No organization, not corporations, not unions, not churches, not NGOs, not cities, not states, not counties, none are citizens. It seems to me we have forgotten this simple fact.
Further, there is a hierarchy of authority, which we also seems to have forgotten. "We the people .." created our government. Government created the structure, and rulles, for organizations. Thus power and authority flow from the people, to the government to the organizations. We seem to have forgotten this and allowed, nay encouragedd, the tail to wag the dog.
'Tis time to remember where the power lies.
I think at the Obama website should've contained one page dedicated to explaning the Federal laws concerning the legaility of permanent resident's making donations to the Obama campaign.
The reason being that there is a lot of conflicting information out there, some articles don't even bother to point this out just making the blanket statement that "foreigners" aren't allowed to donate. I'm not entirely clear on this myself but from what I gather if you are a permanent resident you can donate to the Democrats, but not the Republicans (because they refuse it).
Here's a story explaning it somewhat;
http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jan/10/news/mn-6813
It would also help dispell rumors that Obama has gotten contribution from foreign nationals, I'm sure most non-citizen donations are from people who have been living here for a long time but just happened to be born in another country and haven't gotten around to getting their citizenship (which is harder than most Americans can imagine).
For the record I donated and I am a permanent resident who came to this country when I was six. I love this country and I know more about US history and US government than 99% of the saps who were lucky enough to be born in this country.
One last fun fact: Male permanent resident's are required to register in case of a draft, just like male citizens. It's funny how they don't want "foreigners" like me to vote but I still have to fight and possibly die for this country if the need should arise.
I have seen several blogs questioning McCain's qualification to run for president based on where he was born. You really should have paid attention in social studies or political science.
There are two ways to be a natural born citizen.
1) One or both parents are citizens. 2) Born within the borders of the USA. Since McCain's parents were both citizens (his family goes back to the founding of the country) at the time of his birth, he is a natural born citizen. It doesn't matter if he was born on Mars or a galaxy far, far, away. Can we stop wasting time and energy on these stupid, dirty tricks. There are too many real and important issues that require our attention. There are enough legitimate reasons to oppose his election. Please. Another thing. Who cares if "trolls" are writing to our blogs? I say good, let us know what you are thinking and what your "strategy" is. You want to answer them fine, but keep it civil. We are all going to have to work together to solve our problems after Obama wins.
You might think the term Theocracy is extreme or inflamatory when used in the context of American government. Here's the brief definition from the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:
1 government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
George Bush believes he is guided by God and is doing God's will. Hence the need to war against evil, not against particular peoples, governments or factions. That sounds like a theocracy to me.
Based on Sarah Palin's religion (Pentacostal) and her previous statements, I would expect her to also believe that God has bestowed on her the "gift" of wisdom and knowledge. As a leader I expect she does what she believes is "God's will". That sounds like a theocracy to me.
From what I know about John McCain, he's more a rainy day Christian - he'll take shelter under that umbrella when it's convenient. Barack Obama seems to have strong beliefs, but he also seems to respect other people's beliefs and is conscious of the need to serve the greater good.
As an individual, we all follow our "inner guidance" whether we call it God, Conscience, society's rules or "Clyde". However, when we are in positions of leadership, positions where we are making decisions that affect other people's lives, we must be extremely careful that we not impose our personal beliefs on others. That's why we have laws - rules that we as a society agree are for the greater good, not our personal good. That's why we have regulations, rules, standards; that's why we pursue scientific inquiry, that's why we challenge our leaders and ask tough questions. Our leaders MUST NOT forget that they are servants of the people of our society - ALL the people. If they want to be servants of their God - they can become religious or spiritual leaders and people can choose whether to follow their guidance or not. In a democracy, our leaders must serve and represent not just the people who voted for them, but also the people who did not vote for them.
There has been speculation that Obama isn't born of this country...whelp this should help clear things up a bit:
Obama's status as a natural born citizen is undeniable:http://snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
McCain's status as a natural born citizen is undetermined:http://snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp
I gave up on watching the news and reading the papers. I hadn't had any interest in hearing about the next shooting or the next oil spill or the next senseless war and loss of life. Where was the hope? Where was the reassurance that we were safe? Not just from terrorists, but from ourselves. What had we done? What had we allowed our government to do? Just over a year ago those thoughts were running through my head when I accidently changed the channel to CNN. I was just about to change the channel when I heard:
"I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America. And if you will join me in this improbable quest, if you feel destiny calling, and see as I see, a future of endless possibility stretching before us; if you sense, as I sense, that the time is now to shake off our slumber, and slough off our fear, and make good on the debt we owe past and future generations, then I'm ready to take up the cause, and march with you, and work with you. Together, starting today, let us finish the work that needs to be done, and usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth."
That was the end of Senator Obama's speech announcing his candicacy for the President of the United States. Chills raced across me as I tried to figure out what and who I had just heard. It was almost a full day later before I could find a replay of the speech on the Internet. The chills came again when I heard:
"That is why this campaign can't only be about me. It must be about us - it must be about what we can do together. This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle, of your hopes, and your dreams. It will take your time, your energy, and your advice - to push us forward when we're doing right, and to let us know when we're not. This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change."
Over the years my belief in a better tommorow had waned. I had seen politician after politician become entangled in the evil web of corruption created by powerful corporations. I had seen politicians that I once admired bow down to their respective party and silence themselves for the simple reason that their beliefs were countradictory to some corporation or industry. The words of Thomas Jefferson always rang so true: Corporations "challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Those words were spoken almost two-and-a-half centuries ago by the Father of the Declaration of Independence. I felt I was a part of a generation that had dishonored his dream for this country and its population. We had violated the trust and ignored the wisdom of the men that fought for our freedom and orchestrated the drafting of the greatest document ever created in the history of mankind. All of these feelings, my sense of impending doom, and my perception of our helplessness all changed in a matter of seconds upon hearing the words that Senator Obama graced upon us that February day.
Senator Obama stood before this nation and asked us to participate in his campaign if we want to realize our hopes and dreams and infect Washington with the type of change that will inspire the world and possibly bring order out of the chaos that has been created by dishonest politicians and powerful corporations. That's right. He asked us. How do we respond? Do we simply wait to cast our ballot and hope for the best? What do you think the outcome of the election will be if you do nothing? If Senator Obama wins and you continue to do nothing, what do you think will happen? The answer is simple: the status quo will continue and our decline will be effectuated by our contingent failings which collectively will provide for our ultimate destruction as a nation and as a people.
That is why it is up to us, the supporters, the campaigners, the citizens; to take this bull by the horns and seize the opportunity to inspire a non-violent revolution. Voting isn't enough. Hoping isn't enough. Dreaming isn't enough. But if you put those three together and mix in a little participation this country and this world will be a better, safer place for us and more importantly, for our children. Participate, be a part of the process. I have never been involved in a campaign or even held a remote interest in a candidate. They were all the same to me. Senator Obama is different; you can hear it in his voice, see it in his eyes and feel it from the energy of his crowds. You may not be sure what you can do. It's simple. Learn about the issues, talk about his platform to anybody that will listen and always be respectful regardless of their response. Donate if you can, I've donated only $25 but it's all I can afford and it's $25 more than I have ever donated to a politician. When Senator Obama spoke about inflating your tires to the proper pressure to reduce gas consumption, did you do it? Its simple things like that which can elevate this campaign another step closer to the White House.
The election is getting closer, it's time to get off the couch and get the word out. Our government is broken, but with the leadership of Senator Obama and the fellowship of the citizens of the United States of America we will be the change that takes this world into the 21st century where the vision of freedom, peace and prosperity for all will take hold on this great Earth as a reality that we created. Together.
As a supporter I know we have alot of work cut of for us over the next four months to inform people with just the basics. In emails, blogs and etc. I've called for OOIS (Operation Obama Information Saturation). Why? After reading the article below and experience talking to people, most of the American public loves being spoon fed information. And right now all of thier inromation is coming from unreliable sources. We have to do more to become the main source in order to win this election.
So a bunch of academics decides to revisit one of the defining books of modern American politics, a 1960 tome on the electorate. They spend years comparing interviews with voting-age Americans from 2000 and 2004 to what Americans said during elections in the 1950s. The academics' question: How much has the American voter changed over the past 50 years?
Their conclusion -- that the voter is pretty much the same dismally ill-informed creature he was back then -- continues a decades-long debate about whether Americans are as clueless as they sound.
Reader, before you send that outraged e-mail, consider that you may be an exception. You, of course, are endlessly fascinated by the debate over domestic wiretapping, but it's possible your neighbors think FISA is a hybrid vehicle. In fact, it's quite possible your neighbors are Republicans only because that's what their parents were, and ditto for the Democrats across the street. They couldn't even mumble a passable definition of "liberal" or "conservative."
"You could get depressed," says the University of Iowa's Michael Lewis-Beck, one of the political scientists who wrote "The American Voter Revisited," released last month and inspired by 1960's "The American Voter."
Or not. Talk to other academics and it's unclear if we should be depressed at all. Many political scientists agree that the American voter doesn't always present well. Asked directly about certain issues, like whether he prefers diplomacy to military action for resolving international conflicts, he may profess ignorance or use some phrase he heard on television. Or she might say, when asked why she likes a candidate, "Oh, I just like the way he talks."
The question that political scientists have pondered for decades is: If a person can't name the staples of liberal ideology, or can't talk coherently about foreign affairs, or cares only about a few issues, or changes his opinion in response to information that he can't remember later, might he still be able to make thoughtful choices in the voting booth?
How much credit do we give our most precious resource, the American brain? Is it half-empty or half-full?
Americans "don't sound the way the high priests of culture want them to sound," says Samuel L. Popkin, author of "The Reasoning Voter," who tends to give voters more credit rather than less. "They use their own language. They process a lot more than they can recall in interviews. They have a lot better sense of who's on their side and who isn't than they're often given credit for."
One thing that's certain is that Americans are consistent. They've had difficulty articulating their opinions in ways that satisfy political scientists for decades. When "The American Voter" was released almost 50 years ago, it caused quite a splash. (Subsequent political scientists began referring to its authors with awe as "the four horsemen.") "The American Voter" was thick with statistical tables and a wonky theory called the "funnel of causality," all revealing that Americans have what William G. Jacoby of Michigan State University calls "incoherent, inconsistent, disorganized positions on issues."
The New York Times wrote about the book's findings when it came out, noting the role that Dwight Eisenhower's "strong personal appeal" played in helping him win the presidency in 1952 and 1956. His Democratic opponent, Adlai Stevenson, spent a lot of time discussing issues of foreign policy, the paper wrote, but it turned out "the public was largely unaware of his positions."
Some academics criticized "The American Voter" for depicting voters as "fools," while others suggested the voters were not so much fools as, uh, "cognitive misers." (Aren't academic euphemisms the best?) The book spawned all sorts of follow-ups, like a rebuttal called "The Changing American Voter" and a rebuttal to the rebuttal called "The Unchanging American Voter."
Four years ago, Lewis-Beck and Jacoby and two other political scientists decided to take on "The American Voter" once more. They used the same methods to crunch the data and even organized the book the same way. (They had to eliminate the chapter on the agrarian vote, though, because there aren't enough farmers left anymore for a usable sample.)
"The American Voter Revisited" is chock-full of depressing conclusions, couched in academic understatement. In-depth interviews conducted with 1,500 people during the two most recent presidential elections revealed that the "majority of people don't have many issues in mind" when they discuss voting, Lewis-Beck says. Sometimes they say they're attracted to a candidate because "I just don't think we should change parties right now." They tend to inherit their party allegiance from their parents, and those beliefs tend to stay fixed throughout their lives, he says.
"For many people," the authors of "Revisited" write, "dealing with political issues is too much of a bother."
"If they know they're Republican and have been happy that way, they'll stay Republican," says another of the book's four authors, Herb Weisberg, who chairs the political science department at Ohio State University. Even for those voters who do rethink their allegiance to a given party -- because, say, the party in power has fouled things up -- "if times get better, they'll get back to where they were," Weisberg says. Their attachment to party is more emotional than intellectual, Lewis-Beck suggests, akin to their feelings for sports teams.
But wait, says Amy Gershkoff, who wrote her Princeton dissertation on issues and voting behavior and now advises left-of-center campaigns on how to target voters. She's got her own sports metaphor. Just as Beltway junkies know far more about policy issues than the average voter, baseball junkies know far more statistics than she does. But she still loves to watch the Yankees.
"Even though I can't rattle off the batting averages of every person on the team and every person on every other team doesn't mean that I can't derive pleasure from the game," she says.
In other words, Gershkoff says, she knows enough. Many Americans vote primarily because of one or two or three issues, she says. They might care a whole lot about health care or prayer in schools and not at all about foreign policy, and maybe that leaves them sounding dumb when they're asked about Iraq. But they know enough about the issues they care about, and that's what they vote on.
And how do they gather what they know? Popkin, whose own studies suggest that Americans' awareness of issues has been growing for decades, argues that voters use shortcuts to make judgments about the candidates, relying on things like endorsements, the advice of friends, and the candidate's party. So what if they forget much of what they've learned, so long as they absorb the lessons?
"If I say to you, 'What did the guy you didn't marry say to you in bed?' " and you can't remember, "does that mean you didn't enjoy it?" Popkin says.
Lewis-Beck says writing the book was a bracing experience for a political junkie. He's the kind of guy who tries to forecast elections the way fantasy baseball fans try to forecast players' performances. He writes papers with such titles as "Split-Ticket Voting: The Effects of Cognitive Madisonianism."
"A lot of people don't care about politics, okay?" he says. "They just don't care."
Or they care just enough.
My father was serving in the US Navy and stationed in Japan when I was born.
I am a US citizen, yet it has always been my understanding that I could not run for President due to the fact that I was not born in the States.
In 1937, Congress passed a law granting citizenship to the children of American parents born in the Panama Canal. Under this law, Senator McCain became a US Citizen just prior to his first birthday. In other words, McCain, like me, was not born a "natural" citizen - and according to the Constitution, should not be eligible for the presidency.
Personally, I think that anyone who is a US Citizen and has lived in the States for most of their lives should be eligible to become President. However, until there's a Constitutional Amendment permitting this - people like me, Governor Schwarzenegger and all the children born of US servicemen and women abroad, are excluded from the American dream of becoming president.
I respect McCain and I'm glad that he has his hat in the race - I'm just unclear how a Constitutional exception has been made for him.
My grandfather explained to me that as a voting, tax-paying citizen of the United States, he was actually the employer of the President of the United States, as well as of the governor of his state, the mayor of his city, and of all the city employees as well. He was their employer and they worked for him, not the other way around, and they had better do a good job or he’d find someone else! He was feisty old man, but in that he was right. I think that too many citizens of this country have forgotten or perhaps never even known that it is the citizens who own the government here, not the other way around. Barack is the first candidate I've seen in a long time who makes this concept a central part of his campaign.
created by: Dennis R. Mayfield
HOPE
Hope keeps us living for another day
Looking at the future in a different way
Thinking of things that can be
Wanting something better than we currently see
Knowing if we work towards our call
True change will happen for us all
With inspiration for a different life
Something better without so much strife
To make a difference, they say, can’t be done
But this fights worth fighting until it’s won
Something that really matters not just for me
But for everyone, every living person and family
