreover, I think that the sale of morality by immoral leaders is the greatest lie in the history of the USA.

I am fighting for Barack Obama, but in the end I could not care less if it were Barack Obama or any other individual that is put up for this job. I am fighting to take back our country. The Bush/Cheney-driven administration has fundamentally failed and has led us to become a country that I do not recognize. Cheney has been on this path since he worked for Nixon as did Rumsfeld and others in this administration. Whatever their reasons, they have failed us in ways that no other administration has ever failed the citizens of this country. No amount of window-dressing can refute the facts.

See the rest of this post HERE.

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

Watch Out: Push Polling in Sammamish!

By Allison Rae Hannigan - Sep 13th, 2008 at 12:15 pm EDT

Also listed in: 5 groups

One of my neighbors sent me this email on September 9, 2008. Thanks, Rockne!

Hi Allison,

I thought you should know

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

ENOUGH! ENOUGH! ENOUGH!

By Steven Silverman - PCO for Obama and Democrats, SNQ 05-3514 - Sep 9th, 2008 at 10:44 am EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Barack said it: The American people are not STUPID. But we must speak up and show that we are not stupid. We are MAD AS HELL AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!

The American People have had ENOUGH. Enough lies. Enough war. Enough job losses. Enough killing the environment. Enough lobbyists supporting the mega-wealthy and the largest corporations in every industry. Enough George Bush. NO More. Americans Do NOT need John McCain and Sarah Palin - George Bush has already done it for them and we are all living with the results. ENOUGH!

it is critical that we stand up for ourselves and show some BACKBONE! There is no need to insult anyone's character. This is NOT about the people. It is their policies. It is about their insulting view of us, acting as though we are ignorant. We are not whiners - we are AMERICANS.

This IS a fight. Barack needs us to do it for him and with him. We need to DO IT FOR OURSELVES, OUR CHILDREN, OUR COUNTRY AND OUR PLANET!

ENOUGH! ENOUGH! ENOUGH!

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

PALIN Says Iraq war is a "Task From God"

By Steven Silverman - PCO for Obama and Democrats, SNQ 05-3514 - Sep 5th, 2008 at 12:43 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

This is not a JOKE. The money and power that forced McCain to take Palin over others shares those beliefs. They believe that they are fighting a war that the Bible requires them to - for their beliefs. What does that sound like to you??

This is very serious.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-gregory/palin-iraq-war-a-task-fro_b_123839.html

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (2) | Report Objectionable Content

First Impressions of Palin: Sledgehammer

By Steven Silverman - PCO for Obama and Democrats, SNQ 05-3514 - Sep 4th, 2008 at 8:52 am EDT

Also listed in: 5 groups

Sarah Palin had her coming out party last night. She wasted no time establishing herself as the right-wing's attack dog. I am still fact-checking her statements - so many were inaccurate or misleading that it will take some time. Here I am focusing on my overall impression of her introduction to the world.

The word that comes to mind is "sledgehammer." It is clear that she is being set up to run the domestic agenda and deliver on the right wing issues of education, judges, and abortion. Perhaps she can bully her way into Congress and get some action from the weak-spined members will cow to conservative money. But how would she approach international scene?

I have not yet seen a comment on her diplomatic skills, but what I saw last night tells me she has none. She slammed diplomacy. Walk softly and carry a big stick?

Well we have seen her big schtick.

It is the last thing we need to improve our role in leading important changes and partnerships in the world.

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

Same Bush Agenda for McCain and Palin

By Steven Silverman - PCO for Obama and Democrats, SNQ 05-3514 - Sep 3rd, 2008 at 8:34 pm EDT

Also listed in: 5 groups

Same Bush Agenda for McCain and Palin

The Republicans adopted their platform on Monday night. It seems that to a large extent, the path they propose is the same that Bush has been driving for 8 years. For all their calls for change...it is hard to find.

Some items jumped out at me that on critical issues, NOTHING will change to improve our standing in the world as we set the rules and are immune from those of others, Christians will get the lead role in setting social rules, religion can permeate everywhere (school, work), abstinence is birth-control, kids get no support outside the home. Lovely.

1. Republicans are thankful for Bush and Cheney's "honorable" service - Huh?

With gratitude for eight years of honorable service from President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Republican Party now stands united behind new leadership, an American patriot, John McCain. In support of his candidacy and those of our fellow Republicans across the nation — and ever grateful to Almighty God for the political, religious, and civil liberties we enjoy — we, the representatives of the Republican Party in the states and territories of the United States, offer this platform to the American people. (p.ii)

2. WE set the rules of war based on our own beliefs- the Bush policy

To be successful international leaders, we must uphold international law, including the laws of war, and update them when necessary. Our moral standing requires that we respect what are essentially American principles of justice. In any war of ideas, our values will triumph. (p. 6)

3. We are immune from being prosecuted by the International Criminal Court (where we send most of the leaders we don't like, except for the ones we hang or assassinate):

To shield the members of our Armed Forces and others in service to America from ideological prosecutions, the Republican Party does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Americans. We support the American Service members Protection Act, to shield U.S. personnel and officials as they act abroad to meet global security requirements. (p.8)

4. Sorry, Iraq - we aren't leaving...you get to have a "continuing partnership" like it or not...an offer they can't refuse

As the people of Iraq assume their rightful place in the ranks of free and open societies, we offer them a continuing partnership (p. 13)

5. Diplomacy means "our way or the highway"

Advancing America’s values should be the core mission of every part of the federal government, including the Department of State. America’s diplomatic establishment must energetically represent our country’s agenda to the world. We propose a thorough reform of its structure to ensure that promotions and appointments are based on performance in
supporting the nation’s agenda. (p. 6)

6. Aborting the UN: No funding UN because they are "involved in abortion"

Because the UN has no mandate to promote radical social engineering, any effort to address global social problems must respect the fundamental institutions of marriage and family. We assert the rights of families in all international programs and will not fund organizations involved in abortion. (p.7)

7. Parental control of health decisions - even if it means potential suicide, drug addiction, or pregnancy as the alternative

Because the family is our basic unit of society, we fully support parental rights to consent to medical treatment for their children including mental health treatment, drug treatment, alcohol treatment, and treatment involving pregnancy, contraceptives and abortion. (p.38)

8. We want judges that judge fairly - which means what we support- Bork

Republicans will insist on the appointment of constitutionalist judges, men and women who will not distort our founding documents to deny the people’s right to self-government, sanction federal powers that violate our liberties, or inject foreign law into American jurisprudence. (p. 20)
We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life. (p. 52)

9. Stop doing that...Stop it...just dooooon't do it...Abstinence is the plan

We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens with increased funding for abstinence education, which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and expected standard of behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS when transmitted sexually. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception. (p. 45)

10. America's Judeo-Christian heritage means our religion RULES - in courtrooms, in schools, driving public policy, in hiring practices, everywhere, really

Our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids any religious test for public office, and it likewise prohibits the establishment of a state-sponsored creed. The balance between those two ideals has been distorted by judicial rulings which attempt to drive faith out of the public arena. The public display of the Ten Commandments does
not violate the U.S. Constitution and accurately reflects the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country.(p. 53)
We support the right of students to engage in student-initiated, student-led prayer in public schools, athletic events, and graduation ceremonies, when done in conformity with constitutional standards. We affirm every citizen’s right to apply religious values to public policy and the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious objects or symbols, or becoming subject to government-imposed hiring practices. Forcing religious groups to abandon their beliefs as applied to their hiring practices is religious discrimination. We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault, and we call upon the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to reverse its policy of blacklisting religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples. Respectful of our nation’s diversity in faith, we urge reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs in the private workplace. We deplore the increasing incidence of attacks against religious symbols, as well as incidents of anti-Semitism on college campuses. (p. 53-54)

Mavericks!! Reformers!!! Puppets of the Religious Right and the Blackwater Billionaires!! Yeah, that's what we need - jeez....

See More Blog Posts at http://TheLiberalPatriot.spaces.live.com

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

Who is Sarah Palin

By Gary Fancher, Sno-Pass PCO - Sep 3rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

Well, the Republicans now have a ''peculiar" right wing extremist as a Presidential candidate and a "beyond the beyond" right wing extremist as a Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, who will soon be a young grandmother. Wondering, who is Sarah Palin and what that choice would mean for us?

Yesterday was John McCain's 72nd birthday. If elected, he'd be the oldest President ever inaugurated. And after months of slamming Barack Obama for "inexperience," imagine who John McCain has chosen to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency? He picked an extreme right-wing religious conservative with no foreign policy experience, who until recently was mayor of a town of 9,000 people. Huh?

1, She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage.

2. She has no foreign policy experience.1

3. Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.2

4. She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. 3

5. Palin thinks Creationism should be taught in public schools.4

6. She doesn't think humans are the cause of global warming and consequent climate change.5

7. She's solidly in line with John McCain 's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says "renewables" won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as=2 0an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.6

8. How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.7

This is information the American people need to see. Send this email to your friends and family.

Here are some comments from people who are closer to her than most...

She is really just a mayor from a small town outside Anchorage who has been a governor for only 1.5 years, and has ZERO national and international experience. I shudder to think that she could be the person taking that 3AM call on the White House hotline, and the one who could potentially be charged with leading the US in the volatile international scene that exists today. —Rose M., Fairbanks, AK

She is VERY, VERY conservative, and far from perfect. She's a hunter and fisherwoman, but votes against the environment again and again. She ran on ethics reform, but is currently under investigation for several charges involving hiring and firing of state officials. She has NO experience beyond Alaska. —Christine B., Denali Park, AK

As an Alaskan and a feminist, I am beyond words at this announcement. Palin is not a feminist, and she is not the reformer she claims to be. —Karen L., Anchorage, AK

Alaskans, collectively, are just as stunned as the rest of the nation. She is doing well running our State, but is totally inexperienced on the national level, and very much unequipped to run the nation, if it came to that. She is as far right as one can get, which has already been communicated on the news. In our office of thirty employees (dems, republicans, and nonpartisans), not one person feels she is ready for the V.P. position.—Sherry C., Anchorage, AK

She's vehemently anti-choice and doesn't care about protecting our natural resources, even though she has worked as a fisherman. McCain chose her to pick up the Hillary voters, but Palin is no Hillary. —Marina L., Juneau, AK

I think she's far too inexperienced to be in this position. I'm all for a woman in the White House, but not one who hasn't done anything to deserve it. There are far many other women who have worked their way up and have much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a patronizing decision on John McCain's part, and insulting to females everywhere that he would assume he'll get our vote by putting "A Woman" in that position.—Jennifer M., Anchorage, AK

So, Governor Palin is a staunch anti-choice religious conservative. She's a global warming denier who shares John McCain's commitment to Big Oil, and she's dramatically inexperienced.

In picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has made the religious right very happy. And he's made a very dangerous decision for our country.

In the next few days, many Americans will be wondering what McCain's vice-presidential choice means. Pass this information along to your friends and family.

Sources:

1. "Sarah Palin," Wikipedia, Accessed August 29, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

2. "McCain Selects Anti-Choice Sarah Palin as Running Mate," NARAL Pro-Choice America, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17515&id=13661-4137440-LR3Dgcx&t3D1

3. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite," The Nation, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17736&id=13661-4137440-LR3Dgcx&t=2

4. "'Creation science' enters the race," Anchorage Daily News, October 27, 2006< SPAN>
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17737&id=13661-4137440-LR3Dgcx&t=3

5. "Palin buys climate denial PR spin—ignores science," Huffington Post, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17517&id=13661-4137440-LR3Dgcx&t=4

6. "McCain VP Pick Completes Shift to Bush Energy Policy," Sierra Club, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17518&id=13661-4137440-LR3Dgcx&t=5

"Choice of Palin Promises Failed Energy Policies of the Past," League of Conservation Voters, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17519&id=13661-4137440-LR3Dgcx&t=6

"Protecting polar bears gets in way of drilling for oil, says governor," The Times of London, May 23, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17520&id=13661-4137440-LR3Dgcx&t=7< /div>

7 "McCain met Palin once before yesterday," MSNBC, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=21119&id=13661-4137440-LR3Dgcx&t=8

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

The Hail Sarah Pass Open Thread

By Edie "Hussein" M. Ph.D. - Aug 29th, 2008 at 6:34 pm EDT

Also listed in: 9 groups

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/08/hail-sarah-pass-open-thread.html

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

Patriotism Speech

By Gary Fancher, Sno-Pass PCO - Jul 18th, 2008 at 2:10 pm EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it.”

- Mark Twain quoted by Barack Obama – Patriotism Speech, June 30, 2008 Independence, MO

Want to know where Barack Obama stands on Patriotism? Take 28 minutes of your day to learn and you will end up United for Change. http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid900881681/bclid900480414/bctid1646739168.

Do not end half way as he gets even better expressing his vision and thoughts after the midpoint.

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

Let's Declare Independence from THIS George!

By Steven Silverman - PCO for Obama and Democrats, SNQ 05-3514 - Jul 3rd, 2008 at 7:40 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Where is the revolution?
I downloaded a copy of the Declaration of Independence to share with my daughters so that they would understand the basis for our upcoming celebration. At age 11 they are now beginning to understand our history and are very aware of this year's elections.

When I read that awesome document this time, I found myself reading it almost as a modern document. It struck me that many of the statements used to build the case for declaring independence from King George III could, with little or no adaptation, be applied to George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States of America. At first I thought my interpretation was driven by my personal biases. So I challenged myself to find support for the allegations (something not found in the original Declaration).

The Founding Fathers’ words, slightly modified from the original source in some cases, point to the "tyranny" of Bush and his administration on much the same grounds as those used against George III (though I have foregone some of the Founders' points altogether). Each statement is substantiated with representative citations, though in most cases the evidence could be extended with further support from additional sources.

"To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

YOu can read the rest of the post HERE:

http://theliberalpatriot.spaces.live.com/default.aspx

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

The Emperor has no clothes

By Abbott - Jul 1st, 2008 at 1:34 pm EDT

Also listed in: 9 groups

For some time I've been searching for a single image that simultaneous encapsulates and gelds the Neo Con approach to politics. This morning watching Oberman's Special Comment on FISA, I came up with a possible solution. I realized that in simple terms, the Emperor has no clothes.

The Neo Con approach is all about deception and misdirection. It capitalizes on our cultural desire for the quick, Cliff Notes summary. Some examples:

1. Want to pass legislation that will aid and abet corporations who use practices that taint the atmosphere? Simple, call it the "Clean Air Act". You can then simultaneously serve your corporate masters while touting your environmental record. After all, the average voter won't look into the actual legislation or its impact.

2. Your candidate has become a career politician who's position on issues changes with the vagaries of the political breeze the moment he seeks to become President? Paint your opponent as the epitome of these vices. It doesn't matter which candidate actually has the vices, only who the public perceives to possess them.

3. A freshman Senator from the opposition succeeds in putting together a package of Veterans benefits you worked to defeat? No problem, claim credit for spearheading the bipartisan effort.

4. Your candidate has policies that maintain the unpopular status quo? Make a commercial that claims that his presidency will result in all of the goals of a progressive agenda that would appeal to moderates without actually having any policies that will accomplish those goals.

The Neo Con strategy is based on the understanding that much of politics is governing through perception. Control the perception and you can control the populace. We need a sharp pin to help break the bubbles. A shorthand image that cuts through the spin and exposes it quickly with the truth. The Emperor has no clothes.

The Bush/Cheney/McCain doctrine doesn't accomplish what it claims. Because service was never it's goal. It's goal was to survive politically while achieving wealth and power. It preys on the people it purports to serve. So how do we cut to to the heart of the matter when our culture won't listen to a detailed rebuttal? Whenever the Neo Cons start spewing bubbles, get out a pin and point out that the Emperor has no clothes.

Abbott Smith

Redmond, WA

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

Links to Simple Explanations of Candidates' Economic and Tax Proposals

By Steven Silverman - PCO for Obama and Democrats, SNQ 05-3514 - Jun 16th, 2008 at 10:38 am EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Purpose: Provide Resources to Understand and Explain Tax and Economic Plans

Action: Please read the links and download the files in the 4th bullet below to share with others

Here is a CNNMoney.com analysis that puts many of the economic issues into English:
- http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/04/news/economy/mccain_obama_econplans/index.htm?postversion=2008060708Also,
Tthe original report from the Tax Policy Center is long but may be worth reading for some people:
- http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693
Here is another CNNMoney.com analysis that focuses just on the tax proposals:
- http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm?postversion=2008061115)
Finally, I created a 1-page overview of the tax proposals based on the Tax Policy Center report. You can DOWNLOAD IT HERE:
- http://cid-98d6fdc2cee3ec46.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/Public/Candidates%7C4%20Policy%20Analyses.

Hope this Helps.

--Steven N. Silverman

NOTE:I posted the document above on my Windows Live SkyDrive. Get yours FREE HERE: http://home.live.com/. It’s great for sharing files or storing things you want to access from PCs anywhere at any time.

Check out Obama and Liberal T-Shirts, Posters and Bumper Stickers I designed here: http://www.zazzle.com/snseattle

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

Page 1 of 6 | Next | Last

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.