President Chavez is creating a parallel bank, health and education programs, and a parallel to CNN - Telesur. The left-wing theory of creating parallel powers to break down and end the old order is taken to new breathtaking heights. The parallels are working - illiteracy has been exterminated and people are indeed gaining more and more power.
GOODNESS SAKES ALIVE!!!! DOES THIS REMIND YOU OF ANYONE???
As the immediate excitement of Election Day begins to fade, we are left with new questions, among them: How is President-Elect Barack Obama going to move this country forward?
Despite what the press may say, he has already told us. The answer lies in what he's been doing all along.
Obama won because he and his staff built an incredible grassroots organization where everyone was encouraged to join in. From signing up to get an early text message as to his V.P. pick (and be part of the "inner circle") to going online during idle moments to get lists of phone numbers to call on Obama's behalf, the then-candidate opened his organization to anyone and everyone.
As the president-elect said in his victory speech Tuesday night, the campaign was won by "us," the millions of Americans who contributed time and money to bring about change.
"This is your victory," Obama told the audience. He noted that this election proved that "government of the people, by the people, for the people has not perished from the earth."
Not since women worked long and hard for the right to vote has there been so much organized, non-violent energy invested in our election process.
Referring to the world stage, President-Elect Obama noted at the end of his speech, "There is so much to do."
Yes, there is. And we needn't wait until January 20. Whether it's ladling out soup at a homeless shelter, cleaning up a local park or working through government channels to address local, state, or national issues, we can all find a place to invest our energy.
The election on November 4 provides a "chance for change." It's up to us to help bring that change about. This is the very essence of a participatory democracy, and thus far, we can feel very proud.
AnnCee - The post about the Nov 4 2008 election makes me think you are just catching up on the news. Obama was elected. He is the president. He's not perfect but he's doing pretty good.
That's a wrong assumption. I am bringing the past forward into the present for your entertainment and *gasp* dare I say? Enlightenment?
Did you know this stuff when you voted for Barack Obama?
Did you approve of his clearly stated plans?
Were YOU aware of WHAT he was actually saying??
Participatory Democracy From the 1960s and SDS into the Future On-line
By Michael Hauben <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The 1960s was a time of people around the world struggling for
more of a say in the decisions of their society. The emergence of the personal computer in the late 70s and early 80s and the longer
gestation of the new forms of people-controlled communication
facilitated by the Internet and Usenet in the late 80s and today are the direct descendents of 1960s.
The era of the 1960s was a special time in America. Masses of
people realized their own potential to affect how the world around
them worked. People rose up to protest the ways of society which were out of their control, whether to fight against racial segregation, or to gain more power for students in the university setting.
The "Port Huron Statement" created by the Students for a
Democratic Society(SDS) was a document which helped set the mood for the decade.
SDS. . . . . Bill Ayers?
By the 1970s, some of the people who were directly involved in
student protests continued their efforts to bring power to the people by developing and spreading computer power in a form accessible and affordable to individuals. The personal computer movement of the 1970s created the personal computer.
By the mid 1980s they forced the corporations to produce computers which everyone could afford. The new communications media of the Internet grew out of the ARPANET research
that started in 1969 and Usenet which was born in 1979. These
communications advances coupled with the availability of computers
transforms the spirit of the 1960s into an achievable goal for our
SDS and THE NEED FOR PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
The early members of SDS found a real problem in American
Society. They felt that the United States was a democracy that never existed, or rather which was transformed into a representative system after the constitutional convention. The United States society is called a democracy, but had ceased being democratic after the early beginnings of American society.
SDS felt it is crucial for people to have a part in how their society is governed. SDS leaders had an understanding of democratic forms which did not function democratically in the 1960s nor do they today. This is a real problem which the leaders and members of SDS intuitively understood and worked to change.
Pardon me but you do seem to be a little bit behind. You do know that Obama has been the president for a year and a half now right? If my question sounds degrading, I am very sorry for that but from the post, it seems like you are stuck in the past.
If you are trying to make a point about his techniques used to get elected and the 'broken' promises you assume he has made, then please clarify.
OBAMA'S PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
From Barack Obama’s platform on the subject of technology:
We need to connect citizens with each other to engage them more fully and directly in solving the problems that face us. We must use all available technologies and methods to open up the federal government, creating a new level of transparency to change the way business is conducted in Washington and giving Americans the chance to participate in government deliberations and decision-making in ways that were not possible only a few years ago.
The deliberation and decision-making processes in the United States are archaic. They were designed in an era when the fastest message traveled at the speed of a horse. Consider that the precedents for presidential and congressional term limits were also set during that era. Four years worth of decision-making in 1798 was probably orders of magnitude less power than four years worth in 2008. The globalized, digitally-connected world moves far swifter than the one our Founding Fathers lived in.
I hope that the idealistic position quoted from Obama’s site above can be reduced to concrete practice in the coming years. Instead of relying on lobbyists to travel to Washington DC and “represent” the public interest with sweet talk and bribery, let us use the Web to create a channel for direct public comment and polling on legislative and executive issues. It would be really quite simple. That’s what Change.gov should really be.
The internet gave us all a voice. President-elect Obama, please open up an ear to listen.
http://www.steinbock.org/blog/2008/11/1 … democracy/
I get regular informationfrom 'Organizing for America' about progress the Obama administration is making. One of the most recent ones onthe Patients Bill of Rights.
As you seem to be behind on the news.. They passed HealthCare Reform- wingnuts like to call it Obamacare, but Nancy P. gets a huge amount of credit for landmark legislation.
They are working on Wall Street Reform, which should pass this week.
Negotiated a nuclear reduction agreement with Russia.
Ended the practice which prohibited Medicare from negotiating for the best price on drugs - hundreds of millions in savings.
Ended no-bid awards of military contracts.
Moving to end 'don'ask don't-tell' - to give gays full and equal status in the military.
You are informed by the Obama administration.
The federal government does everything so well and it doesn't matter whether they are spending actual or virtual money just so long as they do something to make your life better. Right?
Strangely, since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were at the heart and core of the biggest economic meltdown in history they are magically exempted. Do you care? The reform gives no specific regulation it merely gives a panel the power to make up their minds about what is right and what is wrong at any given moment and to decide then what to do about it. Arbitrary. Do you care?
Business cares. They are paralyzed by uncertainty.
Have you always trusted the Russians to keep their word or is this something new? Do you suppose nuclear stockpiles which are worth MONEY just sat untouched as the Soviet Union transformed into a thugocracy? How much is left in official hands to reduce?
Great! I sort of hope this doesn't interfere with research and development. Sort of. Obama is anti-profit and that puts the big urch on money motivated forward progress. I guess you think big government progressivism is a good alternative to the human spirit?
Yes, yes! Evil military industrial complex and all that. Fact is there are only a few companies capable of handling a huge project like WAR and only a few companies who produce the things the military needs. But by all means throw the bidding wide open and make sure it's all affirmative actiony while we're at it.
I'm not sure what effect it will have if any on troop moral. I have many military friends and as far as I know they aren't sure either. Discipline is discipline and hopefully it will trump self expression. This is a sop to the gay/lesbian voters mostly. Politics.
It's not working so well in America, I must say. Barack Obama spends a lot of time telling us to shut up and telling students to put down their techie communication devices so they won't be distracted by all the news out there.
A big fat LOL
He'll have to work harder at suppression to get the Venezuelan paradise he envisions.
Protests in Venezuela Turn Ugly After President Hugo Chavez Yanks TV Station Off the Air
Interesting stuff you have here. Have you heard of the "Obama kill switch" yet? It really doesn't make a lot of sense for him to want all this transparency but then decide that if need be, he can shut off the internet.
One of the best things I think to come out of the last 10 years or so was the Freedom of Information Act which the internet made possible around the world.
But when the voice of the people are pouring into blogs and forums and people are able to comment, then they don't think it is such a great idea any more.
So do what other nations do and take away one of the most valuable assets to our lives (not the internet, so to speak) but communications.
Our species has survived because of our ability to communicate with each other. I suppose that it is possible that they do in fact fear some sort of internet attack but if it is that serious, shouldn't they themselves be more responsible when with the things they put out on a seemingly secure network?
How does the saying go, "If you don't want people to find out, then do not write it down."
The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.
Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.
“The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.
The 197-page bill (PDF) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.
Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created “the potential for absolute power,” while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.”
The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” while fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks.
The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill, primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-bill-gi … ernet.html
The fu**ing Rockefellers! All I got to say is bad, bad, and worse. Ever checked out the history of the Rockerfellers?
The conclusion of experts is that the US is vulmerable to a cyber attack. The best fastest defense at the present time may be to 'pull the plug' whem an atack begins. Joe Leiberman was *that* close to being McCain's running-mate 2 years ago. He's not Obama's lap dog.
The 'kill swithc' is not about content - it's a defense against a tech attack that could do huge damage to our internet communication grid. If you have REAL objections to the idea, and have better ones (from experts who understand the problem), let's here them.
But to suggest that this is intended to stifle free speech is simply a lie.
To suggest that this is intended to stifle is an educated guess based on the published words of Obama and his Cybersecurity czar "Nudge" Cass Sunstein. Do your children and grandchildren a favor and go check it out.
No it's not an educated guess - it's a paranoid fantasy.
Have you done yourself and your family a favor and done a little reading of Cass Sunstein's words and deeds?
From the NY Times on Cass Sunstein -
"Part of the reason that Sunstein is so admired as an academic is that he has inherited lessons from everyone, including conservatives. When we spoke, he made a point of emphasizing the influence of icons of the right, like the libertarian economist Friedrich von Hayek and the originalist legal scholars. As a young academic, Sunstein found himself deeply moved by the society Franklin D. Roosevelt envisioned — he wrote a book championing F.D.R.’s idea of a “second bill of rights” that would guarantee Americans a job, an education and a home — but he accepts that much of the New Deal amounted to “morals without technique.” “In 2010 there’s so much more knowledge about economics than there was in the ’30s,” Sunstein told me. “A lot of what I’ve tried to do is hold on to some of these moral commitments of the Roosevelt administration and figure out how we might actually get them.”
A high-ranking official in the Obama administration has come under fire in the past few weeks for suggesting that it would be a good idea to deploy federal agents to "cognitively infiltrate" political groups that believe in conspiracy theories.
"Cognitive infiltration" may just be a fancy way to describe what chat room trolls do every day, but it's downright Orwellian in its implications, summoning visions of disinformation campaigns, agents provocateurs, and J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO.
The official is Cass Sunstein, the long-time University of Chicago law professor (he has since moved on to Harvard), who is currently serving as director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Sunstein's proposal was not issued under the auspices of the government, but in an academic paper. Co-authored with Harvard Law School Professor Adrian Vermeule and published in The Journal of Political Philosophy in 2008
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? … id=1084585
"Conspiracy Theory" surveys the existing scholarship on the origins and characteristics of conspiracy theories and contemplates whether or not governments should try to neutralize them. In general, it takes a social sciences approach, arguing that conspiracy theories are neither legitimate political ideas nor symptoms of a psychological disorder, but are rather the inevitable distortions of closed-off, self-reinforcing belief systems. Using government agents to inject "cognitive diversity" into those communities, it suggests, just might provide the body politic with an antidote to the thought contagions they inspire.
Glenn Greenwald ripped into Sunstein's "truly pernicious" article in Salon.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn … /sunstein/
"Note how similar Sunstein's proposal is to multiple, controversial stealth efforts by the Bush administration to secretly influence and shape our political debates," he wrote.
"There is a very strong case to make that what Sunstein is advocating is itself illegal under long-standing statutes prohibiting government 'propaganda' within the U.S., aimed at American citizens." The far right World Net Daily was no less alarmist: "Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists,'" its headline read. "Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions."
Notice please, I submit to you the man's own words.
A 30-some minute 2006 documentary, “Quiet Revolution,” by the progressive Alliance for Justice, hosted by actor Bradley Whitford, decried the supposed Constitutional abuse by the Bush administration. It was screened at the 2007 “Take Back America” conference, where the session description humorously notes an interview with a little known, apparently Irish, Senator “Barack O’bama.”
http://biggovernment.com/kolson/2010/06 … stitution/
Remarkably, Cass Sunstein, now the regulatory czar a President O’bama, officially known as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said the Bush administration and its like-minded justices on the Supreme Court (specifically Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia) are undermining the right to privacy. By my count, that’s 2 on a court of nine justices.
Yes, the man that wants to “tax conspiracy theories,” put government-sponsored pop-ups on political blogs, and other Big Brothery things at one point was apparently concerned about the right to privacy. Shows what a little power will do for you, I guess. As Paul Joseph Watson wrote:
Essentially, Sunstein wants it to be written into law that the government can dictate the very nature of reality to Americans and that their opinions can only be voiced at best when accompanied by mandatory federal propaganda or at worst that Americans can be silenced entirely by federal decree.
And Sunstein is a hypocrite to boot. I never saw a liberal who wasn't. Examples are rife right here in River City.
Obama is a conundrum wrapped in a lie. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
He wants a participatory democracy which preceeds a socialist democracy but his supporters are either uber wealthy elitists who can't be bothered or are already part of the machine, or zombie drones on the public teat who can't be awakened.
He is losing support on the far left and activists aren't responding to his agenda.
I sometimes get the impression that conservatives are the only ones looking at the real world and hearing what Barack Obama has very clearly described as his goals, and we sure don't want to be part of his revolution.
He doesn't want conservatives to be informed.
Liberal ideas can only flourish in dark and controlled places, not in the open light of day. Thus the necessity of cultural socialism aka political correctness.
Yeah, really makes you take it seriously
No, it's just that the wingnuts seem to think that if you paint a turd - red white and blue, it changes the smell.
I'll nominate this one for the dumbest, most ignorant forum topic.
I agree. Barack Obama was abysmally ignorant to think the American people would just go along like Venezuelans.
He'll have to practice his trickle up poverty economics for a few more years before he has the middle class beat down and shut down enough for the Bolivarian model Bill Ayers recommends so highly will work around here.
That and take all the guns from private ownership.
Because of a law Barak Obama signed....
"WASHINGTON — Loaded guns will be allowed in Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon and other national parks under a new law that takes effect Monday.
The law lets licensed gun owners bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by state law. It comes over the objections of gun-control advocates who fear it will lead to increased violence in national parks."
Your suggestion that the government intends to take guns from private owners shows a further disconnect from reality which we expect from you.
I said that in order to do to the United States what Chavez did to Venezuela we would have to be in much more distress economically, the classes much further divided if you will, and that we would have to be disarmed. I didn't suggest that the Obama administration intends to take guns away from citizens. I said he would need to in order to accomplish his 'fundamental transformation' to a participatory democracy.
Liberal political ideals always result in an increase of control because of a fundamental misread of human nature. Liberal elites are so arrogant they think the little people are sheep. Most liberal little people act like sheep so I guess they have their reasons. But not all people want to entrust their lives to the kindness of big government.
Bearing arms in a national park alive with bears who are not afraid of people is sensible.
Because of the law which Barak Obama signed -
"WASHINGTON — Loaded guns will be allowed in Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon and other national parks under a new law that takes effect Monday.
The law lets licensed gun owners bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by state law..."
Your delusion that the feds intend to take away guns shows how disconnected from reality you are. Under the Bush administration people couldn't weat T-shirts critical of the Bush administration where Bush was speaking. Under the Obama administration they can wear critical T-Shirts and carry assault weapons...and they do.
Barack Obama wasn't created in a day. It is good to know where his ideas come from and all the interconnections are interesting.
Of course he hasn't been able to "fundamentally transform" this country try as he might. Americans don't want their country fundamentally transformed. Many people I know voted for him without knowing about his plans which as far as I'm concerned he described very well. They just didn't get it.
Many people still don't get it.
I'm not talking about his techniques for getting elected. I'm talking about the fact that he wants the United States to become a participatory democracy which is what the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela was/is all about. I'm saying that Bill Ayers and his son both helped Hugo Chavez design an education system to help move Chavez' revolution, the fundamental transformation of that country depended on a citizenry educated to take part in the participatory democracy.
I am saying that most of what Barack Obama is doing today is designed to destabelize the United States so that he can implement a similar revolution, a redistribution of wealth.
Take a good look sometime at Venezuela. See how it is working there. See what steps were taken to fundamentally transform that country and then take a look at what this administration is doing.
According to TK, he was Barack Obama since from the moment of conception.
AnnCee let me say this to you again because I don’t think you got it the first time, I don’t care what party you are for, you need to learn how to talk to other's without hiding behind your sarcasm. The Republicans have run the country long enough, every nation hates us for what the Republican party stood for under the Republican dictatorship of Bush, you and your radical thoughts of how a President should act and what he should stand for is way out of reach for anyone to understand, I find your hate and your anti- American stance towards President Obama to be offensive and very hostile. Are you that mad that the President has not failed enough because of your Republican anti – American stance that you find a need to denounce anyone and everyone who believe in our President and our country?
Your tirades toward the President, fall on the border line of hate, not a political view but a forum of none stop political hatred and you are looking for failure for President Obama and most of your words are with-out any truth in your conspiracy to denounce our President and the country you live in. What did the President do to you personally for you to feel the way you do?
And of course calling President Bush a dictator is not hateful at all.
Yeah, I get it.
That is the truth and you know it so stop with your oh don't say that
Every President is subject to criticism, but it has never before been practically a crime to do so. The outrageous ridicule and lies and conspiracty theories in regard to Bush -- were just that, and I don't recall it inciting vitriole of the sort seen today. I find it disturbing, greatly disturbing.
Bush was not a dictator. He was intellectually lazy, not very bright and surrounded by several quite evil people whose advice he accepted without questioning it.
Talk about dream land. Bush was a stubborn, hard headed guy who didn't take enough advice. He did it his way. You're just spouting bumper stickers. Why read some books and get some real facts?
Bush was led into the foolish, costly invasion of Iraq by a bunch of Neocons and Texas oil cronies. His father and Bush I's national security adviser Brent Scocroft opposed the idea as did 23 Democratic and one Republican senators. I agree that he was stubborn, and that he stopped listening to Cheney during his second term after he woke up to the fact that he'd followed bad advice from Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Neocons.
Well, whatever he was he isn't the President anymore.
Time to move on.
That is possible isn't it?
"AnnCee let me say this to you again because I don’t think you got it the first time, I don’t care what party you are for, you need to learn how to talk to other's without hiding behind your sarcasm.
Do I know you, Woolman? I don't remember being introduced to you.
The rest of your post is just hilarious.
Why don't your defend Obama like a good zombie? Don't you have some words programmed in you to tell me how wonderful he is and what wonderful things he is doing for you now that he is president?
AND SINCE WHEN IS POSTING ARTICLES FROM NEWSPAPERS, UNIVERSITY PAPERS, SPEECHES VITRIOLIC? DID YOU EVEN READ THE CONTENT?
I GET SO-O-O-O-O TIRED OF MORONS WHO READ A SLIGHT HINT OF DISAPPROVAL FOR THIS PRESIDENT WHO IS BUYING HEALTH CARE BY SIGNING OUR GREAT GRANDCHILDREN INTO SLAVERY, WHIMPERING ABOUT LEAVING OBAMA ALONE. DON'T YOU HAVE ANYTHING REAL TO SAY?
You people scare me, and to think people like you want to run our country, AnnCee do you live in a Communist country
And yet US companies have . . . What? 10% of the oil contracts? Yeah, it was about oil alright.
Nice lefty story but it doesn't hold up in the light of reality too well.
Like all lefty stories.
One biographer, Robert Westbrook, concluded that “Among liberal intellectuals of the twentieth century, Dewey was the most important advocate of participatory democracy.” 4
One of the many thinkers Dewey influenced, a philosophy professor at the University of Michigan named Arnold Kaufman, was a mentor to Tom Hayden and other founders of Students for a Democratic Society in the early 1960s. Hayden recently commented that “Kaufman's case for participatory democracy flowed directly from John Dewey's writings in the 1920s and '30s.” He “used the term to signify that democracy‚ as defined in conventional liberal discourse, was far too limited when reduced to electoral choice and concepts like the free marketplace of ideas.”5 In 1962, inspired by this critique of mainstream liberalism as well as by contemporary critics like radical sociologist C. Wright Mills, Hayden and his peers drafted the Port Huron Statement, the manifesto of the emerging student movement. It is an enduring statement of democratic idealism, too seldom remembered, let alone read, in the unkind years since it was written. Here is one passage that embodies its political vision:
As a social system we seek the establishment of a democracy of individual participation, governed by two central aims: that the individual share in those social decisions determining the quality and direction of his life; that society be organized to encourage independence in men and provide the media for their common participation.
In a participatory democracy, the political life would be based in several root principles:
* that decision-making of basic social consequence be carried on by public groupings;
* that politics be seen positively, as the art of collectively creating an acceptable pattern of social relations;
* that politics has the function of bringing people out of isolation and into community, thus being a necessary, though not sufficient, means of finding meaning in personal life;
* that the political order should serve to clarify problems in a way instrumental to their solution; it should provide outlets for the expression of personal grievance and aspiration; opposing views should be organized so as to illuminate choices and facilities the attainment of goals. . .
Forty years after composing this document, Tom Hayden and another SDS activist, Dick Flacks, reflected that “we were trying to transform the mass society into a civic society, spark a social awareness in the vast world of private lives and voluntary associations that most people inhabited far from the centers of power.” In the 1960s, like today, concerned citizens felt shut out from the making of political and social decisions. The United States was still considered a “democracy,” but the word no longer carried the promise it had in the early years of the republic, so it needed to be amplified, specifically made “participatory.” Hayden and Flacks explain,
The term “participatory democracy” then, has been used by people who seek to reclaim the essence of democratic idealism in a society that has grown over-organized, hierarchical and authoritarian. It is the antidote to technocracy (rule by experts, bureaucrats and administrators) and represents a renewed faith in the intelligence and moral judgment of common citizens pursuing their daily lives and interests. Because it challenges conventional political practices in modern mass society, it is a radical position. Yet as Hayden and Flacks make clear, it is not radical in the sense of being alien to, or destructive of, American ideals; rather, it is an effort to return to the root meaning of “democracy” in American ideology. They write, “Port Huron marked a milestone in the search for a genuine American radicalism based on many traditions, but most of all an egalitarian, almost anarchistic belief in democracy.” They comment that the communal decision-making that they advocated was pioneered by anarchist collectives as well as Quakers, town meetings and even “sensitivity training” groups.
http://www.pathsoflearning.net/articles … ocracy.php
by crankalicious 6 years ago
Can Mitt Romney beat Barack Obama in the next presidential election?Given that Romney is the front-runner, perhaps it's worth pondering.
by AnnCee 7 years ago
Hawaii won't release Obama birth infoJanuary 22, 2011 1:49 AMTHE ASSOCIATED PRESSHONOLULU Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie will end his quest to prove President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii because it's against state law to release private documents, his office said Friday.State Attorney...
by AnnCee 7 years ago
With all that is going on in Wisconsin in opposition to a freely elected governor attempting to improve the economy of his state one has to wonder. Taking into account the amazing access union leaders have had to Barack Obama one has to wonder. Considering the participatory community...
by James R Tankersley 5 years ago
Is Barack Obama an American citizen?According to all the legit facts, our current President is an American citizen, but there are some that still say he is not, so my fellow hubbers, what do you say?
by Ron Montgomery 9 years ago
I did not vote for Obama. He clearly and articulately expressed his policy intentions during the campaign and to me they collectively sounded like a recipe for economic disaster and government growth on an unprecedented scale; not exactly what we needed after the economic disaster and...
by Jimbo'daNimbo 6 years ago
I am not a birther but I find this curious. This was a pamphlet brought forth by Breitbart from a publishing house handling Barack Obama and this was in his PR material in the pamphlet.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government … n-use-2007
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|