Wise Women Won't Wait Any More

Help Roy LaVerne Brooks get her message to the voters

2010-10-17T23:31:00.003-05:00

To contribute to the fund to broadcast these spots to undecided voters in JP Pct 6, please contribute by Credit Card using Pay Pal on her website: www.brooksforjp6.org

Early Voting is here! It is imperative that we get funds in Roy LaVerne's campaign account immediately.
All broadcast air time must be paid for when we place the "buy" with the cable stations.
If you live in Tarrant County contact us and we'll see about either picking up your check or having you drop it off to one of her campaign committee.

HELP ROY LAVERNE BROOKS claim this judicial seat in SW Tarrant County.
Help her mobilize voters.
Every voter Roy LaVerne gets to the polls will help up ticket candidates.

Despite 28 years in office, her Republican opponent has low name recognition. Help those voters who do not know any of the candidates in this race meet Roy LaVerne Brooks and hear her message.

Please forward these links and the link to her website to your friends and neighbors.

Roy LaVerne Brooks: -- A LIFETIME OF EXEMPLARY SERVICE:
Former staffer to U.S. Speaker of the House Jim Wright
Fort Worth Woman of the Year
Inductee into the Texas Hall of Fame
Ten Years on Boards of MITs and Fort Worth T
Former Vice Chair of the Texas Democratic Party
Native daughter of Fort Worth - Graduate of Como High School
Counselor, Teacher, Ordained Minister, Social Worker
Mother and grandmother
B.A. Social Work, M.A. Divinity

Roy LaVerne Brooks is a leader who brings people together to identify and mobilize resources to solve problems

"Roy LaVerne Brooks is perfect to solve the problems which have existed for too long in the Justice of the Peace position in JP6."
--- Tony Bridge, Jr., Benbrook, TX (2010 inductee in the Texas Radio Hall of Fame)

"Roy intends to try to expand the hours in the JP Court. Customer service in the court -- what an idea!"
--- Dorothy DuBose Scherr, Attorney at Law at Law

"Roy LaVerne Brooks will make the court available to work with parents. ..She's a person first and not a politician."
-- Arthuro Pena, former FT Worth ISD School Board Member

"The Working People deserve change in Pct. 6!
The children need our attention!"
-- Roy LaVerne Brooks

Early voting starts Monday, Oct. 18th

Vote for Roy LaVerne Brooks
Share this with friends and neighbors
Contribute to broadcast her message to voters in Pct. 6

www.brooksforjp6.org

--
Committee to elect Roy LaVerne Brooks Justice of the Peace, Pct. 6 Tarrant County, TX, Harriet Irby, Treasurer, www.brooksforjp6,org, P.O. Box 331893, Fort Worth, Tx 76163, 817 905-2518, 817 903-4626, 817 795-2519

Roy LaVerne Brooks

2010-10-10T23:15:00.001-05:00

Roy Laverne Brooks for Tarrant County Justice of the Peace Precinct 6 from George Wada on Vimeo.

In Texas Democrats can Abolish the Texas Two Step NOW

2010-03-01T11:02:00.004-06:00

The resolution below needs to be proposed and passed at the Democratic Precinct Conventions in Texas Tues., March 2nd (after the polls close)

Resolution to Select All National Delegates Based on Presidential Primary Results
Whereas, it is a Democratic Party principle that each Democratic voter’s vote should have equal weight;
And the presidential selection caucus system makes some Democratic voters’ votes more important than others;
Whereas, it is a Democratic Party principle that all Democrats should have easy access to the ballot;
And the presidential caucus is unavailable to many Democratic voters because of the weekday evening hour if they work, have small children, are disabled, are homebound, in the military or out of county;
Whereas, Democratic voters are allowed to cast their primary vote by mail or during the two weeks of early voting to accommodate varied working and travel schedules as well as the needs of those over the age of 65 and the disabled;
And the caucus vote is at only one hour on one day;
Therefore, be it resolved that the Texas Democratic Party shall institute true democracy in the presidential primary process by abolishing the hybrid system of allocating presidential delegates by a combination of primary and caucus results and instituting a delegate allocation system based solely on the presidential primary results.
Passed by the precinct convention held in Precinct ____________ Senatorial District ___________ on March 2, 2010.
_______________________
Caucus Chair
_______________________
Caucus Secretary

Brooks stays on ballot in Tarrant county

2010-02-25T11:37:00.011-06:00

By Faith Chatham - Feb. 25, 2010
Former Texas State Democratic Vice Chair Roy LaVerne Brooks wins second round of strategic legal assault by financier Dick Abrams. Unable to get County Chair Steve Maxwell to remove Ms. Brooks from the Tarrant County Democratic Primary Ballot so that he could run unopposed for Justice of the Peace, Pct. 6, Democratic donor and bundler, Dick Abrams brought suit in District Court. Abrams' suit against Roy LaVerne Brooks and Tarrant County Democratic Chair Steve Maxwell was dismissed with prejudice Friday. ((aka - don't refile this case)

The contrast between the two candidates is stark. Abrams, former C.E.O. / C.O.B. of failed Surety Bank and Surety Holding, engendered support of Democratic incumbents and some Democratic "want-a-be's" by writing substantial checks to most incumbents and Democratic Clubs, creating a buzz about him being a "viable candidate." Simple Google searches bring up numerous Federal S.E.C. and Comptroller of the Currency documents chronicling Abrams less than stellar performance at the helm of Surety Bank and its holding company. Those touting how "viable" avoid mentioning that Abrams was barred from banking for failure to comply with Federal Banking laws! He settled with the Comptroller of the Currency by agreeing not to participate in any capacity in any federal funded housing, federal loans, banks, or savings and loans because of fiduciary irregularities, misrepresentation of fact on Federal Reports, and failure to follow Federal Law, and the use of bank premises for “for profit endeavors by board members and members of the family of board members.” However, because he can write max allowable checks to high profile candidates some think that he deserved to be the nominee.

In contrast, a Google search on Roy LaVerne Brooks profiles a Democratic Party activist, community servant and civic leader who was named the "Outstanding Woman Citizen of Fort Worth" and inducted into the "Texas Hall of Fame" for 30 years of civic leadership and consistent service to her hometown and the State of Texas. Brooks, a graduate of Prairie View A&M, with M.A. in Divinity from Southwestern, has chaired the handicap transportation authority (MI.T.S.A.C) in Fort Worth and served as Vice-Chair of the Fort Worth T. Conservative with her finances, Ms. Brooks does not have as deep pockets as her opponent. The contrast between a social workers' salary and the check-writing resources of her opponent are substantial.
Abrams' lawsuit drained much of Brooks "Get out the Vote" resources. None of the newspapers or television stations are mentioning Texas or Federal Law does not prohibit individuals who are barred from banking for violations of Federal Law from running for (and possibly winning) judicial seats in Texas, or election as State Representatives and State Senators.
Contributions to the Brooks Campaign can be made on-line at WWW.BROOKSFORJP6.ORG. $35.00 can reach half of the registered voters in the precinct by robocall. The primary is March 2nd. Act now if you want to support a qualified woman candidate for public office. The Court ruled that the people have the right to decide who their nominee should be. Money will determine whether the voters get to learn about the differences in the two candidates.

I am not pretending to be unbiased. I know Roy LaVerne Brooks and admire and respect her for her lifetime of service, incredible leadership skills, and understanding of the challenges facing individuals who come before the bench in that Justice of the Peace Precinct. If Mr. Abrams had chosen to campaign to win rather than to use the courts to remove his opponent, this race would probably have avoided my radar. As I examined the court documents, signatures on the petitions, candidate’s credentials, and the needs of the precinct, sharp contrast between the candidates convinced me that Roy LaVerne Brooks is the candidate who can truly best serve the people as Justice of the Peace. The way to build the party is to bring honor to it by fielding and electing people whose life reflects consistent integrity, service and honor. Roy LaVerne Brooks is a woman of integrity, and possesses a heart for the people and the intellect and discernment to do the job.

RIGHTS: Women Still Battling Gender Bigotry Worldwide

2010-02-25T08:36:00.002-06:00

By Thalif Deen - United Nations - TerraViva-Europe - Feb. 25, 2010
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 24, 2010 (IPS) - Nearly 62 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaimed "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights," a few of the world's discriminatory laws against women are being progressively repealed in Asia, Europe, Africa and Latin America.

India and Malaysia have nullified their respective criminal laws allowing marital rape, while Haiti has abrogated its law permitting the murder by a husband of his wife in specific cases of adultery.

South Korea has changed its law designating the man as head of the family, while Colombia has voided its discriminatory law setting 14 years as the minimum age of marriage for boys and 12 years for girls.

And Pakistan has removed the evidentiary requirement of four male Muslim witnesses to prove rape.

But still, there is a long way to go, as women worldwide continue to battle against gender bigotry, says Taina Bien-Aime, executive director of Equality Now, a New York-based international human rights organisation.

In a report to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), which will hold a two-week session beginning Monday, Equality Now says that several other countries, including Mexico, Lesotho, Kuwait, Turkey, Romania, Serbia, Peru, France and Switzerland, have either repealed or amended laws that were clearly discriminatory against women.

Bien-Aime said there has been "some progress" in removing state-sanctioned legal discrimination against women - acts that generate no cost to governments and require no budget.

"However, despite commitments to repeal all gender-based discriminatory laws, many remain in force, which deny women formal recourse to justice and prevents them from fully participating in society," Bien-Aime told IPS.

And unfortunately, she pointed out, significant setbacks have occurred as well, "as we saw last year in Afghanistan with the Shia Personal Status law which, among other discriminatory provisions, makes the husband the head of the household and gives him the right to restrict his wife's movements."

At the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in China, 189 governments adopted the Beijing Platform for Action which, among other things, urged U.N. member states to abolish discriminatory legislation in their statute books.

The 45-member CSW, a U.N. body dedicated exclusively to gender equality and the advancement of women, will next week assess the successes and failures of the Platform for Action.

Dr. Rawwida Baksh, programme leader of the Women's Rights and Citizenship Programme at the Ottawa-based International Development Research Centre (IDRC), told IPS that this year's CSW session marks the 15th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action.

She pointed out that the Beijing conference was the largest global gathering of its kind, in which over 40,000 women and men participated.

The 12 key themes within the Beijing Platform for Action have been part of the agendas of governments, civil society and other agencies in the 15 years since.

They include fundamental issues of women's and girls' poverty and human rights, their unequal access to education, health and political decision-making, and the daily violence they face, particularly in situations of war and armed conflict.

Since the Beijing conference, new issues have emerged on the world stage that are critical to women's rights and gender equality, including HIV/AIDS and other pandemics, climate change and food insecurity, and the current global economic crisis, said Baksh.

However, despite significant advances, the current global economic crisis has revealed stark evidence of the gender-differentiated impact of the crisis, and women's economic vulnerability, she pointed out.

"In the wake of the continuing fallout from the crisis, many voices are calling for a drastic shift in the economic reasoning, measures, and triggers that define economic policy at the national, regional and international levels," Baksh declared.

IDRC says it has a particular interest in women's political representation in national and local governance, in order for governments to become more accountable to women and for public policies and national budgets to respond to women's specific needs, in relation to childcare, water and sanitation, health, education and employment.

In addition, Baksh said, women need to be more equally represented in order to reflect the actual composition of societies and to ensure that their diverse and specific experiences are taken into account, including poor women, dalit women, indigenous women, women from ethnic minorities, young women, migrant women and disabled women.

In 1995, she said, women made up a dismal 10.5 percent of the world's parliamentarians, and in the 15 years since Beijing, women still comprise less than 20 percent.

IDRC will use the opportunity of this year's CSW to launch a new global research initiative on democratic governance, women's rights and gender equality which will support Southern-based researchers to investigate women's political citizenship and how democratic governance systems respond to women's rights, needs and priorities.

Bien-Aime of Equality Now told IPS, "It is often said out loud that if drafted in 2010, the formidable blueprint that is the Beijing Platform for Action could probably not have been successfully negotiated today because of the growth of religious fundamentalism and the push to preserve harmful practices against women under the guise of so-called culture."

While this is a disturbing statement, the Platform for Action nevertheless remains a powerful mandate for governments, with increased pressure and collaboration with civil society, to exercise political will and uphold the rights of the majority of their citizens.

Also, the grassroots and global women's movements have played an unprecedented role in the past two decades in persuading governments that the only path toward economic development, eradication of poverty, environmental safety, fulfillment of human rights and peace is through the empowerment of women and the protection of their rights, she added.

"One of the most commanding results of the Beijing Platform for Action is that it gave a blueprint for civil society focusing on women's rights to put pressure on their respective governments to reach those goals and fully commit to the pledges they've made," Bien-Aime declared.
Read more in TerraViva-Europe

HELP: Woman JP Candidate in Texas Challenged in Court by Billionaire Banker

2010-02-08T17:11:00.006-06:00

By Faith Chatham - Feb. 12, 2010
The right to compete and let the voters decide has been skewed by influence money. Now in Tarrant County, an independently wealthy candidate is using his ability to out-sue, out litigate, out spend on attorney's fees to chase his opponents out of the primary and/or drain-dry the resources of opponents.

Richard (Dick) N. Abrams filed for Justice of the Peace, Pct.6 in South Fort Worth against two other Democratic opponents. He challenged the petitions of his opponents claiming that all spaces on the form were not filled in or were incorrect. Abrams threatened to sue his opponents and the County Chair if the county chair did not remove their names from the primary ballot. One opponent, John Williams, was disqualified for filing for more than one office. Tarrant County Democratic Chair Steve Maxwell reviewed the challenge and ruled that Ms. Brooks had sufficient valid signatures of registered voters in the precinct to remain on the ballot. Abrams filed a law suit in Tarrant County District Court against Maxwell and Brooks, seeking and injunction to keep her name off the Primary Ballot and all his court costs and legal fees. All judges in Fort Worth are Republicans.

"It is absurd," said Harriet Irby, Ms. Brooks' treasurer. "I don't understand why a Democratic candidate would do this. There are no Democratic judges in Tarrant County. This matter will be settled in a Republican judge's courtroom. He knew that when he filed this suit!" She added: "He seems to be someone who likes to file lawsuits and has plenty of money to easily pay the legal costs. There are a number of them filed by him in recent months. He seems to win about half of them."

There are court records to support Irby's impression of Abrams. He sued Unity Mutual Life Insurance Company over what he claimed was a hand-shake agreement for commissions. When the ruling was that hand-shake agreements ae unenforceable, he appealed it from the U.S. Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division No 99 C 3182 to the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. All rulings were that his alleged hand-shake agreement for commission on preneed funerals were non-enforceable.

Abrams' lawsuit against Tarrant County Democratic Chair Steve Maxwell and his opponent, Roy LaVerne Brooks, is worded to indicate intentions of appealing any decision which does not remove Ms. Brooks' name from the Democratic Primary Ballot all the way to the Texas Supreme Court (another all Republican body).

Mr. Abrams has established a pattern of using his financial prowess to threaten costly legal action in attempts to intimidate less affluent citizens from exercising their constitutional right to run for public office. At each stage, he threatens further legal battles. In the brief filed by his attorney in Tarrant County District Court further threats of lawsuits and costs if he does not win are included in # 4 on the last page: "Abrams' reasonable and necessary attorney's fees incurred through trial and through any appeal taken to the court of appeals and/or the Texas Supreme Court, as permitted by Chapter 37 of the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgements Act, or as otherwise recoverable by contract, common law and/or statue;"
and "#5. Prejudgement and post-judgement interest, if any , as provided by law;"
and "#6. All cost of suit;"
and "#7. Such other and further relief, special or general, legal or equitable, to which Abrams may show himself to be justly entitled."

NEED TO STEP-UP LATE PRIMARY FUND-RAISING EFFORT

Roy LaVerne Brooks, former Vice Chair of the Texas Democratic Party, is a candidate for Justice of the Peace, Pct. 6 in Tarrant County. Roy's vision is to partner with the community to help prevent some of the situations which bring people into the JP Court. One of her opponents, a billionaire and C.E.O. of Surety Bank, filed a challenge on all of his opponents seeking to get their names removed from the ballot. Abrams alleges that they did not have enough valid signatures on their petitions. One candidate withdrew rather than to fight legal challenges.

The challenge against Roy LaVerne was reviewed by the Tarrant County Democratic Chair. The ruling was that she had sufficient names on her petition of registered voters in the precinct and her name remains on the ballot. Mr. Abrams was not satisfied with that ruling and threatened to sue the party chair and Roy LaVerne. He filed suit in District Court, asking for an injunction to keep Roy's name off the ballot and asking that she pay all his court costs should she lose. Since all judges in Tarrant County are Republicans, he knew that this Democratic Party election case would be tried in a Republican judge's courtroom. Due to snow on the original court date, Fri. Feb. 12th, the hearing has been rescheduled for Friday, Feb. 20, 12 noon in Room 236 of the Tim Curry Court Bldg. in Fort Worth.

In addition to Get Out the Vote and other campaign expense, she is now forced to hire an attorney to defend her right to run for office. Unlike her opponent, Roy LaVerne Brooks is not a woman of independent wealth. She is a hard-working Democratic activist, community organizer, who is employed as a hospice counselor.

Mr. Abrams has the right to pursue legal means, as do all citizens. He is not the only Tarrant County JP candidate to challenge his opponent this year. He is the JP candidate who has already filed lawsuits and refused to accept the ruling of the court this year. He is the one who said he'd sue instead of mediate and whose brief asks the court to have his opponent pay his cost up to and through appeals to the Texas Supreme Court if she loses. He is the candidate whose substantial wealth dwarfs that of his opponent. Just because he has the right to sue and the means to doesn't mean that suing is the right thing to do, or that it is fair for him to. Bigger, stronger "kids" can tell a weaker one what they can do and what they have done. It's intimidating when someone with a history of taking things to the mat has many more resources to arm and fight than you do. When you do something to show your strength to intimidate instead of seeking a fair resolution, that is bullying.

She has strong name recognition in the district and years of community service/activism. Many believe that Mr. Abrams knows that she will probably beat him if the election is fair and if she is given an equal opportunity to take it to the voters. He prefers to bully and sue his way, to attempt to keep his opponent enmeshed in court, attorney's offices and in last minute fundraising to pay court costs.

Mr. Abrams track-record in banking leaves questions about why he is pursuing election as Justice of the Peace. The Dallas Business Journal published an article about the sale of Surety Bank, a financial institution which Mr. Abrams served as C.E.O./C.O.B. from 2000-2007.

The former chairman of Surety Bank, Dick Abrams, remains one of the largest shareholders in Surety Capital Corp., Surety Bank's holding company.But he was barred in June by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency from engaging in banking and leading the holding company.
The number of shares owned by Abrams is in dispute, but Surety's bankruptcy filings describe Abrams as one of the corporation's largest shareholders and notes that his son, girlfriend and family trust are also significant shareholders. Abrams could not be reached for comment.
Abrams stepped down on Oct. 1 as Surety Capital Corp's chairman. Weiner, another shareholder in the bank, took that role on the condition that Abrams promise not to sue him, Weiner said.
Says Thompson: "He volunteered to do the job that nobody else wanted."
Since then, Weiner has focused on getting the institution sold and getting investors' money out of the institution.
Surety Capital Corp. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Dec. 21.

This Fund Raising Appeal in support of Roy LaVerne Brooks is an appeal to stand up for the right of ordinary Americans to run for public office.

It is an appeal to stand with her against a man who is trying to bully and harass his way onto the General Election ballot instead of campaigning and letting the voters decide.

This is an appeal to help her defend this case in court and defend the right of all citizens to exercise their civil right to participate in the democratic process which is the foundation of our American system.

This is an appeal to let the Voters' Decide who they want as the Democratic Nominee for Justice of the Peace, Pct. 6.

Contributions of ANY AMOUNT are welcome. We welcome contributions as small as your weekly coffee money or as large as you can afford. If you can join us Saturday and show Roy LaVerne that you stand with her, we welcome your presence at the tea.

Contributions can be made securely on-line at BROOKS FOR JP6

THIS IS A CASE OF "I'll Drain You Dry in Court If My Challenge Doesn't Result in You Being Thrown Off of The Ballot."
If Mr. Abrams had a pristine registered voters petition list, we might think he was fighting over principle. However, his petition has more incomplete boxes than Ms. Brooks and many more names of people who live outside the district. If he wins and gets her thrown off the ballot on the grounds he claims in his brief, a counter-suit on the same grounds should result in him being removed from the ballot.

His financial resources are greater than the two other candidates in the race. (John Williams withdrew rather than face the challenge by Richard Abrams.

In June 2000 Richard N. Abrams Richard N. Abrams, Northfield, Illinois filed with the F.D.I.C. to acquire additional voting shares of Surety Capital Corporation, Fort Worth, Texas, and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of Surety Bank, National Association, Fort Worth, Texas.

Surety had problems with the S.E.C. In the Sept. 12, 2001 Share Holder's Report Richard N. Abrams, C.E.O. wrote:

We entered into a formal agreement with the Office of the Controller of Currency in November, 1998. This Formal Agreement still remains in place, although the bank is currently in compliance with all requirements. Hopefully, we will be operating without this Formal Agreement next time I address the shareholders. However, due to the Formal Agreement, the bank can not pay dividends to the holding company. Therefore, we are unable to meet the holding company's financial obligations, i.e., debenture interest and operating expenses. I have guaranteed these payments for 2001. All loans made for this purpose are evidenced by a note payable which is convertible into stock of the holding company at $0.36 per share.

In return for meeting the Holding Company's obligations, Mr. Abrams and the board granted him (them) generous stock options. Surety's 2001 Stock Holder's Report showed Richard N. Abrams, age 60, as a Chairman of the Board, Director and C.E.O. since 2000. His bio at that time was:

RICHARD N. ABRAMS has served as a director of Surety Capital since May 2000 and was named Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer in March 2001. He has served as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Funeral Financial Systems, Ltd. (a special purpose finance company that specializes in the funeral industry) since August 1985, and of Executive Offices, Ltd. (a shared office building) since October 1986. Mr. Abrams has also served as Chairman of the Board of FuneraLeasing, Ltd. (a leasing company that specializes in the funeral industry) since December 1998. Mr. Abrams is a certified public accountant. Mr. Abrams has served as a director of Surety Bank since March 2000.

It baffles many who are watching this race. Why would a man with Richard Abrams financial interest run for Justice of the Peace??? Few can envision him actually sitting in a Justice of the Peace courtroom five days a week listening to truancy and eviction cases? Why is he doing this?

Abrams grabs power in troubled by exercising stock options.
His relative, Rodney Abrams, also increased his bank stock.

Following an S.E.C. investigation on Surety Holding's insurance division, this notice was sent to Surety Bank Stock Holders (signed by Richard N. Abrams, C.E.O.):

We entered into a formal agreement with the Office of the Controller of Currency in November, 1998. This Formal Agreement still remains in place, although the bank is currently in compliance with all requirements. Hopefully, we will be operating without this Formal Agreement next time I address the shareholders. However, due to the Formal Agreement, the bank can not pay dividends to the holding company. Therefore, we are unable to meet the holding company's financial obligations, i.e., debenture interest and operating expenses. I have guaranteed these payments for 2001. All loans made for this purpose are evidenced by a note payable which is convertible into stock of the holding company at $0.36 per share.

Mr. Abrams acquired an option on stock at a fixed $0.36 per share which he could exercise after the price of the stock rose.

COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS

Surety Capital's and Surety Bank's board of directors consist of the same members and both organizations hold meetings on the same dates. In 2000, the bank paid each director $500 for each bank meeting attended. In 2001, the cash compensation was stopped and each outside director now will receive 2,000 shares of unregistered common stock for each board meeting attended and 1,000 shares for each committee meeting attended.

We have adopted the 1996 Stock Option Plan for Directors and the 1997 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors. Under the 1996 and 1997 Directors Plans, an aggregate of 250,000 shares of our common stock were set aside for issuance pursuant to the exercise of options granted thereunder. The 1996 Directors Plan is a formula plan pursuant to which annual options are automatically granted to our directors who are not our employees at fair market value. All options under the 1996 Directors Plan are non-qualified stock options, and vest one year following the date of grant. On the first business day of each calendar year, each non-employee director is automatically granted an option to purchase 2,000 shares of our common stock at 100% of fair market value on the grant date.

2000, each non-employee director received an option to purchase 2,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.74 per share. The 1997 Directors Plan provided for the one time grant of 25,000 non-qualified stock options to directors who were not employees at fair market value. In 1997, each non-employee director received an option to purchase 25,000 shares of our common stock at exercise prices ranging from $4.18 to $5.375 per share. These options vest over five years.

We also adopted the 2000 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for advisory directors. Under the provisions of the plan, 100,000 shares were allocated for non-qualified stock options to advisory directors. Grantees are awarded 10-year options to acquire shares at the market price on the date the option is granted. The options vest and become fully exercisable based on a vesting schedule as determined by the compensation committee on the date of grant. On November 6, 2000, grantees were awarded options to acquire 28,000 shares of our common stock at $0.55 per share, which vest and become fully exercisable on November 6, 2001.

Abrams capitalized on the bank's situation:

In addition, in consideration for the extraordinary time and effort the members of the board of directors have given to the company and the bank, various members of the board were awarded shares of unregistered common stock at the August, 2001 board meeting. The awards were as follows: Mr. Abrams received 400,000 shares, Mr. Chappell received 60,000 shares, Mr. Bley received 30,000 shares, Mr. Kwentus received 15,000 shares and Mr. Morris received 10,000 shares. Mr. Abrams also received shares of restricted stock which will vest upon certain events. Pursuant to the grant, Mr. Abrams will receive 300,000 shares of common stock when the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency terminates the formal agreement entered into by Surety Bank prior to Mr. Abrams' affiliation; 200,000 shares if he remains as the Chief Executive Officer until the end of the 2002 fiscal year; and he will receive one share of common stock for every $3.00 of net profit realized by Surety Bank, as determined on a quarterly basis with a maximum of 400,000 shares over any two year period.

The following table shows beneficial ownership of shares of our common stock by all current directors, nominees for director and named executive officers individually, and together with all current executive officers of the Company as a group, as of August 28, 2001:

Amount and
Name of Individual Nature of
or Number of Beneficial Percent
Persons In Group Ownership (1) of Class (2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard N. Abrams 1,266,744(3) 16.2%

Charles M. Ireland 44,583(4) *

Garrett Morris 166,749(5) 2.2%

David F. Chappell 115,555(6) 1.5%

Thomas J. Kwentus 17,777 *

Guy J. Butts 0 --

Milton M. Bley 99,000(7) 1.1%

All directors and 1,710,408(8) 21.6%
executive officers as
a group (7 persons

-------------------- * Less than 1% of all the issued and outstanding shares of common stock.

(2) Based on 7,624,511 shares of common stock issued and outstanding at August 28, 2001, as adjusted for shares convertible or exercisable within sixty (60) days which are deemed outstanding for a specific stockholder pursuant to Rule 13d-3(d)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

(3) Includes 184,444 shares of common stock which are convertible from notes and 2,000 shares which Mr. Abrams has the right to acquire within sixty (60) days from the date hereof. Also includes 65,100 shares owned by Funeral Financial Systems, Ltd., a company under the control of Mr. Abrams. Does not include the restricted stock described on page 5.

(4) Includes 33,333 shares of common stock which Mr. Ireland has the right to acquire within sixty (60) days from the date hereof.

(5) Includes 19,000 shares of common stock which Mr. Morris has the right to acquire within sixty (60) days from the date hereof.

(6) Includes 55,000 shares of common stock which Mr. Chappell has the right to acquire within sixty (60) days from the date hereof.

The following table sets forth certain information with respect to our stockholders who were known to be beneficial owners of more than five percent (5%) of the issued and outstanding shares of the common stock as of August 28, 2001, except for Richard N. Abrams, whose ownership interest is disclosed in the preceding table.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name and Address Amount and Nature Percent
of Beneficial Owner of Beneficial of Class(2)
Ownership(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlson Capital, L.P. (3) 519,300 6.8%
301 Commerce Street, Suite 3300
Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Pine Capital Management, Incorporated(4) 528,647 6.9%
353 Sacramento Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111

Cullen W. Turner(5) 471,377 6.2%

Rodney A. Abrams(6) 575,055 7.5%

With his relative, Rodney Abrams' shares, Richard N. Abrams controlled more Surety stock than the rest of the board combined by August 2001

Questions about his employment status

In January and February 2007 he made Federal Campaign contributions and listed "retired" as his employment status on the donor cards. In March 2007 he lists CEO Mortuary Financial on another Federal Campaign donor card. On June 11, 2007 the Comptroller of the Currency issued a cease and desist order to Surety Bank, National Association, Fort Worth, Richard N. Abrams, C.E.O.

S.E.C. Investigations and Cease and Desist Orders
In 2001, Surety's S.E.C. difficulties were attributed to his predecessor. However, in 2007 when Surety was issued a Cease and Desist Order by the Comptroller of the Currency, Richard N. Abrams has been at the helm of Surety Bank of Fort Worth and Surety Holding for seven years. Difficulties could no longer be attributed to any failure of leadership other than his own. He was the major stockholder and controlled more voting shares than any other member of the Board.

Dear Lord,

2010-01-11T09:51:00.003-06:00

Every single evening
As I'm lying here in bed,
This tiny little Prayer
Keeps running through my head:

God bless all my family
Wherever they may be,
Keep them warm
And safe from harm
For they're so close to me..

And God, there is one more thing
I wish that you could do;
Hope you don't mind me asking,
Please bless my computer too.

Now I know that it's unusual
To Bless a motherboard,
But listen just a second
While I explain it to you, Lord.

You see, that little metal box
Holds more than odds and ends;
Inside those small compartments
Rest so many of my friends.

I know so much about them
By the kindness that they give,
And this little scrap of metal
Takes me in to where they live.

By faith is how I know them
Much the same as you..
We share in what life brings us
And from that our friendships grew.

Please take an extra minute
From your duties up above,
To bless those in my address book
That's filled with so much love.

Wherever else this prayer may reach
To each and every friend,
Bless each e-mail inbox
And each person who hits 'send'.

When you update your Heavenly list
On your own Great CD-ROM,
Bless everyone who says this prayer
Sent up to GOD.Com

Clinton: ‘Absurd’ to call me marginalized

2009-10-12T09:42:00.004-05:00

Says she ‘believes in delegating power’; rules out another presidential run

By Mike Celizic - TODAYShow.com contributor - Oct. 12, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton scoffed Monday at suggestions that she has been “largely invisible” on major foreign policy issues in the Obama White House, and said that she has no interest in another run at the White House.

In an interview with TODAY’s Ann Curry, Clinton responded to a Washington Post story that said,

“She is largely invisible on the big issues that dominate the foreign policy agenda. Including Afghanistan and Iran."

After reading that quote aloud, Curry asked,

“What do you say to people who are concerned that you have been marginalized?”

“I find it absurd,” Clinton said. “I find it beyond any realistic assessment of what I'm doing every day ... Maybe there is some misunderstanding, which needs to be clarified.”

Clinton labeled the statement a misperception of how she operates.

“I believe in delegating power,” Clinton said. “I'm not one of these people who feels like I have to have my face in the front of the newspaper or on the TV every moment of the day. I would be irresponsible and negligent were I to say, ‘Oh, no. Everything must come to me.’ Now, maybe that is a woman's thing. Maybe I'm totally secure and feel absolutely no need to go running around in order for people to see what I'm doing. It's just the way I am. My goal is to be a very positive force to implement the kind of changes that the president and I believe are in the best interest of our country.”

No more presidential aspirations
Clinton made the comments in the prerecorded interview before departing on a five-day overseas tour that has seen her speak out on Iran’s nuclear ambitions in Switzerland. On Sunday she was in Britain, where she warned Iran that the world "will not wait indefinitely" for proof that it is not trying to develop atomic weapons.

On Monday Clinton urged the rival leaders of Northern Ireland's power-sharing government Monday to keep making their awkward coalition work for the sake of lasting peace. In an address to the Northern Ireland Assembly, with Irish Catholics to her left and British Protestants to her right, Clinton said they should take the next critical step in cooperation — running the police and justice system together — as the best way to defeat Irish Republican Army dissidents still plotting bloodshed. Protestant leaders are blocking the move.

Curry also asked Clinton whether she ever wishes her presidential bid had been successful so that she could be making the decisions instead of carrying out President Obama’s policies.

“I have to tell you, it never crosses my mind,” Clinton said

“Will you ever run for president again?” Curry asked.

“No,” Clinton said with a laugh. “This is a great job. It is a 24/7 job. And I'm looking forward to retirement at some point. “

Clinton said she thinks President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because of "his attitude toward America's role in the world."

"His willingness to really kind of challenge everyone ... restores a kind of image and appreciation of our country," Clinton said.

Clinton added that she didn't think winning the award would have any effect on Obama's deliberations over what to do next in Afghanistan, including the question of whether to send large numbers of additional troops into a country where violence has recently surged.

"I think that the president makes each decision on the merits," she said in the interview taped during her visit to Switzerland. She said the Nobel award is "not going to influence" the tough decisions Obama faces on Afghanistan.

"Every one of those deaths and all of the injuries of any our men and women in uniform weigh heavily on all us," Clinton said. "I want to guarantee all your listeners that this process will result in a very well thought-out approach."

She said that she recognizes that some are demanding a quick withdrawal, while others believe there should be a substantial infusion of forces.

"Neither extreme is really focused on the situation, as we are," Clinton said.

Clinton’s five-day overseas tour next takes her to Moscow.

The Associated Press contributed reporting to this story.
Read more in TodayShow.com

It's 3 a.m. Do You Know Where Hillary Clinton Is? She's not answering those crisis calls at the White House. But she's quietly revolutionizing America

2009-08-24T23:58:00.003-05:00

By David Rothkopf - The Washington Post - Sunday, August 23, 2009
When it comes to Hillary Rodham Clinton, we're missing the forest for the pantsuits.
Clinton is not the first celebrity to become the nation's top diplomat -- that honor goes to her most distant predecessor, Thomas Jefferson, who by the time he took office was one of the most famous and gossiped-about men in America -- but she may be the biggest. And during her first seven months in office, the former first lady, erstwhile presidential candidate and eternal lightning rod has drawn more attention for her moods, looks, outtakes and (of course) relationship with her husband than for, well, her work revamping the nation's foreign policy.

Even venerable publications -- such as one to which I regularly contribute, Foreign Policy -- have woven into their all-Hillary-all-the-time coverage odd discussions of Clinton's handbag and scarf choices. Daily Beast editor Tina Brown, while depicting herself as a Clinton supporter, has been scathing and small-minded in discussing such things as Clinton's weight and hair, while her "defense" of Hillary in her essay "Obama's Other Wife" was as sexist as the title suggests.

Indeed, sexism has followed Clinton from the campaign trail to Foggy Bottom, as seen most recently in the posturing outrage surrounding the exchange in Congo when Clinton reacted with understandable frustration to the now-infamous question regarding her husband's views. Major media outlets have joined the gossipfest, whether the New York Times, which covered Clinton's first big policy speech by discussing whether she was in or out with the White House, or The Washington Post, where a couple of reporters mused about whether a brew called Mad Bitch would be the beer of choice for the secretary of state.

Amid all the distractions, what is Clinton actually doing? Only overseeing what may be the most profound changes in U.S. foreign policy in two decades -- a transformation that may render the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush mere side notes in a long transition to a meaningful post-Cold War worldview.

The secretary has quietly begun rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision into a revitalized State Department, one that approaches U.S. allies and rivals in ways that challenge long-held traditions. And despite the pessimists who invoked the "team of rivals" cliche to predict that President Obama and Clinton would not get along, Hillary has defined a role for herself in the Obamaverse: often bad cop to his good cop, spine stiffener when it comes to tough adversaries and nurturer of new strategies. Recognizing that the 3 a.m. phone calls are going to the White House, she is instead tackling the tough questions that, since the end of the Cold War, have kept America's leaders awake all night.

In these early days of the new administration, it has been easy to focus on what Clinton has not achieved or on ways in which her power has been supposedly constrained. Indeed, some of her efforts have been frustrated by difficult personnel approvals or disputes with the White House about who should get what jobs. But this is the way of all administrations. More unusual has been the avidity with which the new president has seized the reins of foreign policy -- more assertively than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton before him. Obama's centrality amplifies the importance of his closest White House staffers, while his penchant for appointing special envoys such as Richard Holbrooke (on Afghanistan and Pakistan) and George Mitchell (on the Middle East) has been interpreted by some as limiting Clinton's role.

Given the challenges involved, it was perhaps natural that the White House would have a bigger day-to-day hand in some of the nation's most urgent foreign policy issues. But with Obama, national security adviser Jim Jones, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates absorbed by Iraq, Afghanistan and other inherited problems of the recent past, Clinton's State Department can take on a bigger role in tackling the problems of the future -- in particular, how America will lead the world in the century ahead. This approach is both necessary and canny: It recognizes that U.S. policy must change to fulfill Obama's vision and that many high-profile issues such as those of the Middle East have often swamped the careers and aspirations of secretaries of state past.

Which nations will be our key partners? What do you do when many vital partners -- China, for example, and Russia -- are rivals as well? How must America's alliances change as NATO is stretched to the limit? How do we engage with rogue states and old enemies in ways that do not strengthen them and preserve our prerogative to challenge threats? How do we move beyond the diplomacy of men in striped pants speaking only for governments and embrace potent nonstate players and once-disenfranchised peoples?

In searching for answers, Clinton is leaving behind old doctrines and labels. She outlined her new thinking in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, where she revealed stark differences between the new administration's worldview and those of its predecessors: The recurring themes include "partnership" and "engagement" and "common interests." Clearly, Madeleine Albright's "indispensable nation" has recognized the indispensability of collaborating with others.

Who those "others" are is the area in which change has been greatest and most rapid. "We will put," Clinton said, "special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers -- China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia and South Africa -- to be full partners in tackling the global agenda." This is the death knell for the G-8 as the head table of the global community; the administration has an effort underway to determine whether the successor to the G-8 will be the G-20, or perhaps some other grouping. Though the move away from the G-8 began in the waning days of the Bush era, that administration viewed the world through a different lens, a perception that evolved from a traditional great-power view to a pre-Galilean notion that everything revolved around the world's sole superpower.

Obama and Clinton have both made engaging with emerging powers a priority. Obama visited Russia earlier this year and will host Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his first state dinner in November. Clinton has made trips to China and India, and she would have been with Obama in Russia had she not injured her elbow. Both have visited Africa and the Middle East, reaching out to women and the Islamic world.

On many critical agenda items -- from a rollback of nuclear weapons to the climate or trade talks -- such emerging powers will be essential to achieving U.S. goals. As a result, we've seen a new American willingness to play down old differences, whether with Russia on a missile shield or, as Clinton showed on her China trip, with Beijing on human rights.

At the center of Clinton's brain trust is Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Now head of policy planning at the State Department, Slaughter elaborated on the ideas in Clinton's speech. "We envision getting not just a new group of states around a table, but also building networks, coalitions and partnerships of states and nonstate actors to tackle specific problems," she told me.

"To do that," Slaughter continued, "our diplomats are going to need to have skills that are closer to community organizing than traditional reporting and analysis. New connecting technologies will be vital tools in this kind of diplomacy."

A new team has been brought in to make these changes real. Clinton recruited Alec Ross, one of the leaders of Obama's technology policy team, to the seventh floor of the State Department as her senior adviser for innovation. His mission is to harness new information tools to advance U.S. interests -- a task made easier as the Internet and mobile networks have played starring roles in recent incidents, from Iran to the Uighur uprising in western China to Moldova. Whether through a telecommunications program in Congo to protect women from violence or text messaging to raise money for Pakistani refugees in the Swat Valley, technology has been deployed to reach new audiences.

Of course, you need more than new ideas to revitalize the State Department; you need resources, too. The secretary has brought in former Bill Clinton-era budget chief Jack Lew to help her claw back money for statecraft that many in Foggy Bottom feel has been sucked off toward the Pentagon. She has also created special positions to back new priorities, such as Melanne Verveer as ambassador at large for women's issues, Elizabeth Bagley to handle public-private outreach worldwide and Todd Stern as the chief negotiator on climate.

Even just a few months in, it's clear that these appointments are far from window dressing. Lew, Slaughter and the acting head of the U.S. Agency for International Development are leading an effort to rethink foreign aid with the new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, an initiative modeled on the Pentagon's strategic assessments and designed to review State's priorities. Stern has conducted high-level discussions on climate change around the world, notably with China. Clinton made women's issues a centerpiece of her recent 11-day trip to Africa, where she stressed that "the social, political and economic marginalization of women across Africa has left a void in this continent that undermines progress and prosperity."

Clinton has also signaled the importance of private-sector experience by naming former Goldman Sachs International vice chairman Robert Hormats, a respected veteran of four administrations, to handle economic issues at the State Department, as well as Judith McHale, former chief executive of Discovery Communications, to run public diplomacy. In the same vein, she has opened up Cuba to American telecommunications companies and reached out to India's private sector on energy cooperation -- showing that this administration will seek to advance national interests by tapping the self-interests of the business community. As with any new administration, there have been inevitable problems. The old campaign teams -- Clinton's and Obama's -- still eye each other warily, but this feeling is gradually fading. And by most accounts, the administration's national security team has come together successfully, with Clinton developing strong relationships with national security adviser Jones and Defense Secretary Gates. Her policy deputy, Jim Steinberg, has renewed an old collaboration with deputy national security adviser Tom Donilon; the two of them, working with Obama campaign foreign policy advisers Denis McDonough and Mark Lippert, have formed what one State Department seventh-floor dweller called "a powerful quartet at the heart of real interagency policymaking." Henry Kissinger may have overstated matters when he said this is the best White House-State relationship in recent memory, but it's not bad, while the State-Pentagon relationship is in its best shape in decades.

At the heart of things, though, is the relationship between Clinton and Obama. For all the administration's talk of international partnerships, that may be the most critical partnership of all.

So far, according to multiple high-level officials at State and the White House, the two seem aligned in their views. In addition, they are gradually defining complementary roles. Obama has assumed the role of principal spokesperson on foreign policy, as international audiences welcome his new and improved American brand. Clinton thus far has echoed his points but has also delivered tougher ones. Whether on a missile shield against Iran or North Korean saber-rattling, the continued imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma or rape and corruption in Congo, the secretary of state has spoken bluntly on the world stage -- even if it triggered snide comments from North Korea.

It is still early, and a president's foreign policy legacy is often defined less by big principles than by how one reacts to the unexpected, whether missiles in Cuba or terrorism in New York. Promising ideas fail because of limited attention or reluctant bureaucracies, and some rhetoric eventually rings hollow, as the self-congratulatory "smart power" already does to me.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that, seven months into the job, Obama's unlikely secretary of state is supporting and augmenting his agenda effectively. Not as Obama's "other wife," not as Bill Clinton's wife, not even as a celebrity or as a former presidential candidate -- but in a new role of her own making.

drothkopf@carnegieendowment.org

David Rothkopf is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of "Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making" and "Running the World: The Inside Story of the NSC and the Architects of American Power." He will be online to chat with readers Monday at 11 a.m. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.

Read more in the Washington Post

WOMEN: DUBAI, NEW DESTINATION ON TRAFFICKING MAP

2009-06-30T11:12:00.007-05:00

By Claudia Ciobanu - Terraviva EUROPE - Tuesday, 30 June 2009

BUCHAREST (IPS) - On May 26, the U.S.-based Center for Investigative Reporting published 'The Price of Sex', a vast multi-media project by photojournalist Mimi Chakarova who spent nearly seven years doggedly unraveling the web of sex trafficking.

Chakarova has charted hundreds of journeys across countries in Europe and to the tiny emirate of Dubai in the Gulf, where the sex trade is booming, seemingly condoned by authorities, according to a rights activist. The Bulgarian photojournalist currently lives and works in the U.S.

"I wanted to address the complexity of trafficking, how it works, and how deeply it breaks the human spirit," the photojournalist told IPS in a detailed email interview about her work - a series of many videos, photos and text. "The impact I hope to achieve is first and foremost to inform and educate my viewers."

"Ultimately, the viewers can make a decision whether they want to take the next step and help," she says. "My goal has been to find a way to connect non-governmental organisations that work with trafficked women with those who want to make a difference. Launching www.priceofsex.org was all about linking the two in addition to storytelling."

Chakarova's work sensitively presents the tragic stories of women from countries such as Moldova or the Ukraine sold into brutal sexual slavery often by neighbours or acquaintances. The few women who manage to escape find themselves facing not only serious health issues or psychological trauma, but also the social stigma associated with having worked as sex workers.

One of the young women interviewed by Chakarova, Jenea, from a small village in southern Moldova, was sold into prostitution by a neighbour who had promised to help her get a job in Moscow. At 18, Jenea found herself locked in a hotel room in Turkey, forced to sleep with as many as 50 men on some days. She escaped after one year.

Back in her village, she now lives in a two-room house with her sister and niece, unable to find a job because of prejudice, and health problems - incontinence, a direct result of the sexual abuse suffered in Turkey.

"It would have been better for me not to have been born," Jenea says softly, on camera.

Chakarova's research certainly goes further than telling the terrible stories of trafficked women. The detailed personal accounts highlight the problems that need to be addressed if sex trafficking is to be controlled. Poverty emerges time and again as the main cause in each of her stories.

"Why do young people have to go somewhere else to work?" asks the desperate father of Natasha, a young Ukrainian woman who together with her 13-year-old daughter, would be considered as very vulnerable to being tricked into sex work. "Here we don't live, here we just exist," he tells Chakarova. The father pins the responsibility for the widespread poverty in his country on the closing down of factories after the collapse of state socialism in Eastern Europe after 1989.

According to the photojournalist, it is crucial to inform and educate the women who are potential victims of trafficking, about the risks associated with going abroad in search of new opportunities. "Education is the biggest and most important step, in my opinion," she emailed IPS.

The project establishes the close links between authorities and traffickers that is crucial to keeping the sex trade going. Aurica, a Moldavian, tells of how when she managed to escape from pimps in Turkey, it was the local police who returned her to them, and even tried to have sex with her.

Chakarova pursued the trails of the sex trade to rich Dubai, one of the seven United Arab Emirates which has undergone explosive oil-fuelled development over the last few years. The massive presence of male foreigners, attracted by the job opportunities in Dubai, is considered the main cause for the high demand for sex workers there.

"We are an extremely globalised place with minimal regulations, and this is where it is exploited," an unidentified human rights activist from Dubai says in an interview. "And our legal system isn't really growing fast enough to catch up, because our government is scared of regulating, in case it turns off business and development."

According to the U.S. State Department, up to 10,000 women from all over the world are being forced into prostitution in Dubai. As Chakarova's report indicates, the number of women selling sex voluntarily in Dubai is much higher.

In her documentary on Dubai, 'Night Secrets', the photojournalist contrasts the apparent social conservatism in the Muslim emirate with the wide availability of information on popular clubs for picking up sex workers and the price ranges, from 150 euros per night for Asian women to a bit more for African and Eastern Europeans, and up to 1,000 euros for Middle Eastern women.

The high prices paid for sexual services in Dubai mean that many women are in the trade voluntarily.

"Some women choose to sell their bodies. And some are forced into it and then they choose to stay because they have nothing to return to," Chakarova told IPS.

"If you were sold to a pimp or a madam who put you through a "break in" period during which men violated your body every 15 minutes, 24 hours a day, there is hardly anything left. A lot of women perceive themselves as dirty and unworthy of anything else after that!"

Much of the responsibility for the sexual abuse lies with the clients, thinks Chakarova.

"The men who purchase sex need to understand that not every woman they pay for is willing (to do what she does). If a woman is visibly bruised and locked in a room with blankets on the floor and bars on the window, she is hardly a willing participant."

"I am not naive to think that men will cease paying for sex," the photojournalist continues, "but I do hope that those who engage in this act would realise that they are equal contributors to one of the ugliest and darkest criminal industries in our time."

Just like in Turkey, trafficking in Dubai seems to be silently allowed, if not encouraged, by some of the authorities.

As she states at the end of the 'Night Secrets' documentary, the filming was not without risks. Chakarova's hotel room was ransacked on her last day in Dubai. None of the other rooms in the hotel were broken into, and the front desk initially refused to call the police.

Even more, as Chakarova's camera-woman was preparing to fly out of Dubai, the airport security confiscated all her tapes. "We had been watched and followed all the time," Chakarova observes.

"It was only after making a spectacle that they returned her tapes saying that they had mistaken her identity. Her luggage did not arrive until a month later, but a few of Dubai's night secrets did make it out," she admits, wryly. (END)
Read more in Terraviva EUROPE

NOW Activists Elect New President Terry O'Neill to Succeed Kim Gandy

2009-06-21T12:48:00.004-05:00

By N.O.W. - Indianapolis - June 20, 2009

This weekend members of the National Organization for Women (NOW) cast their votes for a new team of leaders to direct the largest grassroots feminist organization in the country over the next four years. NOW delegates elected Terry O'Neill, who served as the group's membership vice president from 2001 to 2005, to succeed President Kim Gandy.

Gandy will retire from her office on July 20 due to the organization's term limits; she has been a leader in NOW for 36 years, with 22 years of service at the national level, including the last eight as president.

"NOW is the organization that fights for the rights of all women no matter the circumstances of their birth, their race or sexual orientation, no matter if they live in poverty or are trying to escape violence," said NOW President-Elect Terry O'Neill. "My experience with domestic violence, as an abused wife left me humiliated and embarrassed. I only began to talk about this publically five years ago as I realized that to keep quiet was to continue the abuse. I want to empower women and telling my story does just that. Women are fed up with persistent inequality and are ready for change. I am honored and eager to lead NOW in making that change."

O'Neill cut her political teeth working to defeat David Duke's gubernatorial campaign in Louisiana. She went on to serve NOW at the local, state and national levels. As an attorney, she served a clerkship at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago before practicing law in New Orleans. She taught at the University of California Davis Law School and Tulane Law School. Currently, she is chief of staff to a Montgomery County (Md.) councilmember whose successes include a transgender equality law and Maryland's first Family Justice Center for survivors of domestic violence. O'Neill's national positions also include executive director of the National Council of Women's Organizations.

The other members of O'Neill's team are Bonnie Grabenhofer of IL, taking on the position of executive vice president; Erin Matson of MN, serving as action vice president; and Allendra Letsome of MD, incoming membership vice president..

Unlikely singing sensation eyes date with queen

2009-04-16T08:06:00.002-05:00

(CNN) -- Television and YouTube singing sensation Susan Boyle has promised to be on her best behaviour if she wins the right to sing for the queen.

The 47-year-old Boyle, who says she has never been kissed, was catapulted into the spotlight after her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" from the musical "Les Miserables," on the television show "Britain's Got Talent" at the weekend.

The winner of the show gets to sing for the queen at the Royal Variety Show.

Boyle has a long way to go though -- having just won through to the second round after judge Simon Cowell described her first performance as "extraordinary."

Still, she was already thinking of how she would behave.

"Whatever comes my way, I am ready. It would be lovely to sing for the queen. There would be less of the carry on from me, and more of the singing.

"She is a very regal lady, very nice, so I would be nice too, and just get up there and give it a bit of wellie (try)," Boyle told the show's Web site.

Boyle said she was trying to take her new found fame in her stride.

"It's a challenge. Life is a challenge sometimes but this is different. And I like to test myself.

"If it all gets too much and they lock me up, I want a great big strait-jacket with spots on it. A pink one... and a big zip on the back so I can escape."

A clip of Boyle's performance had more than 11 million views on YouTube by Thursday, and the world's media have beaten a path to her door in Blackburn, West Lothian, Scotland.

Cowell is reportedly already trying to piece together a record deal for Boyle, an unemployed charity worker, who lives with her cat, Pebbles.

For fans of Boyle, who attracted laughs and sniggers when she first appeared on stage before winning a standing ovation, the album cannot come quick enough.

CNN has been inundated with hundreds of messages of support for Boyle.

Simone said: "I've been so depressed all day but hearing this woman sing and reading her story gave me a pick-me-up... I look forward to hearing more of her and I hope to buy her CD as soon as it hits the shelves."

Cynthia wanted Cowell to move quickly.

"She brought tears to my eyes and a lump in my throat. I hope Simon does get her a record contract...I'll buy her CD. Never judge a book by it's cover. Susan Boyle, you go, girl!"

Jim described Boyle's talent as "unbelievable" and "beautiful."

"I wish Susan the very best in her new life and hopefully someone has put her under contract. Thank you for such a beautiful song."
advertisement

Larry wanted to offer Boyle a kiss.

"I have just heard you sing for the first time -- thanks to CNN -- and I must tell you this: You are a fabulous talent, simply amazing to me that no one took advantage of your voice and passion up until now. I am a happily married man, but if I were not, and if I was in the audience, I can guarantee you that I would ask for a kiss, and if you were gracious enough to indulge me, well that would have been one of the great highlights of my life. Looking forward to the first of many albums.
Read more in CNN

Clinton hits milestone in trying to clear campaign debt

2009-04-16T07:59:00.002-05:00

By Robert Yoon - CNN Political Research Director - Thurs., April 16, 2009

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reached an important milestone Wednesday in her quest to pay the debt from her failed 2008 presidential bid: For the first time in eight months, her campaign committee reported having more money in the bank than it owes.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's campaign committee reported owing $2.3 million in debt at the end of March.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's campaign committee reported owing $2.3 million in debt at the end of March.

On a day most Americans were preoccupied with filing their federal income taxes, Clinton's campaign committee filed finance documents with the Federal Election Commission, reporting a total of $2.3 million in debts at the end of March, compared with $2.6 million in the bank.

The nation's top diplomat has been steadily chipping away at unpaid campaign bills since suspending her White House bid in June 2008, when her debt peaked at $25.2 million. That amount covered $12 million owed to vendors, as well as the $13.2 million she loaned her campaign from personal funds.

Clinton's campaign was unable to repay that personal loan by the time the Democratic National Convention convened in Denver, Colorado, last August, the deadline mandated by the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The former New York senator was forced to forgive the entire loan amount.

Her campaign owed $6.4 million to 16 creditors at the end of November; $5.9 million to five creditors at the end of December; and the current $2.3 million owed to just one creditor at the end of March. That creditor is Penn, Schoen & Berland, a political consulting and polling firm that advised Clinton during her presidential bid. The firm's president, Mark Penn, was Clinton's senior campaign strategist until he stepped down last April amid revelations that he had lobbied on behalf of Colombia for a U.S.-Colombia trade deal that Clinton opposed. Penn remained involved with the campaign.

Earlier this year, Clinton and her supporters raced to pay as much of the debt as possible by the time she was confirmed and sworn in as the nation's 67th secretary of state on January 21. As of that date, Clinton became subject to a federal law known as the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from personally soliciting or accepting political contributions. The Hatch Act allows others to keep raising money on Clinton's behalf, without her direct involvement.

This week, longtime Clinton ally James Carville, a CNN contributor, sent a fundraising e-mail to Democrats on behalf of Clinton's campaign, requesting contributions of as little as $5 in exchange for a chance to win one of several prizes, including spending a day with former President Bill Clinton.

"I won't spend a lot of time trying to convince you to help Hillary," Carville e-mailed. "I know what she means to you, and I'm sure you know how important it is for her to have her campaign pay off all its obligations."

It's unclear whether the campaign will use the $2.6 million in the bank to clear its $2.3 million in debts in the short term. Continued fundraising indicates that it will not. Additional operating expenses and other outlays could emerge.

Any extra money from the campaign could be donated to political causes or returned to donors.

Clinton's campaign reported raising $938,000 in contributions in the first three months of 2009.

In addition to tapping traditional fundraising, the campaign also generated money by selling or renting various campaign assets to other organizations. It received $2.6 million from Clinton's "Friends of Hillary" U.S. Senate campaign committee for the sale of unspecified assets and an additional $2.2 million from renting out its lists of campaign supporters.

Organizations that have rented Clinton's lists include the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the inaugural committee of then-President-elect Barack Obama, and the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation. Those organizations each paid $274,297. Clinton's political action committee, HillPAC, rented the lists for $822,492.

Among the Democratic candidates who have rented Clinton's campaign lists are Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln; Virginia gubernatorial candidate and former Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe; New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who was appointed to fill Clinton's seat; and New York congressional candidate Scott Murphy, who hopes to succeed Gillibrand in the U.S. House.
Read more on CNNPolitics.com

2008-09-28T13:29:00.002-05:00

This is being posted now because accusations are still circulating by Barack Obama supporters who erronously cite the Hillary Clinton campaign for producing and distributing these DVDs. Research shows that the dvds were produced in 2006 by an organization independent comprised of the Hillary Clinton campaign. The funders are described as a group of "hard-line neo conservatives including some Israli diplomats."

The Republican Jewish Coalition has also distributed free copies of the film in promotional mailings to U.S. rabbis and other Jewish mailing lists. ... Jews on First reports that Obsession has been distributed by other highly partisan neocon/Islamophobic groups:

-- Richard Silversteen, Sept. 14th, 2008
NAKED CAPITALISM
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/09/neo-conisraeli-venture-behind-28.html

DISTRIBUTION THROUGH NEWSPAPERS:
Where the newspapers with Obsession inserts were delivered
A New York Times spokesperson, Diane McNulty, told JewsOnFirst that the paper included 145,000 copies of the DVD in home delivery packets on Sunday, September 7th. She said the one-time insert went into packets delivered in Denver, Detroit, Kansas City, St Louis, Cincinnati, Milwaukee and Madison, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and Miami, Palm Beach, Tampa and Orlando.

The Wall Street Journal, the Denver Post, the Miami Herald and the Detroit Free Press also delivered inserts of the Obsession DVD, according to the News & Observer.

Another 70,000 DVDs went to subscribers to the paper edition of the weekly Chronicle of Higher Education. The insert cost Clarion Fund $28,000, Chronicle Editor-in-Chief Phil Semas told JewsOnFirst. Asked why the Clarion Fund decided to advertise in his paper, Semas replied: "I assume they felt we were an influential audience." The Chronicle publishes reports of interest to educators and academic officials, some of whom might be affected by the campaign to show the video on campuses.

Who, what and where is the Clarion Fund?
Because it was established only recently, the Clarion Fund has not yet filed its first required disclosure (Form 990) with the IRS. It is not disclosing its officers.

The address Clarion used to satisfy the New York Times' requirement that political or opinion advertisements include the advertiser's contact information -- 255 West 36th St., Suite 800, in Manhattan -- turns out to be Grace Corporate Park Executive Suites, an office-space rental operation which also rents "virtual office identity packages" for as little as $75 a month.

The Clarion Fund's only previous known address was that of its incorporator, New York attorney Eli Greenberg, on Madison Avenue. Gregory Ross said the Fund was based in New York and California.

Ross described the fund's staff as "sizeable," but did not give a number. Ross said that Clarion Fund is involved in "three linked efforts: documentary films, online education and college outreach," including sending speakers to campuses.

He also said that Clarion will not disclose its donors' names. He described them as "private American individuals that span the political spectrum."
--by JewsOnFirst.org, September 14, 2008

Like many issue groups, donors are hiding behind current flawed legislations which shields donors of non-profit issue organizations from public disclosure. DFWRCC has spoken out consistently against shielding non-profit or educational groups from revealing their donors. There are groups on the left and groups on the right utilizing these rules and promoting issues which impact political campaigns. America is a country based on the foundation of freedom of speech. Promoting issues is a freedom of speech issue. Shielding who is financing and promoting the distribution of such speech is not something, however, that should be protected under Federal Law.

During the Democratic Primary, Obama campaign organizers claimed that the distribution was tied to the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now it is being attributed to the John McClain campaign. In fact, it is independent of either of those campaigns. Some of the content of the DVDs is scurrilious. It is also just as scurrilious to attribute the DVDs to political candidates /campaigns which did not organizate, finance or approve it.

"Watch Obsession" staff will be in St. Paul this week to promote the documentary "Obsession," a film exposing the dire threat of radical Islamic terrorism. Staff will be available for media interviews before and during the Republican National Convention September 1-4.

'Watch Obsession' to Discuss National Security at Republican National Convention
Documentary about radical Islam will challenge RNC to make national security top priority
News release, WatchObsession.org, via Christian Newswire, September 2, 2008
"National security is a key theme of the Republican National Convention," stated Tom Trento, director of the Watch Obsession Citizen Education Program. "We're here to help inform and educate Republican leaders about terrorism. Our leaders must have the courage to explain just how deadly the threat of radical Islamic terrorism is to our country." --- JewsonFirst

Friday, September 26, 2008
Neo-Con/Israeli Venture Behind 28 Million Anti-Obama DVD Campaign

This is a departure from our usual programming, but we considered it to be worthy of your attention. From Asia Times (hat tip reader Cash Mundy):

A group of hardline United States neo-conservatives and former Israeli diplomats were behind the controversial, allegedly Islamaphobic DVD which was recently distributed in US swing states ahead of November's presidential elections.

The 60-minute movie,Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West , was an initiative of the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), but produced by the Clarion Fund, an organization described as a "front" for Israeli group Aish Hatorah.

Some 28 million copies of Obsession are currently being inserted in newspapers and delivered by mail in key electoral swing states - such as Michigan, Ohio and Florida which, according to recent polling, could go either way.

Critics allege the movie Obsession is "hate propaganda" which paints Muslims as violent extremists and, among other things, explicitly compares the threat posed by radical Islam to that of Nazi Germany in the 1930s - at least two major metropolitan newspapers refused to run the movie because of its perceived bias.

"Despite the perilous state of American newspapers, the St Louis Post-Dispatch advertising department took an ethical stand and refused to distribute the DVD of a film that for two years has troubled American Muslims," Tim Townsend, a reporter at Missouri's most influential newspaper wrote this month...

While initial press reports about the mass distribution focused on the Clarion Fund's financing role, it was EMET that organized and oversaw the distribution, EMET's spokesman and a former press officer for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, Ari Morgenstern, told Inter Press Service....

Like hardline neo-conservatives, EMET opposes any land concessions to Palestinians and takes other hardline positions identified with Israel's right-wing Likud Party and the ''Settler Lobby'' there. EMET's website says, "We regard ourselves as 'intellectual revolutionaries'."

Two weeks ago, EMET sponsored a seminar series on Capitol Hill for the controversial multi-billionaire casino and hotel magnate Sheldon Adelson, who is a major donor to right-wing Zionist organizations in the US, such as the far-right lobby group, Freedom's Watch and the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC).

RJC efforts to persuade Jewish voters that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is aligned with radical anti-Israel forces in the Islamic world have drawn strong criticism from the mainstream Jewish press....

But EMET is not the only group involved in the controversy to have direct ties to Israel...

"It seems that the Clarion Fund, from what we can tell, is just a virtual organization that is a front for Aish Hatorah," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). "They don't have staff, they don't have a physical address. Nothing."....

Foreign nationals and companies, and domestic tax-exempt non-profit organizations, are prohibited by federal election law from attempting to sway US elections at any level through either contributions to campaigns or advocacy.

Missouri Governor speaks out against use of Law Enforcement to stiffel campaign debate and discussions critical of Obama

2008-09-28T10:04:00.003-05:00

MISSOURI GOVERNOR MATT BLUNT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Contact: Jessica Robinson, 573-751-0290

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.

See Governor's Website for release

Daughters of Iraq: front-line guards against suicide bombers - Iraqi women take on key security role as attacks by female suicide bombers rise.

2008-09-11T10:34:00.001-05:00

By Tom A. Peter - Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the September 11, 2008 edition

Baghdad - Although the overall level of violence in Iraq has decreased to a four- year low, the country has recently witnessed a sharp rise in a violent trend that alarms many Iraqis: female suicide bombings. This year the number of suicide bombings carried out by women has more than tripled to 29 attacks, say US military officials.

Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups have turned to women to exploit cultural practices that do not allow men to search women. As a result, females can pass through most checkpoints in Iraq without someone so much as looking in their handbags.

To combat this threat, Iraqis have begun recruiting women for the Daughters of Iraq, a female counterpart to the Sons of Iraq community policing program largely credited with reducing violence in Iraq. While female security guards remain a small minority, they've stopped many female insurgents. And, some say their example could help change perceptions about the role of women in Iraq.

"Right now women [suicide bombers] are more dangerous than men," says Sheikh Zaid Ahmed Al-Wan, an Awakening Council leader in Adhamiya, a Baghdad neighborhood. "You can't see anything on a woman's body, especially when she's wearing an abaya [a traditional Islamic gown] or a long dress. In the summer you can see everything on a man, you can even see if there's something in his pocket and even in the winter you can tell if he's carrying a big weapon or a bomb."

The most recent female suicide attack killed 18 people and injured 75 on Aug. 14. The bomber targeted Shiite pilgrims in a rest area in Iskandariyah in Iraq's Babil Province.

The bombing highlights how females can often inflict more damage than males. The majority of women bombers wear explosive vests or belts covered by abayas and are sometimes made to look pregnant, according to US military officials who track suicide bombing trends. This allows women easy access to crowded areas where they can cause the most damage.

Identifying a common profile for female bombers can be difficult, with one as young as 13. There is also speculation that bombing cells have used mentally handicapped women to carry out some attacks.

While the motives of each bomber varies, US military officials say most female suicide bombers share at least one of the following characteristics or circumstances: dishonor through sexual indiscretion, loss of a family member and a desire for revenge, desire to attain heroic status, inability to produce children, or an interest in demonstrating gender equality.

To reverse the new trend, community leaders began calling for women to join the Daughters of Iraq about a year ago. Though females in the group number in the hundreds, they remain a small fraction of the 103,000-strong Sons of Iraq community policing organization.

Generally, the women guard strategic locations, such a bridges, government buildings, or schools. Unlike their male counterparts, they do not carry weapons. Instead, they are stationed at checkpoints with armed males. They also do not search or interact with men, only women.

In Adhamiya, Sheikh Zaid says the Daughters of Iraq have found women carrying everything from intelligence for insurgents to stolen gold and medicine.

Despite the rise in women bombers, many Iraqi women were initially resistant to being searched, even by other women.

"When we started our work, other females said, 'How can you work a job like this?' They did not accept us working as Sahwa (Arabic for 'Awakening')," says Fatima Khadhem, a Daughters of Iraq member in Adhamiya. "But we insisted on doing our jobs and now the same ladies have accepted us."

Likes the female suicide bombers, some of the women drawn to the Daughters of Iraq are motivated by wrongs done to family members. After insurgents killed her husband, Liqae Gazhi Mohamed joined the Daughters to help make her community safer.

"The Sahwa has given life back to Adhamiya," says Mrs. Mohamed, who supports five children with her work as a security guard. "I feel like I'm more independent and stronger than before."

Involving women in security roles also challenges traditional gender roles. While Iraqi women have never faced restrictions like those imposed on females in countries like Saudi Arabia, in many circles women in the workforce carried a stigma.

Although Malath Fahmi's mother wanted to work when her family fell on hard times under Saddam Hussein's regime, her father forbade it. A generation later, facing economic hardships, this time due to the insurgency, Ms. Fahmi joined the Sahwa to support her family.

"In my mother's time, if a woman had a degree she could work, but many people did not support the idea," says Fahmi, who hopes to continue working. "I don't want to be dependent on my brother, or my father, or my husband," she says.

Still, attitudes toward women's roles are slow to change, says Kawakib Salih, a professor of sociology at Baghdad University.

"Men still see female security guards as not having a feminine side, so men will not want to marry a woman who has worked as a Sahwa," says Dr. Salih. "In the future, maybe men will not support this job. It was created as a temporary solution to address the security situation and perhaps in the future it will disappear."
Read more in the Christian Scientist Monitor

Bud Kennedy reports from General Convention

2008-08-27T11:43:00.002-05:00

Angry Clinton delegates planning protests
By Bud Kennedy - Fort Worth Star Telegram - Aug. 26, 2008
DENVER — In a campaign of firsts, Hillary Clinton finished second.

Some Democrats still don’t believe it. And that includes some Texans who will be listening for guidance when she speaks tonight at the Democratic National Convention.

In 20 months, the New York senator went from being the predicted 44th president of the United States to off the ticket. Now, she is here telling audiences to vote for Barack Obama mainly because he’s a Democrat.

Clinton delegate Pam Durham of Fort Worth isn’t buying.

"Some women still believe that he lied, cheated and stole the election," she said. "A lot of that is probably true."

Whatever happened during the primaries — including a "Texas two-step" caucus now captured in an investigative film documentary — the current Clinton campaign will end Wednesday.

"We’re disappointed," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, at a party to celebrate the anniversary of the day in 1920 when women won the right to vote.

"We’re very disappointed that she’s not even the vice presidential nominee. We don’t understand that. But we are also far closer than some of us thought possible to seeing a woman president."

Clinton and her followers have spent this week swirling in Mile High melodrama.

First, several Clinton activist groups scheduled a big protest march for today. One group even announced that she would join and speak.

The march is still planned, but without Clinton.

Then, Clinton delegates petitioned for a roll call vote, and some even lobbied superdelegates to reverse votes and nominate her.

As of Monday, Clinton and Obama supposedly had agreed to an abbreviated roll call, letting delegates vote for Clinton but then yielding the nomination.

That is not going to satisfy renegade Clinton supporters, who gathered in a remote warehouse late Sunday night to plan demonstrations.

Their organization is officially the PUMA Political Action Committee. The acronym officially means "People United Means Action," revised from "Party Unity My [Donkey]."

They watched the first cut of a documentary, The Audacity of Democracy, which shows Dallas precinct caucus scenes to allege that Clinton got a raw deal.

Durham, the Fort Worth delegate, was among several quiet Texans in the crowd.

"They’re angry at the corruption in the party," she said, blaming the caucus system and confusion over delegate selection. "I want to put the party back together. But it’s going to take complete honesty and transparency."

Elizabeth McPherson, a retired Tarrant County College instructor and Arlington schoolteacher, came to Denver to march for Clinton.

"I’m mad," she said. "I’m sad. And I’m worried. I think the way they have treated Hillary is terrible. I’ve never felt this insulted and humiliated."

Several women, including Gandy of NOW, noted glumly that Clinton is not even the official keynote speaker Tuesday. She will share billing with Virginia Sen. Mark Warner.

"She’s not even a keynote speaker?" Gandy asked before a reception billed as the Women’s Equali-Tea.

"Exactly what is that about?"

It’s not about winning.

Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram

WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED

2008-08-22T23:25:00.002-05:00

Click on title to view documentary promo.

Disenfranchised

2008-08-18T10:08:00.002-05:00

The PUMA conference and its aftermath: renewed reform in the Democratic Party

2008-08-16T16:40:00.006-05:00

By ANDY MARTIN - Executive Editor, ContrarianCommentary.com - Aug.15, 2008

"Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct"

OBAMA AUTHOR ANDY MARTIN ATTENDS A "PUMA" CONFERENCE AND FINDS A NASCENT REFORM MOVEMENT IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

(NEW YORK)(August 15, 2008) Last weekend I spent three days at a conference sponsored by a maverick group of dissident Democrats. The "PUMA" conference was held in a nondescript Washington suburban motel. I was writing a new essay on the history of reform in the Democratic Party over the past 80 years; the PUMA's appealed to me as exemplars of reform and dissent (the column is still not finished). I was asked not to write about the conference until after the proceedings were completed and I complied with that embargo.

Little did I realize that crackpot left-wingers and right-wingers would be attacking this placid and almost tranquil conference as a hotbed of radicalism. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The Huffington Post also sent one of their acolytes to attend; she was so inept she didn't even know where the conference was being held. I also became the target of vicious and irrational attacks from people who were not there.

On reflection, the desire of the organizers to close the meeting to news media appears sensible. I was happy to be the only media presence in attendance.
I am now convinced the PUMA movement is morphing into something vastly more influential than I realized, all due to the hysteria of the left and right. Here's a little background.

Every day we get hundreds of e-mails from all sorts of sources. Our job at ContrarianCommentary.com is to make sense of this mélange, and to sort the wheat from the chaff. We do a pretty good job of doing just that. As a result of being fair to both conservatives and liberals we also receive input from all types of sources and channels. The result is that we are usually a week to ten days ahead of our competitors in the mainstream media.

For example, the now legendary cell phone video of Hillary Clinton seeking to have her name placed in nomination for "catharsis" reached my desk within hours; it took the mainstream media ten days to get the same material and realize its significance. I attended the PUMA conference in a spirit of inquiry.
Some writers have sought to ridicule the meeting for a variety of perceived failures. On the contrary, the meeting was an extraordinary event and highly successful.

First, the meeting was national. People came from across the United States. It's not easy to create a national movement overnight. PUMA's have accomplished something very challenging when they convince people from coast to coast to assemble in one place.

Second, the PUMA movement provided "cover" for the ultimately successful efforts to have Hillary Clinton's name placed in nomination. PUMAs were even more successful than any Clinton supporter could have predicted.

Third, as in the case of most political meetings, much of the "content" was boring, organizational, and basic politics. Although David Shuster (sitting in on MSNBC's Hardball) tried to suggest PUMA was a Republican "front," I saw no evidence of that fact. The attendance was primarily, though not exclusively, composed of women who had hitherto been loyal Democrats.

Fourth, although hostile bloggers have criticized the TV presence of PUMA representatives, the PUMA media techniques are not a concern. The people involved are amateurs. They are not professional politicians and they are not professional media types. They are going to have rough edges. They are not going to be smooth and polished.

Fifth, the Democrats are taking "women" for granted because of some of the loonier planks of the Republican Party platform. But in an election where Democrats are likely to retain congress, Democratic women maybe much more inclined to stray to McCain when they know he will be hemmed in by a solidly Democratic congress. The women I saw at the PUMA conference are being discounted and underestimated, and they don't like it.

I attended my first Democratic National Convention forty (40) years ago, in Chicago. I saw the chaos on the streets. Today, the Internet, cell phones, digital cameras, blogs and the paraphernalia of the i-pod generation have largely supplanted street protests. But people are more powerful in 2008 than they were in 1968. I have not seen anything since 1968 with the gathering storm potential of 2008.

Well, what is happening and what does PUMA represent?

First, PUMA activity is a quintessential example of the "aggregating" power of the Internet. People across the United States are linked in a network that, however rudimentary and preliminary it may appear to outsiders, is gaining strength and managed to assemble a national turnout.

Second, there is a nascent reform movement in the Democratic Party. The "outsiders" may ridicule PUMA, but something happened this week to afford Clinton a name on the convention ballot as well as a prime-time speaking engagement. Dick Morris on Hannity and Colmes called these concessions an Obama disaster. Why did Obama's people give in? They realize that there is sustained opposition out there. PUMA's may not have the internal party power to have a conventional impact, but they can act as a focal point for others to concentrate their own energy and opposition.

Third, the PUMA movement is going to be extraordinarily well-organized and powerfully connected in Denver. The right/left wing bloggers and mainstream media may claim that PUMA's are "small in number." That's not a problem. Small groups can function with lethal impact. Just ask the Green Beret (12-man) "A" teams.

Fourth, PUMAS are going to Denver to be heard. I will also be in Denver to observe and report. I was initially a little concerned about spending three days in Washington; now that I have seen the developments of this week, I am absolutely glad I attended.

Fifth, with time and exposure and experience, amateurs become more professional and more effective. That will no doubt happen with the PUMA movement. It has happened to every party reform movement in the past.

Sixth, the process by which Barack Obama claimed the nomination, namely a skewed delegate system that underweights big states and overweights small states, is a disgrace to democracy. The caucus system is rife with corruption and cronyism. There is no way Obama would have won in a race where Ohio and Pennsylvania had the proportional impact with Idaho and Kansas. The current proportional allocation system leads to an undemocratic and disproportionate result. There will be reform of the Democratic Party; PUMA activists could help spearhead it.

---------------------------------------------------

FULL DISCLOSURE: I have decided to oppose Barack Obama's election and have become Executive Director of The Stop Obama Coalition, http://StopObamaCoalition.com. By default, I have become the national leader of the anti-Obama movement. I am not acting as either a Democrat or Republican. I have had no contact whatsoever with the McCain Campaign. I am not a member of any political organization. The views express are entirely independent. I am acting as an American citizen who sincerely believes Obama is not the man we need in the Oval Office. We are going to run a very dynamic and aggressive campaign against Obama. I will continue to write my columns for ContrarianCommentary.com.
--------------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com;

Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com. MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com

Clinton To Be Nominated At Convention - It's official.

2008-08-14T23:13:00.000-05:00

By Elizabeth Benjamin - The NY Daily News - August 14, 2008

Word that a deal had been reached between the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns to put both of their names into nomination at the convention in Denver has been percolating around the Web all morning.

Now there's a joint statement from the Obama and Clinton press offices that confirms the agreement.

Since June, Senators Obama and Clinton have been working together to ensure a Democratic victory this November. They are both committed to winning back the White House and to to ensuring that the voices of all 35 million people who participated in this historic primary election are respected and heard in Denver.

To honor and celebrate these voices and votes, both Senator Obama's and Senator Clinton's names will be placed in nomination.

“I am convinced that honoring Senator Clinton's historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong united fashion,” said Senator Barack Obama.

Senator Obama’s campaign encouraged Senator Clinton's name to be placed in nomination as a show of unity and in recognition of the historic race she ran and the fact that she was the first woman to compete in all of our nation’s primary contests.

“With every voice heard and the Party strongly united, we will elect Senator Obama President of the United States and put our nation on the path to peace and prosperity once again,” said Senator Hillary Clinton.

Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are looking forward to a convention unified behind Barack Obama as the Party’s nominee and to victory this fall for America.

Read more in The NY Daily News - Daily Politics

Clinton Will Be Nominated
by Steve Kornacki - The Politicker - August 14, 2008

Per Marc Ambinder, we now have formal word of an agreement between the Clinton and Obama campaigns that calls for both candidates’ names to be placed in nomination at the convention in order to “honor and celebrate” all of their supporters, according to a joint statement.

As I wrote yesterday, the Obama campaign didn’t have much choice here. The official purpose of a convention is to nominate a presidential candidate, and that can only be done two ways: by acclimation or by a roll call of the states.

If the Obama campaign had gone the acclimation route (as a way of avoiding a formal vote in which hundreds of Clinton delegates might dissent), the protests from Clinton’s die-hard delegates (there are many of them) would be deafening and would produce video clips that would be played over and over, completely defeating the purpose of an acclimation motion.

That left the roll call option, which is traditionally used (even when the nominee is unopposed). But even if Clinton had – as the Obama campaign would have liked – instructed her delegates not to nominate her (and refused to consent to being nominated if they went ahead and did so anyway), it would still be permissible for her delegates to vote for her in the roll call of the states. One way or another, the Clinton delegates who want to vote for her were going to be heard. With this compromise, the Obama campaign is finally recognizing this.

Now the questions will begin: Will Hillary explicitly urge her delegates to vote for Obama anyway, as a show of unity? And how many of them will listen if she does? And will any of this mollify the PUMA crowd, some of whom are still talking of wresting the nomination for Clinton in Denver? And, perhaps most importantly: Will we be talking about any of this once the convention is over?

Who's Race Baiting?

2008-08-14T13:01:00.006-05:00

Crossposted on Daily Kos

By Faith Chatham - August 14, 2008

Why just "black" churches.... why not churches?
Why pit a white church leader against a black church leader?
How unifiying is this?

Yes, the clips are taken out of context but they reflect attitudes.
Why don't we see photos of the Obama children with their white grandmother?
She reared Barack and paid his private school tuition but seem to be far back in the closet during his campaign for president.

Does the "multicultural" candidate aviod photos with his white relatives because he playing more to the African American voters?

Far down in the comments on this journal someone posted a link to Obama's Scrapbook. It has many photos of him with his mom and grandparents. It is a wonderful scrapbook. I'm glad that it was shared with us.Obama's Scrapbook

I have personally witnessed more racist, intimidation, harassing actions during this election cycle than I have witnessed in decades. I know that when we were Jesse Jackson delegates, the candidate instructed delegates how to conduct ourselves. Being respectful was stressed and it came from the top down.

This year every African American Hillary Clinton supporter I know has told me about being called "Uncle Tom" or other names by Obama supporters. The number of threats and insults hurled at African Americans who were not Obama supporters is appalling. Obviously the message to be respectful did not go from the top to the bottom of a very effective top down campaign.

One of my friends, a petite, non aggressive, very genteel African American business woman, has been assaulted by black and white Obama supporters because she was seen wearing a campaign button of another candidate. She was threatened by a black preacher and was followed through a department store by four thuggish young men calling her "b" and "W" and other insults because of her political button. The security guard escorted her out to her car for her protection.

A few weeks ago while I was on the phone with her, she was in the check out lane of another store when two white Obama supporters saw the American flags on her fingernails. The women liked them and were complimenting them until they saw the "non Obama" candidates' name on the other nail. One woman hauled off and socked my friend really hard. My friend told me that she rolled up her fist and "I socked her right back as hard as I could."

The elephant in the living room which no one wants to acknowledge is the failure of Senator Obama to set a tone in this campaign which is respectful and inclusive for all Americans, no matter which candidate they support and to demand that his supporters treat other candidates' supporters respectfully.

Voter intimidation and harassment is unacceptable no matter which candidate it benefits. We've worked very hard and paid a high price to move beyond where we were. This race, which should uplift us all, in my opinion, feeds racial discord and discrimination more than it unites us. The candidate needs to do more.

This year was the first time I've ever seen a Democratic Convention surrogate for a candidate be booed because they appeared for the candidate. At both the Sen. 10 and Sen. 9 Conventions in Tarrant County Obama delegates booed the speaker who spoke for Senator Clinton. He said nothing critical of Senator Obama. However, the attitude as far back as the Senatorial Conventions was that no other candidate should be given voice. This is what feeds the low poll numbers for the candidate now. People who are treated disrespectfully and unfairly do not run to embrace those who disrespect and treat them unfairly.

Another account:
A notarized affidavit of a challenge filed from a registered Democratic voter in Precinct 225 in Denton County, Texas states:

The caucus for precinct 225, Senate District 9 was grossly unorganized and very time consuming. We were forced to stand outside in the dark and cold for 3.5 hours. Obama supporters for precinct 225 had gathered before the primary voting had been completed and segregated themselves away from anyone who was not supporting their candidate. I was told by an African American man holding the sign up for precinct 225 that I could not stand with the group because I was not supporting Obama. These people used intimidation and segregation as a method of showing the “non-Obama” supporters that we were not wanted.

I did not know where else to go; I thought the process was for everyone from precinct 225, no matter their preference for presidential nominee. I walked through the crowd and met Hillary supporters who were going home because they had been told it (the precinct convention) was over by the Obama group leaders. The Hillary supporters also told me that they were very uncomfortable and concerned for their safety if they stayed.

The police were called to control the crowd because people were yelling that “the white man was trying to make their vote not count” and banging on the windows of the church where the primary was being held. I was verbally abused by two black women, on separate occasions for tying to oversee the voting process. Again they were yelling at the top of their voices and swinging their arms in the air , that I (because I am white) would not keep them from voting and choosing a black man for president.

I was the secretary for the caucus and I was told by a black man (who refused to identify himself) and who was the leader for the Obama supporters of precinct 225 that I was slowing the process down, when I tried to verify voter qualifications. I saw Obama supporters sign the sheet more than once per person. I was pushed and yelled at, but did not try to force the issue for my own safety. I reminded these people that we were neighbors and on the same side as Democrats, but I was quickly told that we had nothing in common, because I was “a white girl.”

The Denton County Democratic voter continued:

I believe that precinct 225 had invalid signatures and is not truly reflective of my community’s wishes for the next presidential candidate. Almost all of the supporters for Hillary had been forced to leave before the actual signing of the sheets, and this is unfortunate and distorts the truth of the totals attending and is not the true democratic process. The Hillary supporters that refused to let overbearing and confrontational behavior scare them away and actually stayed, were physically pushed out of the way, and out of the line at the signing table. Bullying and thuggery behavior by Obama supporters was rampant and organized. Organized specifically to keep Hillary supporters, black or white, from participating in the democratic process.

BOUGHT AND PAID FOR!

2008-08-13T22:46:00.008-05:00

By Lynette Long, PhD

As Americans sat glued to their television sets watching the most hotly contested presidential primary in American history, pundits counted pledged delegates won in caucuses and primaries and discussed the highly prized superdelegates' endorsements. Eventually it would be these superdelegates, Democratic officials, governors, and members of congress, who would determine the nominee, since neither contestant won enough pledged delegates in the 52 primary contests. What the pundits forgot to tell the American public was that these superdelegates were doing some counting of their own. They weren't counting how many of their constituents had voted for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, but rather how much money was being put into their war chests by the Obama campaign and the Democratic hierarchy. This money, moved from one candidate to another via PAC's, would determine their endorsements and ultimately the nomination.

Since 1987, Nancy Pelosi has represented California's eighth district-- including most of San Francisco. An Italian American, Pelosi was raised on politics. Her father was a Congressman from Maryland and the Mayor of Baltimore. Pelosi was elected as Democratic Speaker of the House 2002. Pelosi shattered the glass ceiling in the House of Representatives when she was elected the first female speaker in 2007. A shrewd politician, Madame Speaker exercises a lot of influence over the members of congress. She determines Committee assignments and in conjunction with the DNC and Howard Dean decides how much money and support the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee gives to each member of congress in their bid for re-election.

In addition, Pelosi also contributes money directly to the congressional campaigns of certain candidates through her Political Action Committee "PAC to the FUTURE." Her PAC receives money from other PAC' s such as Service Employees International Union $10,000, American Bankers Assn $10,000, Sheet Metal Workers Union $10,000, International Association of Fire Fighters, $10,000, and Goldman Sachs 10,000. It also receives money from individuals. In the 2008 election cycle, the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org) reports that Nancy Pelosi's PAC received 585,400 and contributed more than $445,000 of this to 59 congressional candidates. PAC to the FUTURE gave money to 38 incumbents and 21 challengers. Of the 435 members in the house, Pelosi gave money to 8.5% of them. Of the members who received money from Pelosi, 71% were men; only 29% were women. Only eleven percent of the female members of congress received support from Pelosi's PAC. It's disappointing that a female speaker did not symbolically make some contribution to all Democratic women in the house.

But even more important than the gender implications of Pelosi's behavior was her impact on the Presidential election. Publically Madame Speaker did not endorse either Obama or Clinton in the Democratic Primary, but was she was anything but neutral. Pelosi gave money to the campaigns of thirty-eight members of congress, twenty-eight of these endorsed Obama; ten endorsed Clinton. Pelosi contributed to the campaigns of Obama endorsers almost three to one. Pelosi not only gave to a greater number of Obama supporters, she collectively gave them more money. Pelosi gave 250,000 to the campaigns of superdelegates that endorsed Obama and only 80,000 to the campaigns of superdelegates that endorsed Clinton. Money talks and Pelosi and her PAC spoke volumes….in shorthand. She may not have publicly endorsed a candidate, but the members of the House of Representatives knew she supported Obama.

Of the thirty-eight Members of Congress Pelosi gave money to, sixteen went against the grain for Obama. This means, their state voted for Hillary, their district voted for Hillary, yet they endorsed Obama. Why? Follow the money.

JOHN ALDER (NJ) $2500 from PELOSI
ALDER endorses OBAMA

JASON ALTMIRE (PA) $10k FROM PELOSI
ALTMIRE endorses OBAMA

ANDRE CARSON (IN) $10k FROM PELOSI
CARSON endorses OBAMA

JOE DONNELLY (IN) $10k FROM PELOSI
DONNNELLY endorses OBAMA

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS (AZ) $10k FROM PELOSI
GIFFORDS endorses OBAMA

BARON HILL (IN) $10k FROM PELOSI
HILL endorses OBAMA

RON KLEIN (FL) $10k FROM PELOSI
KLEIN endorses OBAMA

NICK LAMPSON (TX) $7500 FROM PELOSI
LAMPSON endorses OBAMA

TIM MAHONEY (FL) $10k FROM PELOSI
MAHONEY endorses OBAMA

JERRY MCNERNEY (CA) $10 FROM PELOSI
MCNERNEY endorses OBAMA

HARRY MITCHELL (AZ) $10k FROM PELOSI
MITCHELL endorses OBAMA

PATRICK MURPHY (PA) $10k FROM PELOSI
MURPHY endorses OBAMA

JOE SESTAK (PA) $10k FROM PELOSI
SESTAK endorses OBAMA

CAROL SHEA PORTER (NH) $10k FROM PELOSI
SHEA PORTER endorses OBAMA

ZACHARY SPACE (OH) $10k FROM PELOSI
SPACE endorses OBAMA

NIKI TSONGAS (MA) $10k FROM PELOSI
TSONGAS endorses OBAMA

By endorsing Obama, all of these Members of Congress went against the will of their constituents, twice, at the state level and at the district level. Only two members who received money from Pelosi's PAC went against the grain and endorsed Hillary. Is sixteen against the grain for Hillary and two against the grain for Obama a coincidence? Pelosi's contributions to the campaigns of state representatives followed a similar pattern. Sixty-three percent of the state representatives to whom Pelosi gave money, endorsed Obama in a state won by Clinton.

Ten thousand dollars, PAC to the FUTURE's typical contribution, doesn't seem like a lot of money but besides getting money from PAC TO THE FUTURE, most of these members got contributions from other PACs. These contributions were most likely orchestrated by Pelosi and company since the overlap is too startling. Congressman James Clyburn from South Carolina has BRIDGE PAC. BRIDGE PAC gave money to all but two of these same members of congress. Steny Hoyer from Maryland has AMERIPAC. AMERIPAC gave money to almost every single one of these same members of congress. Typical donations from both of these PAC'S were $10,000. And then there is the NATIONAL LEADERSHIP PAC and the NEW DEMOCRAT COALITION, and of course there is the HOPE FUND owned by Barack Obama. All of these PAC's donated an average of $10,000 to most of their campaigns. These young representatives got a lot of pressure to endorse Obama no matter which way their district or state voted. The voices of their constituents were irrelevant.

It seems Obama was just posing as a Washington outsider. But in reality—all the real Washington insiders Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Clyburn, Hoyer, and Kerry were on his team all along. Pelosi's Pac might be named PAC to the Future, but it took direct action to purposely undermine the first significant female candidate for the presidency in history. In so doing, she pushed women back decades. Call Pelosi's office at 415-556-4862 and let her know how you feel.

All Votes Don't Count Equally in Texas

2008-08-13T21:06:00.001-05:00

Crossposted on DAILY KOS
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - Aug. 10, 2008
"Overwhelmed", "chaotic", and "not complying with the election code or Texas Democratic Party Rules" is how many Texas Democratic Precinct and Senatorial Convention attendees describe the Texas Two-Step. Texas is the only state to apportion part (2/3rd) of their national presidential pledged delegates by the results of the Democratic Primary and the rest (1/3) by sign-ins at precinct convention caucuses.

This year 2.8 Texans voted in the Democratic Primary (2,874,986) for every registered voter who attended a Democratic Precinct Convention/Caucus. Only 1,000,000 Texans signed-in at Precinct Conventions to select the remaining 1/3 of the delegates.

If all the delegates had been selected using the percentage of vote cast in the Primary for each candidate, Senator Clinton would have 10 more national delegates than Senator Obama. However, because the percentage of sign-ins per candidate distributes 1/3 of the delegates based on the sign-in presidential preference of the 1,000,000 precinct convention attendees, after primary and convention numbers are tallied, Texas will be sending 5 more delegates pledged to Senator Obama than the number going for Senator Clinton. With nearly three Texans voting in the primary for every Texan attending the precinct conventions, many people think that the preferences of the majority of Texas Democratics should not be overruled by the preferences of many fewer convention attendees.

The Texas Secretary of State's Election Office received few reports of glitches in the Primary Election this year in which 2/3rd of the pledged presidential delegates were selected. However, the Democratic Party Credentials Committee received many complaints (challenges) documenting flawed flawed precinct and senatorial conventions where the remaining 1/3 of the pledged presidential delegates are chosen.

The Texas Democratic Party attempts to address and remedy irregularites in convention voting procedures. This year many senatorial district credentials committees and the Texas State Democratic Credentials Committee reported that they were unable to remedy many of the procedural challenges they reviewed.

Even if the precinct conventions business had been conducted flawlessly, the Texas 2-Step Hybrid Primary/Precinct Convention Caucus system of apportioning national pledged presidential delegates would still discriminate against many Texas registered voters.

>

NEWS 8 AUSTIN Texas 2 step West committee

Selection of 2/3rd of the delegates through the primary allows the disabled, elderly homebound, frail, and military personnel stationed away from their permanent voting residence to cast ballots by mail or at early voting. Texas election law and the Texas Democratic Party rules, however, forbids absentee or proxy voting at the precinct conventions. Unlike Maine, which allows registered voters to register their presidential preference by mail and it to be included in the apportionment of national convention delegates, Texas and other caucus states such as Iowa, makes no allowance for inclusion of persons unable to physically attend the precinct convention to be counted in selecting 1/3 of the delegates. The vote parents with small children, persons who have to work during the precinct convention, and persons in frail health who cannot remain long hours at precinct convention also only counted
2/3rd of neighbors who were able to attend the precinct conventions.

Birdseye view of problems at a North Dallas Precinct Convention/Caucus:

More precinct and senatorial district convention irregularies were reported through the "challenge process" in the DFW Metroplex than in the entire rest of the state combined. In most of the Senatorial Districts in Texas three or less challenges were filed. However, in the DFW Metroplex, 119 challenges were filed with the State Democratic Party Credentials Committee. In Collin county alone, over 145 pages of caucus irregularities were reported to the State Democratic Party. In Senate District 23, (Sen. Royce West's District), 35 challenges were filed. Senate District 10 (Fort Worth) had the second highest number of challenges: 29.

Click on image to enlarge.

Two other regions in Texas also reported high numbers of caucus irrgularites:
27 Challenges filed in the Houston area.
17 Challenges filed in Bexar County (San Antonio).

Inside the Texas 2-Step – taped in San Antonio March 4th at a Precinct Convention (Caucus):

Credentials committees frequently "remedied" proven irregularities to finalize the convention roll. They mediated disputes between delegates of different campaigns regarding which delegate to seat. However, they usually did not attempt to remedy proven instances of persons voting in the wrong precinct, unregistered voters signing in on convention sign-in sheets, incomplete information on sign-in sheets, failure of convention clerks verifying voter ID information and confirming that all attendees had voted in the Democratic Primary. Many precincts reported that they had not removed provisional voters from the sign-in sheets. In Tarrant County alone the Provisional Ballot Board rejected over 800 provisional ballots, yet none of the three Senatorial Districts in Tarrant County removed rejected provisional voters from the convention sign-in tally sheets before seating delegates at the Senatorial Conventions.

The National Democratic Delegate Selection Plan stipulates that all meetings pertaining to selection of delegates including precinct conventions, senatorial conventions and state conventions must begin and end at a reasonable time. However, numerous precinct convention caucuses, senatorial conventions, and district convention cacuses at the Texas State Convention where delegates were elected did not end before 10 p.m. The Senatorial 10 At Large Nominations Committee finished selecting national At-Large Pledged delegates at 4:30 a.m. Despite the impact on attendees (or possible attendees) in these meetings where delegates were chosen, these rules remain unenforced.

All Democratic Party meetings are supposed to comply with HAVA and ADA to accommodate the Handicapped. National Democratic Delegate Selection Rules stipulate that all meetings pertaining to the selection of national delegates must adhere to the same ADA accessibility standards as those prescribed for primary polling places. However, many conventions were held in venues which are not ADA compliant. Some precinct convetions were held in dimly lit parking lots hallways, and other inadequate places. At one precinct convention in Dallas, elderly attendees were trampled by other participants and three ambulances were called which transported the injured to the hospital.

Persons needing translators were rarely accommodated at the Precinct Conventions, even though the Election Law requires translators at most polling places. Few of the Senatorial Conventions provided translators for the hearing impaired or materials in Spanish. The visually handicapped and hearing impaired were not accommodated at conventions according to Federal Law and Democratic Party Rules. In Senatorial Districts 9 and 10 in Tarrant County, mobility impaired individuals were not seated on the ground floor, but were required to attempt to climb stairs to their seats. Several delegates elected to the District Conventions phoned the Tarrant County Democratic Headquarters complaining that they would be unable to attend the convention because of inadequate accommodations for the handicapped.

In many parts of the state, precinct conventions were conducted appropriately. The majority of Senatorial Conventions resulted in only one challenge (complaint) filed with the State Credentials Committee. However, in the DFW Metroplex, Bexar County and the Houston Metropolitan area, there were many reports of election workers and convention clerks/chairs instructing voters to go home before they voted for delegates.

Current Democratic Party Rules do not require persons running for Convention Permanent chair or Permanent Secretary to have ever attended a precinct convention or training by the county election office or Democratic Party. Frequently persons who brought a few
neighbors and relatives with them, were able to get elected Permanent Chair or Permanent Secretary at Precinct Conventions. Unfamiliar with Party Rules and Convention Procedures, they were unable to properly instruct other convention attendees. Many failed to properly complete convention minutes or turn in lists of both candidates delegates.

Some precinct convention permanent chairs placed zeal for their candidates over their responsibility to accurately record and report every attendees presidential preference. Obviously, many of the precinct conventions in three of the largest metropolitan areas in Texas were not conducted smoothly.

CURRENT SYSTEM WEIGHS VOTES OF PERSONS IN SOME DISTRICTS MORE THAN OTHER DISTRICTS:
However, even if the conventions had been conducted smoothly and had not discriminated against those who were unable to be present in person to cast their vote, the current process for apportioning delegates in Texas would result in the combined vote and precinct convention attendence of Texans living in different Senatoral Districts having a different weight in apportionment of national pledged presidential delegates.

The number of presidential delegates per senatorial district is based on a formula which grants more delegates to to districts which have higher voter turn-out in the previous Governor's election and less delegates to those which have lower numbers of voters during the previous governor's election. This year, Senator Obama benefits from the formula because more districts with higher numbers of African American residents voted Democratic in the previous governor's election than did residents of other districts with fewer African American residents. African American districts are the districts where the greatest percent of the residents support Senator Obama for president this year.

Coverage on Austin News:

The Texas Hybrid Two Step Process is under review by a committee chaired by Senator Royce West. The party is not expected to rectify the formular which grants more delegates to districts with higher voter turn-out. All votes do not weigh the same when apportioning delegates for nominating the Democratic Nominee for President. When Democrats who live in Senator Royce West's District vote in the primary or sign-in at their precinct convention, their vote goes toward election of more senatorial, state and national convention pledged presidential delegates than does a voter who lives in districts dominated by Republican voters. This year, the formular which distributes more delegates to district which cast the greatest number of votes for Chris Bell for Governor in 2006 than to other districts results in a formular which allows one vote cast in predominately African American district to count more than a vote cast in districts with less African American voters. Therefore, the racial demographics of your neighborhood, not your race or activism, determines how much your vote counts toward nominating the Democratic Presidential nominee.

All Votes Aren’t Equal: Texas Credentials Report Cites Evidence of Procedural Irregularities

2008-08-13T21:03:00.001-05:00

This is part of a multi-part series. See Daily Kos and Texas Campaign 2008 for the first part of the series. Crossposted on DAILY KOS and TEXAS KAOS
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - August 12, 2008
I just received a copy of the 2008 Texas Democratic Convention Credentials Committee's report from TDP Staffer Jim Boyton. The summary is below:

STATEMENT ON RULES AND PROCEDURES
The Committee heard heart-felt, dispiriting testimony from witnesses representing hundreds of challengers about improprieties at many county/senatorial district conventions. Even though the Committee could not always ascertain the factual predicate necessary to divine a remedy that would deny the fruits of the wrongdoing to the violators without harming the effort of welcoming participation by tens of thousands of new Democrats and beginning the healing process, the Committee implores the Party to take stringent steps to prevent recurrence of the following types of infractions:
• Abandoning the convention leadership’s responsibility to ensure credentials go only to those properly elected at the precinct conventions below as properly reflected on the precinct convention minutes returned in a timely manner;

• Allowing participation by alternates or visitors in the voting in precinct caucuses or the voting on the floor of the convention;

• Not recognizing delegates on the floor to challenge the approval of the nominating committee’s nominees for4 delegate-at-large without allowing individual challenges;

• Having one person serving in multiple positions, e.g. Chair of the Tabulations Committee, Rules Committee and Credentials Committee simultaneously as well as adopting and enforcing special rules;

• Claiming to suspend the rules or adopting special rules under the rubric of Robert’s Rules of Order in order to operate in direct violation of the Rules of the Texas Democratic Party;

• Holding joint conventions of different senatorial districts within a county, including joint Nominations or other committees;

• Not appointing members of the Credentials or other committees at the time and in the manner prescribed in the rules, including not in open meetings or not properly balanced;

• Ordering precinct conventions to be ignored and to be reheld without proper factual basis found by the appropriate authorities and without opportunity for sufficient notice to all potential precinct voters;

• Not having the precinct convention minutes and all exhibits made available in a timely manner to anyone wanting to use those materials for supporting any Democratic candidates;

• Not addressing the time frame for the credential verification and challenge processes so that those matters can be resolved sufficiently in advance of the opening of the conventions to avoid long delays in the convention before conducting their other business.

The Preamble of the 2008 Credentials Committee Report to the SDEC and Texas Democratic State Convention addresses the expectations of the 2.8 million Texas primary voters:

PREAMBLE
On March 4, 2008, some 2.8 million Texans exuberantly turned out to select the leaders that they wanted to carry forward the Democratic banner in the fall election. These people cast their votes to restore the levers of government in our county and state to those dedicated to implementing policies and democratic values in the best interest of all Americans.

An unprecedented million or so of those voters also participated in their precinct conventions in hopes of helping the presidential candidate of their choice obtain the Democratic nomination to lead that campaign in the fall. Those Democrats rightfully expected the convention process at both the precinct and the county/senatorial district convention levels to be conducted fairly and openly in accordance with the rules and laws applicable to the most important of all rights – the right to vote.

Acknowleding that many of the conventions were conducted fairly, they stated:

For the most part, the conventions were able to conduct their important business with due respect for the rules and the rights for all involved. The conventions did so in spite of the unprecedented numbers of participants, the vast majority of whom had never participated in their conventions beforehand, and cumbersome or arcane rules and procedures. The amazing success of the conventions is due to the dedication, patience and good faith of the scores of thousands involved.

They attributed some of the problems to:

However, constraints of time or facilities, misunderstanding of the rules, miscommunication between the people involved, or occasionally excess zeal in trying to advance the cause of a particular presidential candidate, caused improprieties or mistakes to be made in the process.

The Preamble explains the importance of the Challenge Process:

The Democratic Party devised the rules after decades of experience where those in positions of power often overrode the rights of others, sometimes even of the majority. The rules are designed to give everyone a fair opportunity to participate and any transgression of those rights, regardless of how well intentioned or innocent the cause of the transgression, is a serious matter. For that reason the Party has established the challenge process over which this Committee has been deliberating these past three weeks.

The committee acknowledged that they did not remedy all the challenges they affirmed and they did not enforce the rules to the fullest extent:

This report contains the recommendations of the committee to the SDEC as how to resolve all of the challenges that came before the Committee. The Committee recognizes that these recommendations do not always enforce the letter of the rules to the fullest. This is done consciously and advisedly.

Apportioning presidential delegates at the convention creates disunity:

In the heat of the convention process, where those supporting competing candidates vie for delegates, passions run high and feelings are often injured.

This year the high turn-out of convention attendees further exacerbated the divisions among Texas Democrats:

The unique obstacles created by trying to accommodate such unprecedented participation in inadequate facilities in such a short time for planning often exacerbated the sense of injury.

The Challenge Process is designed to facilitate healing among Democratic Convention participants:

The Committee strongly believes that it is crucial to our common pursuit of success in the fall elections to use the resolution of these challenges to commence the healing of those bruised feelings and the coming-back together of the factions. For that reason, the Committee suggested that the local participants involved always try to reach a mutual accommodation amongst themselves before forcing the Committee to rule on certain challenges. The Committee appreciates and commends those challengers and respondents in many senate districts that did so. The Committee has recommended approval of those agreements.

The Committee stated that they decided in some instances not to require full compliance with the rules, attempting "to balance" opposing sides and hopefully create ways for participants to work together in the future:

In other instances, the Committee has recommended resolution of challenges that balance the competing interests of not discouraging participation by those new to the process and insisting on full compliance with rules. In these instances, the Committee chose not apply the harshest relief available for these violations. These decisions are not made lightly and do not reflect in any regard a derogation of the good faith and hard effort of those bringing those challenges, often in the face of powerful interests or community pressures not to do so. The balanced resolutions are recommended not only because the available data is sometimes insufficient to tie a particular remedy to the appropriate person or the remedy may harm the potential participation in the state convention of those not involved in the violation of the rules; but also because the Committee feels these resolutions are appropriate to encourage those involved to look beyond their arguments for or against the particular challenge to see how they can begin working in harmony again for our common purpose in the fall.

The Committee urges the Party to Reform and Modernize the Infrastructure of the Convention Process:

That said, the Committee .. encourages the Party as a whole to reform and modernize the infrastructure for the convention process at all levels. The specifics of those reforms are beyond the purview of this Committee but we have heard the testimony of so many people that believe the processes to be inadequate that we feel compelled to express that on their behalf.

The report contains summaries of challenges they reviewed. They did not accept for review all the challenges presented to them.

The Committee makes specific comment on certain egregious violations

In the Credentials Committee Report Summary of Challenges they frequently affirm the challenge and state that they have no appropriate remedy.

This report is released long after the deadline for filing National Challenges. Ironically, the report acknowledges the failure of precinct, county and senatorial district officials to provide records and minutes for review and utilization by those wishing to file challenges, yet the Credentials Committee of the 2008 Democratic State Convention the deadline themselves. The report was not "written" when presented to the Convention. Mr. Boyton had to compile the report from sources which included video tape and other convention/committee records. I am aware of several people who have been requesting this report repeatedly since the close of the 2008 Convention. I am thankful that it is now available. It is a tool for use in refining the process to ensure that future conventions are not as divisive and detrimental to the purposes most Democrats hold in common.

Elected or Designated: Democratic Nominee in Historical Perspective

2008-08-08T15:24:00.008-05:00

OPINION: By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - August 8, 2008
Howard Dean and some so called "party leaders" are demanding that Hillary Clinton not have her name entered into nomination. News pundits have referred to the prospect of her being nominated as "unprecedented." Others discuss how having her name in nomination will take the spot light off of Obama.

The voice of 18 million voters seems inconsequential to Howard Dean and those who are threatening Senator Clinton, trying to force her not to allow her voters to be represented democratically at the Democratic National Convention.

A look at historical data shows that the "presumed nominee" does not always win the nomination. In fact, the "underdog" sometimes goes straight to the White House.

Instead of splitting the party, entering her name into nomination and allowing her delegates to represent the preference of 18 million Democratic Voters will unify the party. Unless her name is entered into nomination, a signification number of her 18 million voters will either 1. sit the election out, 2. vote only for down ticket candidates, or 3. vote for a candidate of a different party.

Democratic voters demand that the party treat every candidate fairly. Neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton should be marginalized or discriminated against. A fair, legitimate, honest election at the National Democratic Convention is necessary to energize and sustain the party. Howard Dean should step down as chair of the DNC because he just does not understand the importance of upholding the sacred American principal of one person one vote.

1980:
Jimmy Carter - 1981 delegates
Ted Kennedy - 1225 delegates
Uncommitted - 122
No way Kennedy could win, but his name was placed in nomination.

2004:
John Kerry: 2192.5 Pledged delegates
Howard Dean: 114.5 Pledged delegates
Dean had already dropped out with no chance of winning, but his name was placed in nomination.

2008:
Barack Obama: 1766.5 Pledged delegates
Hillary Clinton: 1639.5 Pledged delegates
The contender is being told to shut up for the sake of the party.

In addition, Teddy Kennedy has had his name on that first ballot in 1968 (12 votes), 1972 (12 votes), 1976 (1 vote), 1980 (1150 - he lost some supporters along the way).

Jesse Jackson has had his name on that first ballot twice: 1984 (465 votes), 1988 (1218 votes).

Howard Dean fails to lead. Instead he dictates and manipulates. In addition to threatening viable candidates, he appointed a third of the members of both the Rules and By Laws Committee and the Credentials Committee. Decisions by these committees to strip her of a significant number of her delegates through imposition of penalties for A RULE VIOLATION while similar penalties have not been imposed on other states where there are MANY DOCUMENTED RULES VIOLATIONS created a false perception that Senator Obama is the inevitable Democratic Nominee for president.

These committees have violated the trust of the members of the Democratic Party. Their role is not to DETERMINE who the nominee will be but to insure that there is a fair and honest process which honors the votes of American citizens.

The Chair of the Democratic Party is not elected to be a "king maker." Howard Dean's actions during this election cycle more closely resemble that of Josef Stalin than of an American leader. Chairman Dean should retire. Democrats deserve better. The American people deserve better.

Every candidate deserves to be treated fairly and respectfully.
In order to "unify the party" the nominee must win FAIR AND SQUARE. The manipulations of the Democratic Party to curtain fair electoral processes representing all candidates at the Democratic Party violate the precepts upon which the party was created.

This op-ed was posted on Daily Kos and has attacted a lot of heated comments by Obama supporters. The attitude shown by many on that site is what many Clinton supporters face in the community. There is a lack of understanding of the process and a lack of respect for the process.
If you want to join in on the discussion, register as a user of Daily Kos. Twenty four hours after you register you can comment and post.

Florida Delegates may regain full voting strength

2008-08-04T21:11:00.006-05:00

By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - August 4, 2008

Senator Obama wrote the co-chairs of the Democratic National Convention Credentials Committee this month requesting restoration of Full-voting strength for Florida and Michigan delegates:

"I believe party unity calls for the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be able to participate fully alongside the delegates from the other states and territories."

Senator Obama advocates that the Credential Committee pass a resolution restoring each delegate to a full-vote (from the current half vote imposed by the Rules and By Laws Committee earlier this year). The next meeting of the Credentials Committee is Aug. 24th.

The letter was written months after the DNC Rules and By Laws Committee stripped Michgan and Florida of half of their delegates' voting strength. Senator Obama's campaign objected to granting full voting strenght to Florida when the Rules and By Laws Committee met.

Combined, Michigan and Florida have 368 delegates. Enough delegates are in play between the two states to determine the nomination for president. Despite the Obama campaign, the DNC and many media outlets, declaring Senator Obama the presumptous Democratic Nominee for president, restoration of both Michigan and Florida's full voting strength to their delegates significantly narrows the the margin between the pledged delegates of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Clinton is the only candidate who has not conceded the race or released her national national delegates.

The Obama campaign counted endorsement from Unpledged Super Delegates in their delegate count when declaring him the winner. However, superdelegates are unpledged. Endorsements from super delegates are non-binding. Super delegates, unlike other national delegates, vote in secret. Historically, the votes actually cast by Super Delegates at Democratic National Convention frequently do not parallel their presidential endorsements. Some Super Delegates change their minds, without making public the candidate who actually gets their vote.

Click on image to enlarge.
Declaration of Senator Obama the presumptous Nominee before the National Convention is criticized as disenfranchising the voters.

For a candidate to legitimately be the "presumptous nominee", the threahold of 2118 delegates should be reached from pledged delegates selected from the 60% of delegates who are elected from the State Conventions without inclusion of any of the 40% of unpledged Super Delegates in the total delegate count. Some Democratic activists believe the DNC, media and Obama campaign have misreperesented the nomination process to the public, causing many to believe that including unpledged delegates with the pledged delegate count gives a reliable indicator of the outcome of the election at the Convention. Despite many unity events and cooperation by Senator Hillary Clinton, belief that the Obama campaign and the DNC are resisting entrance of Senator Clinton's name into nomination at the convention, and conduction of a fair, democratic election for the Democratic Presidential Nominee where both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama's names appear on the ballot and there is a recorded roll call vote is believed by many to be contributing to Sen. Obama's favorable ratings remaining soft and reflections in the polls that he continues to be unable to energize Democrats who are not already his supporters.

Without leadership from the Clinton Campaign (which was suspended in June), a network of activist groups continues to lobby, demonstrate, and stage visibility events working toward restoration of the full voting strength of the Florida and Michigan delegates, and entrance of Sen. Clinton's name in nomination in Denver.

Prospects for the General Election:
In November, Michigan and Florida will be key battleground states. Numerous visits to Florida and Michigan have not "sealed" the election for either Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain in those states. In Florida this past week, the Quinnipiac poll released Thursday morning (July 31), lists Florida as "officially too close to call". Senator Obama's slight lead over Sen. John McCain is disappearing. In June, Obama led McCain in Florida by 47 to 43. This last poll shows that lead narrowed with Obama leading only 46 to 44 for Sen. McCain among likely General Election voters. This is within the margin of error. Obama's championing restoration of the delegates voting strength, even though it comes rather late, may help improve his ratings in Florida which is rich in Electoral Votes.

McCain beats Obama among white voters in Florida. In Florida, Obama's strength is with African American and Hispanic voters. He needs to make better inroads with progressive white voters. Read more in Central Florida 13 News.

Disgruntled Floridians who resent the DNC for having reduced the weight of their primary votes half could definitely determine the outcome of the General Election. Flordia may ultimately determine who is the next occupant of the White House.

Months after the DNC's decision by the Rules and By Laws Committee, the "Count Every Vote movement" continues to exert pressure, demanding that the DNC restores the delegates of Michigan and Florida and allows them to represent the voters.

Nationwide, in a syndicated story on NPR News August 2, 2008, "New polls show that the presidential race is looking close nationally and in swing states. Although Charles Cook of the Cook Political Report says it is too early to predict the outcome of the race, he says that the Electoral College vote will be closer than the popular vote.

Swing State Voters In Flordia and Michigan Seen as Crucial to Winning in November:

Florida has a total of 208 Delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Of these delegates, 182 are pledged and 26 are unpledged Super Delegates. If they are granted full voting strength, Senator Clinton has earned 105 of Florida's pledged delegates, Sen. Edwards, 12, and Sen. Obama, 65 pledged delegates. Even though Sen. Edwards has withdrawn and endorsed Senator Obama, his delegates are not obligated to vote for Senator Obama.

If the DNC restores full voting strength to Florida's delegates, Senator Clinton will gain 65 pledged delegates for a total of 1693 pledged delegates. Her pledged delegates will give her 80% of the delegates necessary for nomination. Senator Obama will gain 33 pledged delegates (total of 1793) giving him 84.7% of the pledged delegates necessary for nomination.

The nomination will be determined at the National Democratic Convention by the secret ballots of 825 UNPLEDGED Super Delegates. Super Delegates' endorsements of candidates are not reliable indicators of how they will actually vote at the Convention. Historically, some Super Delegates who declare for a candidate prior to the convention change their minds. Frequently they do not release who they voted for after the Convention. This year 14% to 20% of the delegates necessary for nominating a presidential candidate will come from the vote of unpledged Super Delegates who cast secret ballots at the National Convention.

Polls consistently show that Florida will be a pivotal swing state in this year's General Election. Senator Obama's hardline resistance to granting Florida delegates full voting status has not enabled him to poll significantly higher than Sen. McCain among likely voters in Florida. His numbers remain softer in other states than they should considering the high unfavorable ratings of many Republican incumbents and the George W. Bush administration. The DNC's violation of the principles of one person one vote in penalizing Florida and Michigan is a firestorm which has not died down among activists across the nation.

A fair, Democratic convention where Senator Clinton's name is entered into nomination, and appears on the ballot at the National Convention are demands which consistently are made by her supporters. Unless her supporters see that a fair election for Presidential Nominee is conducted at the National Democratic Convention, a significant number of the voters and donors necessary for a Democratic Nominee winning in November remain defiant and unconvinced. Senator Obama's letter to the DNC urging that they restore Michigan and Florida delegates full voting status at the Convention is a step toward real unification instead of empty rhetoric.

Race Card Charges and Campaign Discord Mark Dog Days of Summer

2008-08-04T09:27:00.002-05:00

Who let the dogs out?
By Dan Balz - The Trail - Washington Post - Aug. 1, 2008

Was it Barack Obama, who not so subtly pointed to John McCain and seemingly accused him of trying to scare voters by drawing attention to the fact that Obama doesn't look like (read: he is African American) all the other presidents? Or was it McCain's campaign, which cried foul over Obama's statements with such vehemence that race became the story of the day on all the networks, in all the papers and on all the blogs?

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis and Obama chief strategist David Axelrod continued to argue the question of who played the race card on the Friday morning shows. Davis blamed Obama; Axelrod blamed Davis.

"We were reacting to what Barack Obama himself said about John McCain," Davis said on NBC's "Today Show." "And I think we were perfectly within our rights to protect our candidate and to point out that we're not going to lay down for these kinds of tactics. And I think that was fair. We'll let the chips fall where they may when it comes to how people perceive this, but we are not going to let anybody paint John McCain, who's fought his entire life for equal rights for everyone, to be able to be painted as racist. We've seen this happen before and we've not going to let it happen to us."

"He said it to a crowd in rural Missouri, 99 percent white," Axelrod said moments later on the same program, explaining the context of Obama's remarks. "There were all kinds of press there. Nobody reported it as a racial comment. Nobody certainly said what Rick Davis just said, that he called John McCain a racist. The only time this became an issue was when Rick Davis and their campaign decided to kick it up and make it a racial issue, and that's exactly what -- they've been running a negative campaign for weeks."

Four things are already clear from the controversy. First, Obama campaign officials, lacking any example of McCain ever pointing directly or indirectly at Obama's race as an issue in the campaign, have backpedaled rapidly away from any suggestion that their Republican opponent is using the very tactics Obama suggested on Wednesday.

Campaign manager David Plouffe was pressed hard during a conference call on Thursday for examples and could not point to any. An inquiry to the Obama campaign later in the day produced no immediate response and later no answer to a direct question asking for evidence to buttress Obama's suggestion that McCain would try to scare people into not voting for Obama because he's black.

Officials deny that Obama was suggesting that McCain is racist or running on a racially based message. But they believe the McCain campaign has embraced a low-road strategy and, hoping to contrast themselves with previous Democratic nominees, are prepared to respond to every attack.

Second, the sense of grievance over this issue within McCain's high command is deep and palpable. Those emotions led to the decision to have Davis call out Obama on Thursday with his extraordinarily provocative statement: "Barack Obama has played the race card and he played it from the bottom of the deck," he said. "It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."

Before all this happened, McCain advisers believed that the Obama campaign successfully pinned a racist label on Bill Clinton during the during primaries -- for comments that drew protests from some leading African American politicians -- and were determined not to let the same happen to McCain. Also, they take personally any suggestion from the Obama campaign that they are part of a campaign that would play the race card and are indignant about it.

Ironically, the McCain camp's celebrity ad comparing Obama to the vapid pair of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears drew some criticism as a subtle attempt to play the race card in the same way Republicans did against Harold Ford in the 2006 Senate race with the ad that concluded with an attractive young blonde woman saying, "Harold, call me." McCain advisers are as incensed over those suggestions as Obama advisers are over Davis's charge.

Third, the more that race is a topic of conversation, the more it could hurt Obama. Though he has been direct in warning about the use of scare tactics by his opponents, he is deeply aware that he is asking much of the electorate to cast a vote for someone with his biography and experience.

How he creates a comfort level with voters is a major challenge and one that he and his advisers believe cannot be done overnight. What he fears is that his opponents -- and here I do not refer directly to McCain -- will poison the environment with innuendo. He has struggled against outright falsehoods throughout the whole campaign. But simply making people feel comfortable with the truth of his candidacy is challenging.

Finally, the lack of respect between the two candidates continues to grow. Both began the general election with predictable statements about their desire to have a vigorous but respectful debate. Obama regularly pays tribute to McCain's service in Vietnam. McCain has spoken with admiration for Obama's obvious talents.

In reality, neither now seems to have a high opinion of the other. McCain's lack of respect has been evident for some time. He seems to view Obama as a pretender, who talks about change but has not been willing to cross his party or any important constituencies as a senator, which in McCain's view is necessary to truly change Washington. Obama certainly does honor McCain's service, but is dismayed over what he regards as continuous attacks from McCain.

That atmosphere made it all more inevitable that the kind of explosion that occurred this week would come at some point. Now it will be hard to go back.

No one expects the level of discord to stay at the level of the past few days, but there is every reason to believe that the remaining 95 days will see more such episodes. The stakes are too high, the conditions too ripe, and the campaigns too ready to go to the brink. Whether it could have been otherwise is a question only the campaigns themselves can answer.
Read more in the Washington Post

Maybe not as running mate, but Obama still needs Clinton

2008-08-04T09:18:00.002-05:00

Jaime Castillo - My SA News - Aug. 3, 2008
The long slog known as the Democratic presidential nominating contest was all but over.

Hillary Clinton had just conceded the floor, and the 2008 nomination, to Barack Obama.

Yet state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, a co-chairwoman of the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Denver, couldn't ignore the obvious.

“He's still got a lot of work to do with la gente,” said Van de Putte, using a common Spanish euphemism to refer to the Hispanic community.

That was several weeks ago.

Have those wounds, particularly the hurt feelings of older Latinas who saw their own struggle in Clinton's historic candidacy, had enough time to heal? Does it make a difference now that the buzz out of Washington, D.C., is Clinton almost assuredly won't be Obama's running mate?

“If you drive through my district, those Hillary signs aren't coming down yet,” said Van de Putte on Friday. “My hope is through the convention and shortly thereafter to make them (Hillary supporters) feel more comfortable.”

It is a unique position for the veteran lawmaker, who also backed Hillary's candidacy in the primary.

Here she is gearing up for the Democratic Party's ultimate national pep rally later this month and she's still concerned about the enthusiasm level in her predominantly Hispanic district, which covers pretty much all of western Bexar County.

It is a tougher problem for Obama as his race against Republican John McCain is tightening in some national polls. Older Latinos, particularly those of Mexican-American descent in the Southwest, tend to be solid Democratic voters, so any lack of zeal for Obama within any sector of the community could be problematic for his candidacy.

“I really believe they're going to vote for Senator Obama,” Van de Putte reasoned, “but I want them to have the level of engagement and excitement they would have had for a Hillary Clinton ticket.

“I think it will take a while,” she said.

Local political consultant JoAnn Ramon has built a career on cajoling area Democrats to vote straight-ticket in partisan elections. And she sees the same hurdles for Obama among “more experienced” Latinas in her South Side stomping grounds.

“The Latinas have been very adamant,” Ramon said. “If (Obama) doesn't take Hillary, they're going to skip that race on the ballot.”

The 64-year-old Ramon conceded that even a party loyalist like herself needed “a grieving period” to get past the end of Hillary's presidential candidacy.

“It's hard,” she said.

What Obama needs, Van de Putte and Ramon agreed, is for Clinton to vouch for him in person in heavily Hispanic areas. And it must go beyond the featured role that Clinton will be given at the national convention.

“You've got to believe it to sell it,” Ramon said. “Hillary is really going to have to say something, and she's really going to have to campaign for him.”

Van de Putte said it helps, but it's not enough, to simply acknowledge that Obama emphasizes the same priorities as the larger Hispanic community — education, health care and the economy.

To hear it from Hillary's lips, on the stump, could make all the difference in the world.

“It's like our attitude toward faith,” Van de Putte said. “We're never presumptive enough to bargain with God ourselves.

“We pray to saints and ask the virgen (Virgin Mary) to intercede on our behalf,” the senator said. “If Hillary does that on a political level for Obama, it could make a huge difference.”

Read more in My SA

The Audacity of Democracy - Teaser

2008-08-03T12:59:00.001-05:00

HIllary speaks July 31, 2003

2008-08-02T11:50:00.008-05:00

(Video by Simone P. DuBois and Toni Alves)
Taped Thursday July 31, 2008 around 5 p.m. at a "Unity" event held to help pay off Hillary's debt. The event took place at a private home in Los Altos, CA. Hillary on Being Nominated at Convention:

Hillary on Choice of Vice President:

One world? Obama's on a different planet

2008-07-26T21:16:00.004-05:00

The senator's Berlin speech was radical and naive.
By John R. Bolton - The Los Angeles Times - July 26, 2008
SEN. BARACK OBAMA said in an interview the day after his Berlin speech that it "allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I have made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer."

If that is what the senator thought he was doing, he still has a lot to learn about both foreign policy and the views of the American people. Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was
substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective.

These troubling comments were not widely reported in the generally adulatory media coverage given the speech, but they nonetheless deserve intense scrutiny. It remains to be seen whether these glimpses into Obama's thinking will have any impact on the presidential campaign, but clearly they were not casual remarks. This speech, intended to generate the enormous publicity it in fact received, reflects his campaign's carefully calibrated political thinking. Accordingly, there should be no evading the implications of his statements. Consider just the following two examples.

First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, "The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together." Having earlier proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator's own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik -- "eastern politics," a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance -- continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.

But there are larger implications to Obama's rediscovery of the "one world" concept, first announced in the U.S. by Wendell Willkie, the failed Republican 1940 presidential nominee, and subsequently buried by the Cold War's realities.

The successes Obama refers to in his speech -- the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism -- were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by "one-worldism." Although the senator was trying to distinguish himself from perceptions of Bush administration policy within the Atlantic Alliance, he was in fact sketching out a post-alliance policy, perhaps one that would unfold in global organizations such as the United Nations. This is far-reaching indeed.

Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as president: "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn't see all these "walls" as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that "walls" exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.

Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side -- our side -- defeated the other. Differences in levels of economic development, or the treatment of racial, immigration or religious questions, are not susceptible to the same analysis or solution. Even more basically, challenges to our very civilization, as the Cold War surely was, are not overcome by naively "tearing down walls" with our adversaries.

Throughout the Berlin speech, there were numerous policy pronouncements, all of them hazy and nonspecific, none of them new or different than what Obama has already said during the long American campaign. But the Berlin framework in which he wrapped these ideas for the first time is truly radical for a prospective American president. That he picked a foreign audience is perhaps not surprising, because they could be expected to welcome a less-assertive American view of its role in the world, at least at first glance. Even anti-American Europeans, however, are likely to regret a United States that sees itself as just one more nation in a "united" world.

The best we can hope for is that Obama's rhetoric was simply that, pandering to the audience before him, as politicians so often do. We shall see if this rhetoric follows him back to America, either because he continues to use it or because Sen. John McCain asks voters if this is really what they want from their next president.

John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option."

Read more in the Los Angeles Times

Obama’s path to presidency is far from clear

2008-07-26T20:19:00.005-05:00

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE.

Click here for interactive electoral map.

Read more in the Los Angeles Times

CAMPAIGN UPDATES By Peter Nicholas, Los Angeles Times - JULY 25, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Even as his turn on the global stage hit an emotional peak Thursday with a speech before a cheering crowd of more than 200,000 in Germany, Barack Obama faced new evidence of stubborn election challenges back home.

Fresh polls show that he has been unable to convert weeks of extensive media coverage into a widened lead. And some prominent Democrats whose support could boost his campaign are still not enthusiastic about his candidacy.

Several new surveys show that Obama is in a tight race or even losing ground to Republican John McCain, both nationally and in two important swing states, Colorado and Minnesota. One new poll offered a possible explanation for his troubles: A minority of voters see Obama as a familiar figure with whom they can identify.

Republicans are moving to exploit this vulnerability, trying to encourage unease among voters by building the impression that Obama's overseas trip and other actions show he has a sense of entitlement that suggests he believes the White House is already his.

In Ohio on Thursday, McCain hit that theme: "I'd love to give a speech in Germany . . . but I'd much prefer to do it as president of the United States, rather than as a candidate for the office of presidency."

Obama also faces discontent from some of Hillary Rodham Clinton's most ardent supporters, who are put off by what they describe as a campaign marked by hubris and a style dedicated to televised extravaganzas.

Susie Tompkins Buell, a major Clinton fundraiser, said: "The Clinton supporters that I know are bothered by these rock-star events. These spectacles are more about the candidate than they are about the party and the issues that we care about."
Obama is to return home Saturday after a nine-day trip that has produced some of the most memorable images of the campaign. Speaking in Berlin before a sea of young faces, the presumed Democratic nominee echoed a famous line from President Reagan, who, at Brandenburg Gate, implored Soviet counterpart Mikhail S. Gorbachev to "tear down this wall."

"The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down," Obama told the warmly enthusiastic crowd in Tiergarten park. He spoke from a stage constructed near the Victory Column, a soaring monument to Prussian military triumphs.

Powerful as the image was, back home some voters wondered whether the trip was necessary. Both Obama and McCain had been invited Thursday to a cancer forum organized by cyclist Lance Armstrong's foundation at Ohio State University.

McCain showed; Obama did not. Some in the crowd took notice.

Ann Marie Jones, a stay-at-home mother whose 10-year-old son was diagnosed with cancer in September, said she had leaned toward Obama "until he didn't show up tonight."

"I feel like I understand what he's doing over there, but I think he needed to be here tonight for this," she said.

Jones, a 40-year-old Republican from Aledo, Texas, said she was troubled by the duration and scale of Obama's overseas trip. "I think we have a lot of things going on with our children -- many different things going on here in the United States that need our attention."

Many voters still seem to be puzzling over who Obama is, even after a race that has lasted a year and a half. By 58% to 47%, voters identity more with the values and background of McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, than with Obama, according to a newly released Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

Obama may also be slipping in some key states. He lost a narrow lead in Colorado, falling 5 percentage points in the past month, and now trails McCain 46% to 44%, a new Quinnipiac University poll found. In Minnesota, Obama fell 8 percentage points, though he still leads McCain 46% to 44%, the survey found. The polling spanned the five days before Obama went abroad and the first four days of his trip.

At a time when nearly three-quarters of Americans believe the nation is on the wrong track, the political climate would suggest that McCain, whose party controls the White House, might lag by large margins. Yet a national Fox News poll released Thursday showed that Obama's 4-point lead over McCain in June had shrunk to a single point. The new Journal/NBC poll showed Obama leading by 6 points, unchanged from the month before.

The race remains close even though McCain has stumbled at times and has been largely eclipsed this week by Obama's high-profile trip to Europe and the Middle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

On Thursday, television images showed Obama addressing the throng in Berlin, his speech carried live on cable news networks. McCain, meanwhile, spoke to reporters outside an Ohio fudge shop, where his comments were nearly drowned out by wind chimes.

But Obama is struggling with a different set of obstacles; he has yet to lock in some of Clinton's most devoted supporters and active fundraisers

In interviews, Clinton supporters said they saw in Obama a presumption that had made it hard to give him their allegiance. Some said they were put off by his decision to accept the Democratic nomination at a football stadium that can hold more than 76,000; his use of a knockoff of the presidential seal at a campaign event; and his early interest in giving his Berlin speech at the famous Brandenburg Gate, where Reagan spoke in 1987.

The Republican National Committee has been pumping out regular e-mails titled "Audacity Watch," a compilation of instances in which, in its view, Obama has appeared to act as if he were president. In an e-mail sent Thursday, the RNC mentioned a news report that he had already instructed aides to begin planning for a transition to the presidency.

Amy Siskind of Westchester, N.Y., is a Clinton supporter who said she wouldn't vote for Obama. Siskind said she was especially offended when Obama hired Clinton's former campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, to work with his vice presidential nominee. Given that Solis Doyle was demoted by Clinton, the appointment was perceived by Clinton loyalists as a slight.

"Most folks feel that the battle is over and he's the winner, but he's really acted like a sore winner," Siskind said. "If Hillary had been the nominee, you would have seen a much more deferential approach to Obama supporters."

Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a Clinton fundraiser who lives in New York City, said, "What I think is very important is that he has a problem with his image. He is an aloof candidate. He does not connect with people. He has words, but no ordinary person thinks that he is there for them, and women feel that intensely."

Time remains for Obama to unify the party and find ways to win over skeptical voters. His campaign released ads last month that emphasize the parts of Obama's life story that a typical voter might find appealing. Obama, for example, was raised by a single mother and grandparents who lacked substantial means.

The campaign hopes that the images in those ads will boost his standing in the polls.

"As we tell Sen. Obama's story -- being raised by a single mother, pulling himself up, working his way through school -- people will become more familiar with him," said Hari Sevugan, an Obama campaign spokesman.

Seeing an opportunity, McCain's supporters have sought to drive home perceptions that Obama doesn't connect with average voters.

"The fact that Obama is out of touch with voters . . . is certainly something we'll continue to reiterate," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "To the extent that he's acting as if he's already president when the election is over 100 days away and everyone expects it will be a very close race raises questions about how in touch he is."Times staff writer Maeve Reston in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report.

Read more in the Los Angeles Times

Action Alert; Honor a Legacy: Urge Senate to Recognize Suffragist Alice Paul with a Congressional Gold Medal

2008-07-26T17:46:00.005-05:00

By NOW - National Organization of Women -

The House of Representatives has voted to recognize Alice Paul with the Congressional Gold Medal. Now it's time for the Senate to do the same!

'Alice Paul was a crusader who fought to turn the ideal of American democracy into a reality. The country that we know today was shaped by her courage, wisdom
and foresight, and her influence is palpable to this day. The Congressional Gold Medal is but a mere token of gratitude for her legacy of groundbreaking change
in our nation and the impact her fight had on democracies around the world.'
--Sen. Robert Menendez [NJ

TAKE ACTION NOW!

Action Needed:
On May 15, 2008 the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to pass the Alice Paul Women's Suffrage Congressional Gold Medal Act, H.R. 406. This bill, sponsored by Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.), commemorates Alice Paul's role in the women's suffrage movement and salutes her leadership in advancing equal rights for women.

Out of hundreds of recipients, only a dozen or so Congressional Gold Medal awardees have been women - among them several former First Ladies and several women leaders from other nations. Alice Paul should be on that list, and we ask for your help to recognize this champion of suffrage and women's rights.

The issue of a Congressional Gold Medal recognizing Alice Paul has moved to the Senate, and the Senators from Alice Paul's home state have introduced the Senate counterpart. Sponsored by Senators Menendez and Lautenberg, both Democrats from New Jersey, S.826 can come to the Senate floor only if we get enough bipartisan sponsors.

Take Action NOW

Background:
Alice Paul is best known for her dedication to the suffrage movement in the early 1900's, and 'Iron Jawed Angels,' an HBO movie starring Hilary Swank, brought her story to life for a new generation. Yet there is so much more. In 1912 she chaired the congressional committee of the National American Suffrage Association, where she organized a thousand-strong march in Washington D.C. the day before Woodrow Wilson's inauguration in 1913 to show support for an amendment giving women the right to vote. At the time, Wilson did not support women's suffrage.

In 1913, Alice Paul formed the more progressive Congressional Union for Women Suffrage, later known as the National Women's Party. For years Paul aggressively promoted women's voting rights and picketed the White House before and during World War I to show the irony of fighting for democracy overseas while denying half the people (women) in the United States democracy at home.

After helping to win ratification of the 19th Amendment and seeing women get the vote in 1920, Paul continued to campaign for women's equality in the United States and abroad. In 1923 she wrote the original language of the Equal Rights Amendment and tirelessly fought for the establishment of equal rights for women in the U.S. Constitution until her death in 1977.

This honor is long overdue, and Congress should immediately recognize Alice Paul's important contributions to women and the world. Ask your Senators to celebrate Alice Paul's lifetime of dedication to equality and women's rights by honoring her with a Congressional Gold Medal. Because the Senate bill has only three sponsors, we need to make sure that EVERY Senator hears from us as soon as possible!

Take Action NOW!

COMPOSE A LETTER
Subject: HONOR A LEGACY

I am writing to you as a constituent and a women's rights advocate and I hope that you will add your name as a sponsor of the Alice Paul Women's Suffrage Congressional Gold Medal Act, S. 826. In May, the House overwhelmingly passed its version of the bill and the Senate should do the same. S. 826 is being sponsored by the Senators from Alice Paul's home state, Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, who believe this honor is long overdue.

Alice Paul dedicated her life to the single cause of securing equal rights for all women, including the right to vote and the right to be in the U.S. Constitution. The impact Alice Paul has made is immeasurable, and her vision and work for equality have forever changed the face of American history.

Please sponsor and help pass S. 826 which will award the Congressional Gold Medal to this historical visionary and recognize this woman's important contributions to the rights of women here and around the world. I look forward to hearing from you that you are supporting and have added your name as a sponsor of this effort to award Alice Paul the Congressional Gold medal.

Sincerely,

NAME
Address
Phone

SEE NOW WEBSITE FOR E-MAIL FORM TO SEND THIS MESSAGE.

July 26th Celebration of 160th Anniversay of Seneca Falls and Examination of Texas Two Step

2008-07-19T23:56:00.003-05:00

Click on image to enlarge

Blogtalkradio: Is Winnie the Pooh's Birth Certificate more Authentic than Obama's?

2008-07-19T11:54:00.007-05:00

Clintons4McCain features a live call-in show blog talk radio show on Saturday afternoon from 4-5 p.m. CST.
Call-in Number: 341-633-9273.
To listen in log in to blogtalkradio.com and search for Clintons4McCain.
This week featured guests include a Canadian journalist Judi McLead with Canada Free Press, will discuss her article, 'Winnie the Pooh Birth Certificate more authentic than Obama's'

Also joining us is Dr. Lynette Long - Caucus Fraud, will discuss the work she is doing on collecting acts about caucus fraud in 2008 Democratic primaries

We've invited special, guest, Cecilia Hickey who attempts to "Clean Up" the Democratic Party, and will discuss letter and email she received from Howard Dean (2007) ) asking for money for the DNC to clean up the voting process and make sure that every vote counts!

Dr. Lynette Long will be a special guest in Dallas at SMU July 26th at a forum celebtating the 160th Anniversary of the Seneca Falls Convention, the first conference in the U.S. on women's rights. Appearing with David Van Os and Dr. Dennis Simon, they'll explore "The Texas Two Step - Trash it or Tweek it!" (10 a.m. to noon - SMU) For reservations call 214 email txrsvp@gmail.com.

Some Texas Voters/ 2008 Democratic Convention participants will have 3 min to address questions, concerns, complaints or recommendations to the panel.
SPEAKERS SIGN UP AT 2008@norespectnovote.com no later than July24th.
Please include subject matter and senatorial district number.Because of time constraints, the number of speakers will be limited.
To speak email

PUMA's In The Park - July 19th

2008-07-17T19:20:00.001-05:00