Women Can Change This!

By Faith Chatham - August 6, 2015
Faith Chatham is founder and CFO/Treasurer of the Texas Federal Blue Seed PAC, a Federal Multi-candidate Political Action Committee focusing on equipping progressive Federal candidates competing in Texas for seats occupied by G.O.P./Tea Party Incumbents

Recently, while digging through data for a report this HARD COLD FACT jumped out at me. Being the graphic artist thinker that I am, I expressed it this way:

Then I looked more closely at the data.  This jumped out at me!

I started drilling down into the Democratic and Republican delegations to Congress and concluded that there are not enough women in the Republican Delegation for women to have much clout there. On really close votes, or to get legislation out of committees where a woman is highly placed, the "boys" may include women in the back room negotiations. However, when 91% of the Party's delegation is "good ole boy" Republican (largely white) men, they can ignore and discount the women, even after the majority of the constituents in a District have elected her to the U.S House of Representatives.

Even though there are more women in Congress now than ever before, by and large, Federal Legislative Policy is still determined by WHITE REPUBLICAN MEN.

Currently, where women have influence over Federal Policy in Washington is in the U.S. Senate. Specifically, women have the most influence within the Democratic Senatorial delegation.  Democrats elect a higher percentage of women and ethnic minorities to Federal Office than Republicans.  In the 114th Senate 32% of the Democrats are Women. There are a few Republican Women who are Senators but they are noted for their anti-choice, anti-pay day fairness, anti women's rights positions.

Within the Democratic Senatorial Delegation, women are strategic in setting policy and passing (or blocking0 legislation.

My conclusion is that women have the power to change the status quo "good ole boy" realities in the U.S. Congress. The first step is WAKING UP and realizing that in 2015 we still let "Good 'Ole Boy Politics" determine the legislative priorities and policies which govern women in society, in the workplace, in government, in the military, in research and healthcare, in the judiciary,  in education and at the voting booth!

The Second Step is shattering the misconception of many women that American Women are represented already! Just because we know of a few high profile Congresswomen or we see Nancy Peloski rise to power in the House of Representatives does not mean that Women have sufficient representation to determine our own fate legislatively!

The Third Step is to confront the misconception that Women of both party's work equally to further the circumstance of American Women. Following the issues and seeing how Women of both party's vote clearly shows that the voting records of the women Republicans elect to Congress  rarely improve the situation of American women and their families.

The Fourth Step is to recruit and equip more progressive Democratic women to successfully compete for seats occupied by Republicans in the U.S. House and U.S Congress. 

In Texas, Congresswoman Kay Granger is the only woman in the Republican Federal Delegation. One woman out of a delegation of 27 does not have very much influence. Of the 11 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, there are two women. Three women out of 38 members of Texas' Delegation leaves women sadly under represented in Congress. It is very easy for the Republican controlled delegation to wage a war on women's rights, women's health care, equitable financing for research for women's health care, pay day equity and other key programs that impact the lives of women and girls in this nation.

There is a sufficient population of women and of progressive men in Texas to change this! The Texas Federal Blue Seed PAC is a multi-candidate Federal PAC focusing on changing the composition of Texas' Federal Delegation.

In 2016 neither of the two U.S. Senators from Texas are up for re-election. (One is running for President but he does not have to resign his Senatorial Seat to be on the ballot for President). Sen. Cruz' seat is not up for re-election until 2018.

This is the goal that has been set by the Texas Federal Blue Seed PAC for 2016.

Looking beyond 2016, here is what we need to do

We can change the current reality.

It will take work. It will take the investment of a few dollars by MANY Democrats who are struggling to make ends meet. It won't take big investments. If every Texan who voted Democratic in the 2008 Presidential Election were to contribute at least $5 to Democratic non-incumbent Congressional Candidates running against G.O.P. incumbents in Texas during the 2016 Primary and at least $5 again during the 2016 General Election that would infuse 20 times the funding into these races as was raised by non-incumbents in 2014.  In 2014 Democratic candidates competing against GOP incumbents for Congressional Seats on the ballot in Texas only raised and spent a combined half a million dollars. That came to an average of about $13K per primary and per general election campaign. 

I was Chief of Staff in 2014 for one of those campaigns. I can assure you that $13K is not sufficient to communicate and mobilize voters in a Congressional District. The David Cozad for Congress campaign stretched $14K as far as was humanly possible but we did not have a budget sufficient enough to even run a few print media ads in newspapers in the district. He got the highest percentage of votes of any non-incumbent Democratic Congressional Nominee in Texas in 2014. Even an additional $10K would have made a considerable difference in the number of progressive voters in the district who would have learned enough about him and his positions to realize that there was a progressive candidate competing with the 30 year G.O.P, incumbent. That would have allowed us to hammer home Joe Barton's deplorable attendance record and his failure to pass more than 8 bills during his entire tenure in Washington.  It would have allowed more women to understand Cozad's pro-women positions which attracted fed-up, disgusted female activists like me and Linda Brooks and Harriet Irby and Beth Dawson to working long hours and donating to his campaign.  Sweat equity and contributions by women supporters in '14 are attributed as enabling him to stretch his small campaign war chest far enough to attract the highest percentage of voters in an election year when there was not a "coat tail" to ride from the top of the ticket.

Voting for someone just because of gender is not a good thing. We must go for people who are pro-women, pro-children, pro-education, pro-workplace fairness.  When the Joni Ernst's or Konni Burton's emerge, we need to fight them because their warped ideologies are obstacles to other women!

It will take work but it can be done. It will mean:

We must bridge the communication divide of 20 different media markets in Texas and learn about Progressive Democratic Federal candidates running in districts throughout the state. One vehicle for this will be the Texas Blue Seed E-mail News Letter and blog posts and social media posts.

Another challenge is mobilizing more volunteers and to funnel early money to challengers so that they can organize.

The Texas Federal Blue Seed PAC is determined to do everything it legally can to support Progressive challengers running for Federal Offices on the ballot in Texas in Districts occupied by Tea Party/G.O.P. incumbents.

Some Blue Seed initiatives include:

• Instigating the formation of the Texas Federal Progressive Candidates Council
• Forming State and Regional Steering Committees to raise funds for and communicate cross district about Texas' Progressive Federal Candidates
• Creating communication tools to help Texans understand and find solutions to the obstacles confronting Democrats challenging G.O.P. incumbents for  Congressional seats.
• Establishing a volunteer referral service for Progressive Federal Candidates so that people can volunteer virtually from their homes by phoning, entering data, writing, editing, doing research, helping with polls.
• Establishing a Federal Candidate's Directory with contact information  on the PACs website.
• Raising money to distribute to Progressive Federal Candidates on the ballot in Texas and raising money to spend on independent messaging in support or opposition to candidates.
• Keeping progress issues and values prominent through use of social media and t-shirt and other campaigns.

We had to start somewhere. The PAC is only a few months old. Everyone who joins now is still considered a "founding member". We have openings, on our regional steering committees and four of our State Steering Committee members will rotate off the board in November. If you, or someone you know, has a solid record promoting progressive candidates and issues in Texas, and are interested in being more than just a "member in name only", we would like to hear from you. Most steering committee meetings are by conference call.

If you are maxed out, but understand the importance of helping Texans build the political infrastructure necessary for Democrats to reclaim seats occupied by GOP/ Tea Party incumbents, please go on line and donate SOMETHING today.

Anyone contributing at least $25 online or by check who is a registered voter (in any state) becomes a Founding Member of the Texas Federal Blue Seed PAC and can vote on which candidates the PAC supports monetarily.   In 2016 it is anticipated that the PAC will contribute to 9 Congressional Challengers during the primary and will select 9 of the Democratic Congressional Nominees to support during the General Election. Each dues paying member will get one vote.  The F.E.C. allows an individual to contribute $5000.00 per year to a Federal Multi-Candidate PAC. We will not reject contributions from deep-pocketed donors. Those who have "maxed out" in donating to Congressional candidates' campaigns for the 2016 primary can give up to $5000 to the PAC in 2015 and another $5000 to the PAC after January 1, 2016.

We welcome large donors to help us distribute money earlier to challengers. Whether a $5000 donor or a $25 dollar donor, each member will have an equal voice in selecting the Congressional Races and the Presidential Candidate who gets financial support by the PAC.

At the last State Steering Committee the Board voted to consider taking advantage of the F.E.C. rule which allows a Federal Multi-candidate PAC to assist other groups which are not Federal PAC in fundraising for Federal Candidates. The board voted to consider on a case-by-case basis requests from groups desiring to host fundraising events for Progressive Federal Candidates in Texas. The event would become a Texas Federal Blue Seed event and would be reported financially through our PAC to the FEC. The groups would have to agree to comply with F.E.C. regulations. All honorees would have to be candidates who were (or are) on the Democratic Primary ballot in Texas. Democratic incumbents could be honorees as long as at least one non-incumbent Democratic Federal Candidate is also an honoree. Candidates who benefit from these fundraisers do not have to wait until the PAC votes on which candidates to support and do not have to be selected by the PAC as candidates to be supported. The host committee (partnering group) gets to determine which candidates get support and the PAC agrees to distribute money to them from the proceeds of the event within a month of the close of the event.

Without a Federal Multi-candidate PAC, it is illegal to raise money for more than one Federal Candidate at an event. In the past 20 years the number of Federal PACs supporting Democratic candidates in Texas has dwindled significantly. Only a few of Texas'  County Democratic Party's or Democratic Clubs have Federal PACs. Therefore, most Congressional candidates running on the Democratic ticket have little assistance from groups which support Democratic candidates.  When considering a request from a potential fundraising partnering group, the board will consult with the campaigns of the preferred honorees. We will ask: "Are you interested in a fundraiser in your behalf hosted by this group with the Texas Blue Seed PAC honoring you and these other candidates?"  "Will any of the proposed dates and venues be acceptable to your and fit into your calendar?" "Do the proposed host committee have any known associations which could create problems for any of the proposed honorees or the Texas Federal Blue Seed PAC? (Racists, sexist, criminal, etc.)  "Does the Host committee has a capable team to do the work on this event and to work with the PAC in ensuring that there is compliance with F.E.C. rules?" If those conditions are met, then we are willing for the Texas Federal Blue Seed PAC to be used to leverage the fundraising capacity of Progressives who do not have Federal PACs. Last year there was a potential host committee in Tarrant County who proposed an event to raise money for all the U.S. House Candidates running in Districts in Tarrant County. It was impossible to stage the event because the group was not a Federal Multi-Candidate PAC and there was no Federal PAC associated with the County Party at the time.

A Federal Multi-Candidate PAC (such as the DCCC) can take small donations from many people and channel them to the districts where there is the greatest chance of winning additional seats or where there is the greatest danger of losing existing seats. Now we have a vehicle to do a similar thing in Texas. Giving any amount to the Texas Federal Blue Seed PAC will enable us to pool our resources and channel them to the districts where we have the strongest challengers. Just because most of Texas' Districts do not rank among the bluest in the nation, does not mean that they are not purple enough to be worth investing in challenger races. There are many districts where the G.O.P. has had a free ride for decades, where no Democratic challenger has had sufficient funding to communicate with the voters sufficiently for progressives to understand that there was a good alternative to the incumbent.

To Join the Texas Federal Blue Seed PAC: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/foundingmember

To give $6, $16, $60 or $600:  https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/6ormorenow?refcode=6now&amount=16.00&recurring=12

To volunteer visit the Contact Page on the Blue Seed Website or phone 682 220-9711

Follow us on Twitter: @txfedblueseed

Please share this information with your friends!

Women Can Stop Republican Men from Determining Our Federal Policies and Priorities

By Faith Chatham - August 6, 2015
(Originally published on Daily Kos as: "Mid Year Status: Texas Congressional 2016 Spotlight")Faith Chatham is the founder and CFO/Treasurer of the Texas Federal Blue Seed PAC, a multi-candidate Federal Political Action Committee which focuses on equipping Progressive challengers running on the Ballot in Texas against G.O.P. /Tea Party Congressional Incumbents.

REPUBLICAN MEN MAKE THE DECISIONS FOR TEXAS WOMEN IN WASHINGTON.  

Despite over 51% of the Texas Population being female, less than 8% of Texas' federal delegation to Congress is female. Texas Women can change that, but inertia and decades of crumbling, insufficient investments in U.S. House District campaign infrastructure by Democrats, adds fuel to the incumbent advantage enjoyed by most of Texas' G.O.P. U.S. House and Senate members.

Texas' partisan slide away from Democratic Federal Incumbents began before Republicans controlled the State Legislature and got control of the redistricting process. To be successful in retaking a significant number of Congressional seats in the Texas delegation, it is important that Democrats stop using gerrymandering as an excuse for sitting on our hands, doing too little or nothing, to equip  Democratic challenger to build the political infrastructure to successfully compete against Republican incumbents. During the first half of 2015 Democrats invested less than 1/4 of what Republicans invested  in Congressional campaigns in Texas districts.

Partisan rankings like Cooks cannot adequately gauge true partisanship when there is not enough investment for both party's to convey their position and message to the voters in the district. Few Texas Congressional Districts with G.O.P. incumbents have seen Democratic congressional campaigns with funding levels adequate to finance staff, vigorous walk and phone teams and advertising. For several election cycles, citizens with progressive viewpoints in most U.S. Congressional Districts in Texas have not learned enough about the challengers to understand that they had a serious alternative to the incumbent.

Gerrymandering is frequently cited as an excuse for not supporting Democratic Congressional challengers in Texas. There are more factors at play than just the maps which favor G.O.P./Tea Party incumbents in Texas.

There are reasons to be guardedly optimistic for 2016. However, for success, there are some changes which Democrats must make. We must move beyond the status quo Democratic response which looks much too similar to this:

All of the Democratic Incumbents from Texas in the U.S. Congress, other than Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, were initially elected to Congress in Presidential Election Years. Democrats are more likely to turn out to vote in Presidential Election years than in Mid-Term years in Texas. Texas Democratic State Executive Director, Crystal Perkins, stated in Fort Worth earlier this year that the State Party was "regrouping for 2018."  Waiting until a mid-term election year to invest in Democratic campaign infrastructure in Texas is a repetition of the State Democratic Party's multi-election year failed strategy. Instead of building and investing to go with the wind (higher presidential election year Democratic turn-out) they propose waiting until a mid-term election year in a state where Democrats have not turned out a Democratic majority statewide since the election of Ann Richards as Governor!

As I see it, the problem is not that the DCCC and House Majority PAC are wrong to focus their resources toward winning the bluest districts in the nation. The problem is that too many Texans refuse to donate to Texas Congressional Candidates.  We should continue supporting the DCCC to help Democrats compete in the bluest districts in the nation. Then we need to do our part here at home. It isn't that the DCCC is not doing their part. They allocate their resources to the strongest races in the nation. The problem is that we have been sitting on our hands for much too long, refusing to do anything in Texas U.S. Congressional Districts unless the DCCC is also targeting these districts.  The problem is not what the DCCC is doing. It is that we need to do more. We need to assess our situation in Texas and create winning strategies to retake a majority in our State's Federal Delegation. This is the job of Texans and we welcome help from friends outside our state. However, it is ridiculous to expect others to come in and "do it for us" when we refuse to step up and do what we can ourselves!

CITIZENS SHOULD'T WAIT FOR DEEP POCKET DONORS TO LEAD THE WAY!

Instead of backroom deals relying on financial control by a few deep-pocketed donors, we have the quintessential opportunity where many of us doing a little can lead those who are financially able to do a lot beyond the same old failed non-strategies which have promoted Tea Party wins! Texans now have the vehicle to raise money and channel it to progressive (Democratic) Federal Races. The Texas Federal Blue Seed PAC was founded earlier this year to focus on doing in Texas what the DCCC does in the nation. We should look at the strongest Democrats running in U.S. House Districts in Texas and donate a few dollars early and volunteer a few hours when we can. We have districts where the electorate is much more progressive than the incumbents. We have districts which have changed demographically. We have districts which, even though they aren't ranked as blue as many others in the nation, are still purple enough to be worth investing in political infrastructure to enable Progressive candidates to campaign vigorously against G.O.P./Tea Party incumbents.

The lack of resources of challengers in Texas' purple districts gives s too many G.O.P. incumbents a free ride. A free ride allows incumbents to transfer funds to candidates in more competitive districts, lending fuel to the struggle of good progressives in other districts.

THE TEXAS  20 MEDIA MARKET DIVIDE

We must stop viewing Texas from only the vantage point of only being concerned with  the Congressional District where we live; instead we need to look at all the Districts in Texas. Building bridges across Congressional District Lines to support good progressive candidates running against Red Incumbents is how we can change the Congressional math in Texas. To do this, we must bridge the  20 media markets divide  and communicate throughout the state about Democratic challengers and their campaigns.  All of our candidates needs to become household words of Democratic activists throughout the state.

It is in our own best interest to become informed and active. Just as the vote of every member of the U.S. House and Senate has as much impact on citizens throughout the United States as the vote of each person's U.S. Representative, the activism of citizens throughout the state (and nation) can also impact the outcomes of Federal elections.
I must vote in the U.S. Congressional District where I live. However, I can volunteer, donate, do research, encourage others to donate, write, blog and communicate about races in Districts where I do not reside. When candidates have slim war chests, volunteers and cross district donors, can make the significant difference which can mean the difference between a win or loss on election day.

Many people live in remote areas where there are no campaigns on the ground needing volunteers. Every Congressional race can use volunteers working virtually on-line or by telephone from their homes.  Instead of spending time driving to go phone bank, those with an hour or two a week can volunteer in virtual phone banks from their own homes if they have cell phone minutes or home telephone all distance callings. Every campaign can use data entry folks and that can be done on a home computer via internet.  The Texas Federal Blue Seed PAC is establishing a Texas Congressional Volunteer registry/referral service to match volunteers with needy campaigns.
Some may volunteer in their own precincts or counties and also volunteer an hour or two virtually for candidates in other parts of the state.  We must stop thinking of "my Congressional District" and come together to view all of Texas' Congressional Districts as key to our survival. Continuing to lay down and let the Koch Brothers decided who will and who won't set our national policy must stop.

There are ample resources in Texas for Progressives to build effective infrastructure to win, but progressives must pull together, be realistic in assessing the obstacles,  work together to find solutions, communicate effectively throughout the state about all of the Federal Campaigns in all of Texas' Districts,  and maximize the use of social media networks. Laying down and wringing the hands and moaning and using gerrymandering and incumbency as excuses for doing nothing must stop. Incumbents build an organization and improve it for the next election. Democrats must build an organization and improve it even if the outcome of the election is not a full blown win. We must take what we had and improve it for the next election. Abandoning the struggle the day after the General Election and leaving the next challenger to have to start from scratch without knowledge or benefit from the investment in the prior campaign keeps challengers perpetually reinventing the wheel while the incumbents organizations become more refined and effective.

Even if the strategy of fighting to save the Democratic seat in US-TX 23 had been successful, it would not have changed the math enough In the Texas Delegation in 2014 there were 12 Democrats and 24 Republicans in the House. After the loss of UX-TX 23 in the last General Election, the math is now 11 Democrats to 25 Republicans in the U.S. House and two Republicans (including good old Teddie Cruz) in the U.S. Senate.  The eleven remaining Democrats in the U.S. House are in relatively safe districts. Challengers in the remaining 24 House Districts currently occupied by Republican/Tea Party incumbents, were starved for funds, starved for volunteers, starved for resources for research, polling, GOTV.

In 2014 Democratic Nominees in six U.S. House Districts had no income and made no expenditures. Despite having a Democrat's name on the ballot, the Republican incumbents in those districts were virtually unchallenged. No investments were made by Democrats in those districts. Of the Democratic non-incumbents challenging Republican incumbents, only six out of 22 had contributions of at least $60,000.00 and spend at least $60,000.00.  The only non-incumbent Democrat who spent at least $1Mil was Tom Sanchez and he was challenging an Incumbent Democrat in the Primary, not a Republican in the General Election. When income and disbursement from his Primary race in U.S.-TX 33 are deducted, the total receipts for all of the non incumbent Congressional Democrats running on the ballot in Texas in 2014 comes to slightly over half a million dollars. That makes an average of $25,736 per Democratic Non Incumbent Nominee for the combined Primary and General Election! Texas Democrats have the resources to fund these campaign, but the more vigorous Democratic Congressional Challenger races in 2014 received (and spent) on average less than $13K during each of the two campaign cycles (Primary and General)  in 2014!

The current strategy of donors refusing to support candidates unless they are in DCCC targeted Red to Blue Districts is a roadmap to failure. There is a better way to do it. And it does not depend upon the DCCC or any national PAC changing their strategy. It is not dependent upon one of more "sugar daddy" deep pocketed billionaire donors "seeing the light" and becoming altruistic in funding challenger campaigns. It is dependent upon "ordinary"  low and middle income Texans giving what we can and doing what we are able to help progressive challengers. It is dependent upon many people doing something instead of almost everyone doing nothing! I think some of the deeper pocketed progressive donors will get on-board when they see support flowing into these challenger campaigns.

MODEST CONTRIBUTIONS BY TEXAS’ PRESIDENTIAL VOTERS WOULD CHANGE THE STATUS QUO IN TEXAS’ FEDERAL HOUSE DISTRICTS

If each Texan who voted Democratic for President in 2008 gave at least $6 to U.S. Congressional challengers competing in G.O.P occupied Texas-U.S. House Districts, it would infuse over $20-Million into challenger campaigns.  Twenty million split between Democratic Congressional candidates running in the 25 G.O.P. occupied districts in  Texas would build a lot more political infrastructure than the meager half a $Million contributed in '14  split 25 ways!  

Six dollars from every  Democratic Presidential voter in Texas in 2008 would come to apx. $846,871 per district and that would force G.O.P. incumbents to spend their war chests, reducing the  number of incumbents who are able to raise money and transfer it to state races or Federal campaigns in other districts. There would be advertising budgets large enough to communicate the candidate’s messages to the voters and sufficient to run a campaign organization. Seeing Democrats step-up and donate to other Democratic challengers would help attract future candidates to fill out he Democratic Primary tickets and give us a better chance of drawing more voters to the polls. As it stands, few counties have contested Democratic Primaries. Many reason "Why bother when we already know the outcome!"

If each Texan who voted Democratic for President in 2014 gave $5 during the Primary and $5 during the General Election, that would infuse over $33Mil into Texas U.S. Congressional challenger races. That would give an average budge of $1.34 Mil per challenger in the 25 districts occupied by Republicans. If Democrats in Texas really want to win U.S. Congressional seats, the resources are here without depending on deep pocketed donors! If only half of those who voted Democratic in 2008 gave $6, it would still increase the money available to Democratic challengers  11 times what was donated and spent by Democratic Congressional Challengers in Texas in 2014!

Here is the Federal Landscape in Texas. 

There are several 2016 U.S. Congressional Campaigns on the ground in Texas. 2014 Democratic Nominees David E. Cozad (US-TX 6), Dr. Shirley McKellar, PhD. (US-TX1), Tawana Cadien (US-TX 10), Michael Cole (US-TX 14), James Cargas (US-TX7) and Pete Gallego (US-TX 32) all have campaign organizations working. They can each use some help! There is speculation that Solomon Ortiz, Jr. may run against Blake Farenthold. He is "considering it" and many are hopeful that he'll take up the challenge.

We still have about 4 months before filing deadline. It will be interesting to see who else declares. Knowing that there are Texans out there who are organizing to help could encourage quality candidates to join. We urge you to join your voice with that of other Texans through membership and activism in the Texas Federal Blue Seed PAC. To join visit https://secure.actblue.com/..     or go to http:/www.txfedblueseed.com
.

2016 is the Year for Women to Step Up and Truly Fight for What Really Matters

By Faith Chatham - July 21, 2015
We have witnessed an erosion in the progress for self-determination and full rights of citizenship for women this past year. Many of us who are old enough to remember when a woman had to have her husband or father as co-signer for loans or sale of personal property, are appalled at the mindset of many incumbents in state and federal office.

There are two high profile women running for President this year. One reinforces the failed discriminatory polices of many incumbents. Electing just any ole woman to office does not improve the circumstances of most American women and girls and their families. It is necessary to elect PEOPLE who further policies which are fair, just and humane.

Last year we witnessed EVERY REPUBLICAN in the U.S. HOUSE and U.S.SENATE vote against the Pay Day Fairness Act. Republican women voted against the best interest of their own daughters, sisters, friends and neighbors. So we need to elect more women (from both party's) but especially we need to elect more Progressives and that usually means more Democratic women to the U.S. House, U.S. Senate and U.S. Presidency.

As a progressive, I respect Senator Sanders and Senator Warren. As a progressive, I see no candidate on the G.O.P. side of any gender who represents my values or who will improve the economy of this nation or any other, further civil rights, honor people of all genders and sexual orientation, or value peace over war mongering.
 As a pragmatic patriotic American, I support Hillary Rodham Clinton for President because I know she is absolutely the best person for the job. Opposing her makes no sense to me.

1. Why peel off some of the strongest progressive incumbents from the Senate when the margins in that chamber are so narrow anyway!
2. Why support someone who has less international experience and has gotten fewer policies implemented?
3. What sense does it make for a progressive to oppose Hillary when she has her progressive track record that streams from her early days organizing in the valley of Texas to working on the world stage to further the situation of women and girls, fighting for decades for affordable health care for all people. What sense does it make to claim that others are more progressive or populist than a women who consistently shows compassion, respect for humans in all socio economic groups, of all genders, sexual orientations, and race?
4. Opposing Hillary because Republicans hate her makes no sense to me either. Of course they hate her. She is the strongest candidate standing between their ambition to reclaim the White House. I see their opposition (and the cadre of paid trolls they employ to slander her) as an endorsement that she is the best candidate for the job!

I refuse to defame the records of other Democrats who run against her. I refuse to sit silently while others call her names, lie and slander her reputation for whatever reasons. Contested primaries are good for the party. I acknowledge that everyone does not have to share my opinion and my viewpoint. Friends are welcome to support which ever candidate they feel will best further their issues. Discussions of issues and trackrecords are welcomed. Discourse which is merely character assassinations is not political discourse and I refuse to engage in it.

On social media, it is discouraging to read posts by Democrats which resemble that of Republican trolls.  When people engage in that level of slander and juvenile name calling without posting reasons which have substance, I block them from posting on my wall. This is my small way of promoting free speech without allowing abuse.  Our nation permits people to express opinions. As an individual, I do not have to subject myself to persistent base conversations which are intended to tear down without presenting reasons or facts. Most who are feeding off of jealousy and hate are unable to cite reasons or facts.

This is my opinion. I am speaking as an individual and not in behalf of any group or organization to which I belong.

We Vote and We Hold Those We Elect Accountable

By Faith Chatham April 9, 2015
Here are some PUMA shirts. YOUR CHOICE of style $18.
They are available in Long or Short Sleeve tee, women's cut tee, and tank. Different styles of shirt are available only in the colors shown.  (Tank is yellow, tees are gold, women's cut tee is available in white).

Shop at: http://teespring.com/stores/wear-the-issues-by-j-chatham

Gals! This is OUR YEAR.

By Faith Chatham  April 9, 2015

Let's Wear Our Determination!

 

And Back It Up with ACTION

to MAKE IT HAPPEN!

 

 

Available in Tank Tops, Long sleeve or Short sleeve Tee Top, Women's cut Tee Tops

$18-$20

Order Here teespring.com/women-power-vote-2016-madam-pr!

I don't understand women voting against women

By Faith Chatham April 9, 2015
I think women should help women. I don't advocate voting only on gender. But I simply don't comprehend how a woman justifies voting AGAINST her own best interest!

We must hold women who WE ELECT TO OFFICE Accountable when they vote to the detriment of women and girls!  Just electing someone who wears high heels and a skirt to office, does not further the cause!

We need to elect women to office who will "carry the water" necessary to enable other women and girls have equity in the workplace, access to healthcare, fair trade practices and other issues important to women which the majority of male elected officials ignore or vote against.

If women officials refuse to fight for women, why elect them?
We must hold women accountable.
If no woman runs against a female incumbent who turns her back on other women, then we should support a man if he will support policies which help women.

Just who wears the stockings is not sufficient to decide how to further our causes.

Why am I writing this?

Last April EVERY Republican in the U.S. House and every Republican in the U.S. Senate voted against the Pay Day Fairness ACT. Congresswomen and Female Senators voted for policies which discriminate against your daughters, your nieces, your girl-friends, your sister, your mother and you. We continue seeing women who have succeeded in being elected to public office go with the boy and not break party rank. 

POLITICAL PARTY should not be the trump card, gals!

I truly am convinced that WISE WOMEN WILL NOT CONTINUE WAITING.

2016 must be our year.

We must work to get strong women elected to office

and we must hold those we elect to office

ACCOUNTIABLE!

 Voting party lines and supporting policies which discriminate against your daughter, your niece, your girl-friends, your sister, your mother and yourself is beyond the pale of stupidity. Yet we continue to see women who have succeeded in being elected to public office go with the boys and not break rank

Our support is not a free ride.

Going with the boys to the detriment

of Women MUST TRIGGER CONSEQUENCES!

Being doormats for men is bad.

Being doormats for other women is plain STUPID!

 

I'd like to say that the women who voted against it were stupid, but that wouldn't be true. It takes a lot of ingenuity to success in winning a seat in Congress. Donors money helps but financing alone does not win seats for the exceptionally stupid-- especially not for women.    Granted there female Congressional incumbents whose world view are so limited that I find their words offensive, yet they were skilled in using the very beliefs which repel me to attract voters who feed off of venom.

We need to send a clear message to ALL

ELECTED OFFICIALS:

VOTE AGAINS WOMEN

AND WOMEN VOTE AGAINST YOU!

 

I'm going to start by designing a series of wearable apparel which sends a message to incumbents and to candidates who seek the support of women. We'll be less silent. We'll be more visible. We'll be very clear on what we expect and what we require.  Let's go for SOLIDARITY.

Women have varied opinions about lots of things and that is o.k. None of us can speak for all women. But surely we can agree that NO WOMAN SHOULD BE PAID LESS than a man with the same education and experience who is doing the same job!

 

 

Also, no one should be fired because they find out what others make and /or because they disclose what they make. Americans deserve to know whether they are being treated fairly by their employers and whether their pay scale is in line with their local job market.

PAY DAY FAIRNESS PROMOTES THE RIGHTS OF ALL WORKERS -- men, women, everyone!

It shouldn't be a partisan issue. It is time that those who made it partisan are made to BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES.

Here is my contribution to the cause.  This navy blue Same Work Less Pay Sucks is available in tank top, tee top, v neck tee top, and in short and long sleeves priced from $18 to $20.

,
To order teespring.com/same-work-less-pay-sucks-tank!

Wise Women Won't Any More! Vote 2016

By Faith Chatham - April 9, 2015
I've neglected this blog and its readers. Now I'm getting back into gear... literally.

In addition to co-founding the Texas Federal Blue Seed PAC to help progressive candidates who are challenging right-wing incumbents for Federal Office running on the ballot in Texas, I'm launching a custom designed line of specialty clothing.

Here is OUR CHANCE to WEAR OUR MESSAGE. These tops are available in sizes S to 5X and there is also the option of shells, women's sizes, and long and short sleeves.

Most retail for $20. If you live in the DFW Metroplex and choose to pick them up from me in Arlington, you can avoid paying shipping cost. Otherwise, they ship to your door for under $4 each.

Here is the first design:

These tagless tees sell for $20 each and the proceeds will be passed along by Faith to further the cause of women and girls!

Other designs coming soon. Please pass this along to your friends.

To order: http://teespring.com/wise-women-won-t-wait-anymore#pid=2&cid=576&sid=front

Campaign shirts and Issue Message shirts are available "Print on Demand" on several store fronts. Some are:
http://teespring.com/stores/wise-women-wont-wait-anymore

Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer "Rich people don't create jobs"

Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube

People of Faith Should Boycott Hobby Lobby until they Divest

By Faith Chatham - July 4, 2014

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of Hobby Lobby, Inc. is viewed by some religious conservatives as a decision in favor of religious freedom. However, most constitutional law scholars view the "hidden payload" of this decision as a set-back for religious freedom.

Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

"The decision “demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a dissent that was mostly joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotmayor.”...In her dissent, Ginsburg said court precedent and common wisdom suggest “the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities.”  (Quote from Forbes Magazine editorial by Daniel Fisher published 6/30/2014: Supreme Court Holds Congress To Its Word in Hobby Lobby Decision.)

On the Hobby Lobby FaceBook page, several people have pointed out that  Hobby Lobby,  Inc. has substantial investments in the manufacturer of the morning after pill and i.u.d. which the corporation claims covering on their employee health insurance under the Affordable Care Act infringes on their owners religious beliefs. The Company's 401K plan also invests in two insurance companies which cover surgical abortions. 

The inconsistencies in the business investment practices of the Greene family and their business (Hobby Lobby, Inc.) cause many to doubt whether the family truly has as strong objections to use of the devices they refuse to cover on their employee health policy as is claimed in their Supreme Court law suit.  

A national call to boycott Hobby Lobby is attracting substantial participation from women and men who object to the imposition of the owners religious beliefs on the personal health and family planning choices of their employees. Those who truly believe that life begins at conception and use of these means of family planning is wrong should join in the boycott until Hobby Lobby divests from stock holdings which manufacture or provide the very services they claim violates their religious beliefs to offer in their employee health plan.

Hobby Lobby invests in nine funds which involve three quarters of Hobby Lobby's 401(k) assets: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, manufactures Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD; Actavis, manufactures a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella; Pfizer,manufactures Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions and Bayer manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions. Forest Laboratories, manufacturer of Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions, is also in the Hobby Lobby investment portfolio. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby portfolio invests in Aetna and Humana, and both of these health insurance companies cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of their insurance plans.

Numerous supporters of Hobby Lobby point out that they cover some birth control and only exclude 4. The company investing in the manufacturer or insurance plans which provide these four, while refusing to allow their employees affordable access to them through the company health plan, indicates to this author that the family's objection to them is lame and less than sincere. 

People of faith who truly believe that these forms of contraception are contrary to their religious beliefs should join in the boycott until they divest of these stocks. Even then, this decision still provides substantial problems for people of faith. 

Whenever anyone at the top of the "food chain" can impose their "religious practices and beliefs" on their employees or their subordinates, we have a serious threat to religious freedom in this country.  Our nation was founded on the premise of separation of church and state to allow individuals to select and practice their religion without interference from government or other powerful interest in the community. This decision is a serious set-back for citizens. It allows a few to impose their preference on many. It allows the more affluent to use its financial clout (through costly litigation or threat to employees earnings and employees benefits) on those of lesser economic standing. 

Instead of being a decision which expands or protects religious freedom, I see it as a "wolf in lambs clothing" which truly infringes upon, and chips away, at the constitutional protections of religious freedom.

Hobby Lobby Totally OK With Abortion (If They Make Money Off It)

Texas population by gender

By Faith Chatham - July 3, 2014

Texas Population US Census
Population by Sex/Age
Male                           12,472,280
Female                      12,673,281
Under 18                     6,865,824
18 & over                     18,279,737
20 - 24                          1,817,079
25 - 34                          3,613,473
35 - 49                          5,218,849
50 - 64                           4,272,560
65 & over                    2,601,886

There are   more about 200,000 more females in Texas than males.
If women will show up at the polls and not vote against their own best interest, Democrats will win in November.

Oh, yeah.

Hillary speaks out about the implications of the Hobby Lobby Decision

Post by Facebook Live.

Women (and many men) are Outraged at Hobby Lobby and 5 men in the U.S. Supreme Court

By Faith Chatham - July 1, 2014

Hobby Lobby may have "won" their Appeal to the United States Supreme Court by a 5-4 decision, but they are losing customers over their claiming religious rights of the owner to refuse to cover birth control on employee insurance. In a 35 page dissent Minority Report, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Burwell v.s. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. decision,

In a copyrighted story Reuters reported:

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the court's decision "jeopardizes the health of women who are employed by these companies. She stated:

"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would...deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage."
"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
"Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
"Would the exemption...extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]...Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision."
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

Outrage at Hobby Lobby and its owners was expressed on the firm's Facebook Page. Those declaring intentions of "never shopping there again" outnumbered those who supported the company's position 9 to 1.

The Great Divide:

All 5 justices who voted for Hobby Lobby to be allowed to claim the right to refuse to offer birth control in employees health plans based on the First Amendment Right of the owner to exercise religious freedom are men. Three of the four Justices who dissented and voted against Hobby Lobby are women!

This decision, viewed as a bad thing for women, may be a good thing for Democrats in November. I concur with Emma Roller in her story: Why the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision Could Be Good News for DemocratsIt could help fire up a hard-to-reach voter demographic.

Roller wrote:

A recent Stan Greenberg poll posits that unmarried women can "make or break" the 2014 elections. And, as Mara Liasson wrote in May, they are firmly in Democrats' camp. But Democrats have a problem: Like most everyone else in the electorate, young women are less likely to turn out to vote in midterm elections. A Supreme Court case doesn't necessarily change that: Getting young female voters fired up about a decision is one thing; getting them to vote is another.

Luckily, contraception coverage is an issue young women care about. A March poll conducted by Hart Research Associates (and commissioned by Planned Parenthood) found that a large majority of female voters—81 percent—believe prescription birth control should be covered as a preventive health service, at no additional cost to prescribers.

For single women, birth-control coverage presents a trinity of issues they care about—health care, reproductive issues, and pay equity (after all, this is an issue that men don't really have to worry about). The Hobby Lobby decision may not be a silver bullet, but it could be enough to energize support among female voters who are suddenly worried that their employers could stop covering their birth control.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-the-supreme-court-s-hobby-lobby-decision-could-be-good-news-for-democrats-20140630

It has been reported that the company owns stock in the corporation which manufacturers the Morning After Pill. Jessica Neubauer posted on the Hobby Lobby Facebook page:

Great, now that you don't have to pay for birth control because of your "religion", maybe you'll sell all your stock in TEVA and DANCO. You know, the companies that make Plan B and the morning after pills?Because you aren't hypocrites or anything.

Corporate Investment in Morning After Pill Manufacturer:

Jessica Neubauer posted on Hobby Lobby's Facebook page: "Great, now that you don't have to pay for birth control because of your "religion", maybe you'll sell all your stock in TEVA and DANCO. You know, the companies that make Plan B and the morning after pills?
Because you aren't hypocrites or anything."
Some defended the company claiming that they could not control what companies their mutual fund bought. Others went on record to show that was not true.
Joyce Kirkham: "There are mutual funds available that are tailor made for just about any philosophy. Your defense of the hypocritical investment practices of HL rings very hollow."

Deborah Morris: "I won’t be buying at Hobby Lobby AND my investment professional does allow me to select industries that I do not want to invest in. No tobacco or guns in my portfolio. . I am pretty sure Hobby Lobby has a lot bigger portfolio than I do and could exercise the same controls if they chose to."

Alisha Deck Niehaus Joan T, So the fact that TEVA makes other drugs aside from the ones that HL disagrees with negates the hypocrisy of denying coverage for employees, but using them to turn a profit for the 401k? That's the kind of circuitous logic that makes robots heads explode. Also, my sister is getting married in August. Everything I bought from HL for the reception just got returned this afternoon. And then re-bought from the Michaels up the road.
Jacki Ristich Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k)."

Sandra: "SV Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.

"The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies."


Some defended Hobby Lobby's investment i TEVA citing that the company manufactured more than just abortion drugs. This did not justify the double standard in the eyes of the majorities reading the page.

Alisha Deck Niehaus: "Joan T, So the fact that TEVA makes other drugs aside from the ones that HL disagrees with negates the hypocrisy of denying coverage for employees, but using them to turn a profit for the 401k? That's the kind of circuitous logic that makes robots heads explode. Also, my sister is getting married in August. Everything I bought from HL for the reception just got returned this afternoon. And then re-bought from the Michaels up the road."

Jacki Ristich: "Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).
Sandra SV Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.

John Smith
"Hobby Lobby I am still waiting for an explanation on why you have over 73 million invested in the companies that make the same IUDs and morning after pills you religiously object to. According to the Green family, interfering with an already fertilized egg is tantamount to abortion—an act unacceptable to the family and one they refuse to participate in no matter what the Affordable Care Act may require .

However, it turns out that the owners of Hobby Lobby do not appear to have any problem with profiting from the companies that manufacture the very products that so grievously offend their religious principles."

The following is a summation of the companies manufacturing these products that are held by the Hobby Lobby employee retirement plan, as set forth by Ms. Redden’s remarkable reporting:

These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

When added up, the nine funds holding the stated investments involve three-quarters of Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) assets."

Many others expressed outrage at the Company claiming providing birth control infringes on their religious freedo while most of the merchandise the company sells is manufactured in China.

Thousands of Americans have gone to the Hobby Lobby Facebook page in the past 24 hours and posted questions about why their "religion" extends to denying women employees insurance coverage for the very medication that the company's matches 401K donations in the stock of the manufacturer! They ask how come Hobby Lobby claims a "moral" "religious" position on birth control for their employees yet have no problem in supporting a Communist Chinese government which forces women to abort all but the first child!

My comment "Religious freedom should extend to the employees! A manager should not determine the religious decisions of the employees! Hobby Lobby is a Corporation! I hope many of the women find much better positions with much better employers. The customers are finding better places to shop!" In less than 24 hours 562 readers clicked that they "liked" my comment!

Darcy Baxter rebuked Justyna, declaring "this is a victory FOR government overreach. It grants more natural rights to a corporate entity, a homunculous, a soul-less creation of the state. All is not as as it seems. This is a HUGE step in favor of the corporatocracy, the plutocratic government system we live under and the subversion of individual rights. Do you know, for example that now EVERY taxpayer, regardless of religious beliefs, will have to foot the bill for HL's religious freedom, and that, in fact, HL asked the US government to do that, in the first place?"

Texas is READY FOR HILLARY

By Faith Chatham - July 1, 2014 It was an honor to work with an incredible team of volunteers in coordination with the Women's and Latino Offices of the Ready for Hillary superpac based in McLean, VA this past weekend at the Texas State Democratic Convention. Hillary's booth appeared to have the most traffic of all the booths at the Convention. We were between Leticia Van de Putte and Cozad for Congress booths and took pictures of delegates declaring their support for Hillary.

<; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">