All,

In the days after Denver, so many of you have written and there is certainly no unanimity about next steps at the conclusion of Hillary’s 2008 campaign. You can imagine the combinations and permutations. In a completely unscientific selection, some of you will leave the party and enthusiastically vote for McCain or blank the President line; some will reluctantly vote for McCain; some for Obama but no-one, so far, enthusiastically; some simply want a Democrat out of habit or tradition, or believe they are following Hillary’s wishes and are ready to move on. No takers for Barr or Nader.

I find it hard to look at the polls without thinking about the large bounce Hillary would have received had she been the nominee. Here too the opinions run the gamut, from tears and appreciation for her grace and dignity, to fury with the way she was treated/compromised, with some who felt she “caved”.

Among those who will support Obama, tepid is certainly the descriptor. So far few seem inclined to give money to him and none to the DNC; many think he will not, or should not win. There are certainly issues of accountability and trust that will have to be rebuilt, some on a very personal level.

Virtually everyone seems tired, wrung out, disillusioned. Some express total alienation; others say they will regroup and be “back” although unclear how and to what degree. Some speak of a grieving process. “Angry”, “sad”, “cynical” pepper your comments. Some report crying in frustration or sadness. One broke a favorite glass while anxiously listening to the roll call totals.

Several of you wrote in confusion as to the discrepancy between state primary votes and votes cast in the “roll call”. Some delegates reported hearing that in the preliminary vote, Hillary received anywhere from 1650 to 1920 votes. Between that time and the convention roll call, no-one can quite explain what happened to many of those votes. Many delegates said that the roll call was like another fraudulent caucus, writ large. Many report intimidation, threats and yelling.

Call me naive, but after all she has done, ways she has extended herself, could BO not have been a bit more gracious, let people vote their conscience, represent their voters and celebrate her candidacy? We owe deep appreciation to all the Clinton pledged delegates and Super Delegates who understood her to be the best and only electable Democrat. If my inbox is any example, HRC delegates with feet of clay will be hearing from many of you who sent them to Denver to vote for Senator Clinton.

Where do we go from here? Even as many hundreds used the ELECTABILITY WATCH to try to make change we could believe in - Hillary as the nominee of the Democratic Party - on some level I think we knew the convention would be a farce, hoped not, but were still shocked to see how overt and deep the corruption and abuses of power have become.

Some have called me a “bitter” Hillary supporter. NOT. I am a lifelong, deeply committed Democrat, but not to the Democratic Party as currently constituted and its anti-democratic practices. The party joined with the Obama campaign to steal our best chance for a truly great President. It is NOT just that HRC lost - but rather the way she and her 18 million voters were flicked off, except for some of our rolodexes.

I am concluding that the only way I and many of us can register our disappointment/disapproval/distrust is by blanking at the top. It is the only way to convey my disgust with the party and its choice, by having a large differential between those who vote Democratic and those who vote for BO. It is important that it be publicly discussed as a strategy so it is not just treated as a statistical anomaly.

I will also be working for down ticket Democrats to ensure a veto-proof Congress, letting you know about candidates who backed Hillary and need our help. This is one of the ways we try to remedy some of the more extreme distortion of values and systems we have all experienced from the Obama gang and the DNC and its leaders.

To understand some of the results of the Convention and the aftermath below, by state, are some of the comments and observations I have received. Part Two will focus on the ELECTABILITY WATCH, charts of the so-called roll call vote, and some of the other commentaries.

As for the so-called roll call, almost without exception reports are of chaos, rumor, contradictory information and outright misinformation as to where, how and when to vote, and then who really voted for whom. Donna Brazile’s mother may have told her there were rules, but mine told me to be generous and gracious in victory. According to the first hand accounts I am receiving, Barack Obama’s mother failed to instill this in him. There is widespread agreement that he could have been gracious in victory, and his inability to do so is really a characterological flaw.

A number of writers asked their comments be listed as anonymous out of fear of retribution, including:

“Regarding the roll call vote. I’ve spoken to many delegates in many states. It appears that the delegates who were pressured the most were in the Swing States. Anyone who had any sort of job in politics or the DNC were pressured the most to switch. Many Governors demanded that their delegates switch because they would not get any money for their state races if they did not. It boils down to the fact that the Obama campaign had power over the State Party Chairs. These State Party Chairs get the money for all of their candidates. If they did not switch they were threatened. The delegates who stood firm with Hillary… took their pledge seriously. It still does not make any that Obama felt compelled to threaten the delegates. He would have won anyway. I guess they used these tactics all along, and they could not help themselves. What the experience in Denver resulted in is a bunch of angry delegates going home to tell their constituents what really happened. In the end I think it was a terrible move by the Obama campaign. I don’t think he realizes that his moves throughout the primary has ultimately de-energized a large part of the base which will result in his loss. Eventually it will go down in the history books as what not to do to voters. The voting results should be public but we have had a few delegates request the results to no avail.

I will not vote for McCain, but I will be leaving the top of the ticket blank.”

ARKANSAS: “I was so angry at the sham of a roll call that I just wanted it to be over… ” “the last time I felt such unbearable group pressure was on a jury” ” Obama representatives yelling, you’ll be sorry” to “hold outs”. It was brutal.”

An alternate kept calling out that the state voted 70% for Hillary yet recorded its 47 delegate votes for Obama - “how could that be?”

CALIFORNIA: Chris Stampolis reports “I cast my signed vote for Hillary this morning. It will be added to the roll call count for California”. Except, we may never know how California voted…

Delegate Ray Panko reports that, “The California vote was about 230+ for Obama to 160+ for Clinton which did not reflect the state vote. The process was completely controlled by the DNC and the Obama campaign. They had us all vote at breakfast. They took our votes and tallied them. They did this to see how close the numbers would be between Obama and Clinton. The aim was to prevent the public from seeing the closeness of the race. California passed because the Obama/Dean,Nancy Church(DNC) told it to pass. It was a sham, show, farce, gimmick.

Overall, the process was reprehensible. Each delegation was told a different story. No one was told the actual rules of the DNC which say delegates are required, in good conscience, to vote on the first ballot a vote that reflects the will of the voters who sent them to the convention. Gloria Allred was prevented from speaking to the California Hillary delegates to inform them of this rule and that it applies regardless of whether or not the candidate releases us or not.

People understood that pledged delegates would do what they came to Denver to do - vote for one of the nominees to reflect the votes of those who sent them. We expected there to be respect for the 18 million votes and Hillary’s historic candidacy. We even thought that Super Delegates would be allowed to do their job - to select the electable Democrat. But that was not to be. Instead, the roll call turned into one chaotic caucus rigged to be sure that the final vote would never be known, without any sublety or reverance for the sanctity of the vote or individual obligations.”

A Super Delegate reported that “CA “passed” without ever recording its votes because the Hillary delegation stood firm and had the vote been given accurately, Hillary would have been temporarily ahead in the roll call”.

Clinton delegate and LA attorney Gloria Allred grabbed a napkin from the tables at the California delegation breakfast and wore it as a gag to protest not being allowed to speak at the breakfast. “I was not elected to be a potted plant,” Allred said through her gag, holding up DNC rules that say delegates must vote as they are elected. Californnia had 204 delegates pledged to Hillary Clinton, versus 166 for Obama.”

CONNECTICUT: “I felt blindsided, bullied, mugged. I saw delegates being verbaly arm twisted with threats of loss of positions.” “One Obama delegate was bright red, yelling right up in my face”.

FLORIDA: Barbara Bassett to Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “Do not be party to the DNC and its efforts to further disenfranchise the voters of our state. Had our votes counted on Jan 29, 2008, we would be looking at the nomination of Senator Clinton. Again if our votes counted on May 31, 2008 we would be looking at the nomination of Senator Clinton… Stand up and say, ‘We the People of the great state of Florida vote for Hillary Clinton’. I want to be heard, once during this election. I want to be heard. ONE person, ONE vote. I count, I matter. We voted, we spoke and we look to you to honor the integrity of our vote”.

Ladyhawwke: To Former President Jimmy Carter BY FAX: (404) 331-0283. “I am one of the 18m who supported Senator Hillary Clinton in her quest to become the first female president in history. I had hoped for a fair roll call in order that Sen. Clinton’s delegates would have the opportunity to vote for her as our Party’s nominee. I am angry and disillusioned. I have never seen such a farce that was perpetrated upon the American people by the sham roll call. Where were you when our voices were crying out to be heard? Why is it important to have fair elections abroad and not in the U.S.? Why were the delegates threatened by members of congress, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean?”

A delegate insisted that someone take notice that the state, which voted heavily for Hillary and was punished by having its delegates halved, somehow announced 136 votes for BO and 51 for Hillary. At least 6 Clinton delegates had been replaced by Obama supporters before the Convention. Others were intimidated and warned their jobs and positions would be pulled.”

GEORGIA: (text message) “This is insane. They are yelling at the delegates to vote bo or their political careers are over”.

IDAHO: A delegate: “the feel was of a Republican convention, totally controlled and scripted. No humor or mistakes”.

ILLINOIS: “Bill and Hillary did way MORE for Obama than he ever deserved!! I am anxious to see how he will return the favor for them! He owes them both, big time!”

IOWA: “Does anyone think this has been a fair, open, transparent process? Voting before nominating speeches? Voting in front of people who have power over many of the delegates? No clear process to avoid ballot fraud? Remind you of caucuses??? Chaos and lack of clarity and consistency?”

KENTUCKY: Moretta Bosley: “I was overwhelmed by e-mails in support of Hillary. I want you to know that kept my word and voted for Hillary despite strong pressure to do otherwise.”

A delegate: “Our Hillary delegation was shouted at, told that they would be perceived as racists, told that their careers would be over if they voted for Hillary. Perhaps because of this, Hillary had a private meeting to thank our delegates. Clinton won the state by nearly 40 points. Nonetheless, the roll call was annnounced as Obama 36, Hillary 24.”

Martha Ziskind, a prominent Louisville attorney: “I’m feeling pretty disheartened right now, particularly by the media’s vitriol. Hillary didn’t just speak for the “undereducated”. If anything, her story strikes an all too familiar chord with well-educated, highly competent women of a certain age… My only comfort is that I know she will continue to make a name for herself in the Senate — and perhaps the Supreme Court”.

MARYAND: Donna Inches: I am extremely proud of the Clintons, however, I am no longer a democrat. I cannot forgive the DNC as easily, I cannot forget the caucus fraud, nor can I forgive the democratic leaders who allowed the mass media to treat Hillary in such a horrendous manner. I cannot ignore Obama’s unscrupulous associations or his dirty politics. He is not my candidate… My mom called me after Hillary called to suspend the roll call vote. I don’t believe I have ever heard my mother cry before. It broke my heart. She told me that her vote for Hillary is the last time she will ever vote. The despair in her voice was unbearable… I can only say, I will not be voting for McCain, but I will be voting against Obama.

MASSACHUSETTS: “What a contrast to the Olympics where in spite of the cutthroat competition, there is at least a veneer of sportsmanship and mutual support”.

MICHIGAN: Not only did Hillary not “lose by a tiny margin”, she lost through thuggery and cheating. And this is the man around which we’re supposed to rally?” “And as with MI earlier, unearned votes were taken from HRC and given to BO.”

MINNESOTA: “I voted for Senator Clinton today, and my delegation chastised me. I was told, ‘You just made your worse political decision, and it will be your last.’ At least I can sleep at night knowing I voted for what I believed in”.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: “What thugs they are. They make it clear that they really do not need us and have no intention of doing anything about the unity they mouth.” “Our state voted strongly for Clintonhas but has a close senate race and the candidate, the head of our delegation, was threatened that funds would be withdrawn. The state cast most of its votes for Obama”.

NEW JERSEY: “We overheard delegates from our state which had voted strongly for HRC saying that they understood DNC funding for local races in their state would be dependent on a unanimous delegation vote”.

A delegate was told “he needn’t worry about his vote - the totals for New Jersey were irrelevant, that the delegation was going to announce as unanimous”.

NEW YORK: “My guess, with no inside information at all, is that no-one expected her votes to melt away or be driven away - that the BOs would be gracious enough to let her have her votes and she would then nominate by acclamation. That she did, but they had snarked away her delegates for maximum humiliation value”.

From her office, after being quoted as saying she would vote for Obama, a note that “Carolyn B. Maloney has asked me to inform you that she will be voting for Sen. Clinton tonight on the first ballot”. Except we may never know how New York voted…

Jeanne Wikler: “Driving west through the golden hills of the California desert I realized why, to me, Hillary is the true leader. While Obama gives you the impression that he is a special person, Hillary gives you the impression that YOU are a special person”.
Lady Boomer NYC: (excerpts from Null and Void: Democrats Roll Call in Retrospect) “What exactly did we see on the “Democratic” Convention floor last Wednesday, August 27, 2008? Why was the roll call halted halfway through? Why did state after state in which Hillary won the primary election and a majority of delegates declare their votes for Obama? Who and what do all those delegates’ votes represent? As each “Great State of” our Union called out its numbers, I wondered, what was the actual delegate count? … The delegate count in this election was not a fair reflection of the Democratic Party electorate. 1) Hillary Clinton WON the popular vote. 2) There exists growing documentation, that caucus fraud was rampant. This occurred in the form of systematic, deliberate suppression, misinformation, pressure, and bullying, mishandling of voter and caucus rolls, and ignoring basic caucus rules. 3) Each delegate elected from a district or region in a primary state represents approximately 12,225 primary voters, but only 2,110 voters in a caucus state. Accordingly, a caucus delegate represents about 5.8 times fewer voters than one elected in a primary. So, when Obama “won” a caucus, each of those delegates stood for far fewer voters. This is especially important in the general election in the red and swing states.” http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/null-and-void-democrats-roll-call-in-retrospect/

Edith Padilla: ” Hillary was just fantastic! I was so proud of her. So proud to have been part of her campaign. The lady interviewed at the end on CNN said so much of what we all felt last night. Hillary is the one that should be our leader, we love and support her no matter what happens. Our party should be ashamed of themselves expecting her and Bill to clinch the deal for BO!”

Marcia Pappas: “On a personal level”. Those words are so true. I have personal friends who did not stand up for Hillary. I can’t even look them in the eye, break bread with them, or even make small talk. I have taken this very personal, and I know many other women who feel the same. I have professional friends as well, who did not support Hillary. Mind you, not many, but they were out there, and the tension was so great I could cut it with a knife.”

GN: I don’t know if in the future I’ll support the women who didn’t understand the importance of supporting the greatest symbol of women’s achievement. In sadness I wonder, where has all the Sisterhood gone? Generation gap? But even the women ‘of a certain age’ couldn’t reliably be counted on. And my closest friends didn’t necessarily get it. For how long has sisterhood imperceptibly been slipping away?

Mike Brady: “Watching her these past two nights….she amazes me with her grace and strength. Her friend Eleanor Roosevelt would be proud.”

“Getting up with grace, especially in the face of injustice and indignity is indeed a rare quality!!!”

PENNSYLVANIA: An elderly weeping delegate who wanted to vote for Hillary was consoled by several fellow delegates who said they were all sent to Denver by their friends and neighbors to vote for Hillary but, “no-one seemed to care”.

OHIO: Flo Gurwin After watching the convention proceedings in Denver, I certainly do believe in HIS change–his ability to continually change his mind. I do not trust him. I think he’s a snake and the scumbags surrounding him leave little doubt in my mind that he is not the sort of person I want for my president.”

Mary Anne Saucier, writing from the “home front” reports, “The Obama people are really angry, upset, scared, and thereby potentially dangerous people. After getting selected but not elected by the corrupt Democratic Party, Obama and his minions are now confronted by uncooperative voters.

Yesterday, my neighbor, three doors north of my house called to say that two Obama canvassers, aggressively working both sides of the street, were on their way toward my house. “They are trying to find out how people are going to vote,” she warned. My neighbor, just recovering from back surgery, is a feisty independent lady, as am I, and would not say. She figures that is her business and she owns her vote. My comment was that they probably would not stop at my house because I have a “Hillary for President” sign in my yard.

We live on a busy street and my sign has been there since the early days of the Democratic Primary. Over all the many years I’ve put political signs in my yard, none have ever been stolen or in any way damaged or mutilated. What happened yesterday is a first, but not unexpected after what has happened this year to so many who have refused to support unqualified Obama.

No one stopped at my house, but I immediately found my Hillary sign in a crumpled heap with one side slit to cut it off the metal frame.

Now, I have another treasured war trophy to encourage the faint of heart to join the crusade for substance, democracy, and valid votes over vapidity, intimidation and fake control.”

OREGON: Sue Castner: “I DID scream “nay” when Pelosi called for the unanimous acclamation. When I told the Oregon DNC state committeeman I wanted it recorded, he said it didn’t matter. It was already recorded. So much for celebrating the passage of the 19th Ammendment on Tuesday.”

RHODE ISLAND: “I think the whole party just blew what should have been a Democratic shoo-in”. “Nancy Pelosi and The DNC insulted and humiliated the Clintons during this convention and it I can’t be the only one who noticed.”

TENNESSEE: Jackson Slade: To the Editor, NYT: “After hearing Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s superb speech, I must express my admiration for Senator Barack Obama’s confidence. By choosing Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. as his running mate, he obviously feels that he can win without her and her passionate supporters.”

TEXAS: Frances Morey: “I was less than enthusiastic about the impeachment of Bush AND Cheney because Pelosi would have been next in line for the Oval Office”. She also noted that “going into this convention Obama was flat-lining in the polls. If there is a bounce to follow we know who is responsible–The Clintons”.

“This morning I got my credential and was directed to go to another room. There I showed my badge and my id and indicated my presidential preference on a sheet next to my name and signed my name. This is the state tally sheet. Texas delegation officials, Boyd Richie’s staff and volunteers, have total control of this. They will use this tally sheet to report the Texas delegation totals for todays roll call vote at the Pepsi center later today.”

Blanche Darley, wearing a button saying ObamaNation Scares the Hell out of Me, on the impact of HRC’s speech: “We love her, but it’s our vote …we don’t trust or like him…”

Nata Koerber: “Hillary has a life-time of service to the Democratic Party and has done everything required and then some to encourage support of Obama. The responsibility of uniting the Party lies squarely in the lap of Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, Obama’s preferred choice for VP.”

A HRC pledged delegate, realizing that it did not matter how his delegation voted, announced that “it is obvious that the Obama campaign has no regard for the Clinton delegates or voters, that they were making it clear that Obama does not feel he has to treat us with even minimal respect.”

VERMONT: A demonstrator wondered if we would ever see totals, if there is a paper trail, and then corrected himself asking why anyone would believe it if one surfaced?

VIRGINIA: a delegate: “Maybe you noticed, excuse me but wasn’t that HER health care plan - the same coverage as offered to members of Congress???”

WASHINGTON: a delegate reports that the delegation chair did not hold a breakfast vote, telling the HRC delegatess to vote after what turned out to be the deadline, But in the end, “the WA HRC delegation held firm, but never got to register its votes”.

WASHINGTON, DC: Nancy Beang: “Barack Obama…the audacity of hype. It’s really unfortunate that people are so wow’d by…nothing. Nobody I’ve met, young or old, black or white, (and I meet LOTS of people) can tell me WHY they support him, except to say he represents change. No list of accomplishments…even when I ask “what has he accomplished?” all those people just scratch their heads and look embarrassed. The anointers are going to be sadly & sorely disappointed. This was our Democratic year to pull it out, and I’m just afraid it ain’t gonna happen…it’s a good thing Hillary isn’t on the ticket…she won’t EVER be thought of as a loser.” “after her speech last night, no one can blame her when he loses. Obama funders and delegates heard grumbling that she did not praise BO enough or apologize for saying during the primaries that he had no experience. Unity or appreciation anyone? Guess not…”

A DC delegate: “Donna Brazlle in spite of her bluster that she would quit the Democratic Party if the SDs cast deciding votes, did not quit as promised and cast her vote with the DC delegation.”

Heidi Li Feldman, The Denver Group From the wicked to the absurd: the saga of the California “pass”
Posted: 03 Sep 2008 12:15 AM CDT
Let me begin with a credit to somebody who left a comment on the previous post on this site, And the Wickedness Goes On…. That commenter=2 0drew my attention to what I had previously thought might have been a principled refusal by the California delegation to the Democratic National Convention’s rigged internal election of its nominee (otherwise known as the roll call vote). The LA Times decided to look into the matter. In its first story , on August 28th, on the situation the Times wrote, “The state takes a pass simply because a tally of its 441 delegate votes wasn’t completed when the state’s name was called.”

Then yesterday, September 2, the Times followed up with this story, announcing that only by September 2 did the state complete its tally. Furthermore, the L.A. Times reports the following about its inquiry to the DNC the about the total roll call vote tally:

As for the total vote, well, Democratic officials were still working on it as of late this afternoon.
A spokeswoman for the Democratic National Convention Committee, Natalie Wyeth, said paperwork had been shipped back from the convention site in Denver, but that the Labor Day holiday delayed the tally.
Wyeth said she expected the official count to be released soon, perhaps by day’s end.
Say what? Let me get this straight. In their rush to fake a roll c all vote, first the DNC does not give one of the largest and most populous states in the country a full opportunity to have its tally completed and reported at the convention; then the DNC gives a major news paper the lamest excuse I ever heard for its failure to have a final tally completed as of yesterday. Labor Day weekend made it hard to count any sooner.

Say what? I worked over Labor Day Weekend but would happily have headed over to the DNC to help count if that was the problem. And you can be sure that if the DNC can’t count votes any quicker than this, no way are they going to be ready any time soon to gather and ready to release information about which delegates chose to vote against the way they were pledged.

Rank and file Democrats need that information - facts about which delegates decided that their consituents’ interests would be most faithfully carried out (the standard defined in the Party’s rules) by voting for somebody other than the candidate the consituents voted for - so that ordinary Democrats can decide whether they want to entrust their franchise to these particular representatives should any try to become delegates again.

Now, it appears that a large number of Clinton delegates from California, where Senator Clinton won big in the primary, did not care to switch their allegiance from Senator Cinton to Senator Obama on the first ballot.

Now, maybe it was sheer ineptitude that led to California’s inability to count its delegates in time to actually participate in the sham roll call. Or maybe Nancy Pelosi - DNC official, Obama supporter, and prominent California politician - thought that by not giving California time to finish its tally she would preempt the possibility that one of the early states to vote would assign a large chunk of its delegates to Senator Clinton.
Whatever the case, the California experience epitomizes the wrongfulnes of the DNC’s apprach to it

And the wickedness goes on… Posted: 02 Sep 2008 06:16 PM CDT
How [X] has conducted himself while winning campaigns is a subject of no small controversy in political circles. It is frequently said of him, in hushed tones when political folks are doing the talking, that he leaves a trail of damage in his wake—a reference to the substantial number of people who have been hurt, politically and personally, through their encounters with him. [X]’s reputation for winning is eclipsed only by his reputation for ruthlessness, and examples abound of his apparent willingness to cross moral and ethical lines.
Almost precisely these words appeared in The Atlantic magazine. I say “almost” because where I have inserted “X” The Atlantic article refers to Karl Rove.

The day has come, however, where we can almost substitute for Mr. Rove, a person from whom I stay immeasurably distanced, any of the following: Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and various others. These political operators and the people who they control seem willing to cross any and all moral and ethical lines in their relentless insiste nce on depriving Democrats of internal due process. I say we can “almost” substitute their names for Mr. Rove’s because they do not seem nearly so adept at actually gaining their stated objective - the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency, an outcome that seems less likely with every gaffe and every new poll result.

The newest evidence of the wickedness of the current crop of DNC leaders is the fact that nobody in the DNC is willing to supply the following information: how the delegates actually voted in their private morning caucuses on the day of the roll call rigamarole orchestrated by Democratic Party state and national leaders. At those meetings the state party leaders, made fearful of any sort of “floor fight” (read “honest, open, legitimate, unrigged roll call vote”) cajoled, pressured and demanded that delegates pledged to Senator Clinton switch their votes to Senator Obama. Wickedness.

I have been informed by various sources that delegates cannot get, from either the DNC or their State party chairs the following information: the actually tallies and ballot sheets from the morning caucuses. This means that nobody can check whether in fact Clinton delegates did switch or which of them did and which of them did not.

There is every reason to ask for this information if one cares about the Democratic Party’s integrity which is rapidly reaching the vanishing point. When delegates ask for this information they are being told things like “We don’t have copies of the ballots” or “W e are too busy with campaigns”. They are being told, in essence, to take a hike; process be damned, all that the Democratic Party cares about is result, with no heed to how it is achieved.

That type of thinking brought America an attorney general and a President who decided torture is not torture if it gets you what you think you want.

The DNC’s own rules disqualify secret ballots at the convention. If the Party does not release full and verifiable tallies and ballot sheets post haste, they are not only in violation of this rule, Party officials become ever more indistinguishable from the man who stole Florida and deprived Al Gore of the Presidency in 2000.

Voting rights are at the foundation of any legitimate democratic institution. Ballots disappearing, delegates being given the runaround as they try to verify the result that was announced at the convention - these are wicked tactics, much like the threats to de-accredit delegates who at all tried to treat the Democratic Party Convention as the “deliberative body” is is supposed to be, according so “delegate guru” Phil MacNamara over on the DNCC website.

The purveyors of such political wickedness are tearing apart the Democratic Party and corroding its foundations. I for one shall remain immeasurably distanced from them and from the candidate who has capitalized on the leadership’s wicked ways.

HILLBUZZ: DENVER - Senator Barack Obama’s acceptance speech last week seemed vastly different from the stands of this city’s Invesco Stadium than it did to the 40 million who saw it on television. Melancholy hung like think smog over the reserved seats where I sat with Democratic Party staffers. The crowd, of course, cheered mechanically at the tag lines, flourished placards, and even rose for the obligatory wave around the stadium. But its mood was sour. The air carried the acrid smell of defeat, and the crowd took shallow breaths. Even the appearance of R&B great Stevie Wonder failed to get the blood pumping.

The speech itself dragged on for three-quarters of an hour. As David S Broder wrote in the Washington Post: “[Obama’s] recital of a long list of domestic promises could have been delivered by any Democratic nominee from Walter Mondale to John Kerry. There was no theme music to the speech and really no phrase or sentence that is likely to linger in the memory of any listener. The thing I never expected did in fact occur: Al Gore, the famously wooden former vice president, gave a more lively and convincing speech than Obama did.”

On television, Obama’s spectacle might have looked like The Ten Commandments, but inside the stadium it felt like Night of the Living Dead…

AND FINALLY,

HILLARY FOR SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: For those who would like to sign this letter, please go to http://tdg.typepad.com/hrcsenatemajorleader09/

• Leave a comment... (6)

BERG vs OBAMA THE CASE SUMMARY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE :
:
Plaintiff :
vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,
a/k/a BARRY SOETORO, a/k/a
BARRY OBAMA , a/k/a
BARACK DUNHAM, a/k/a :
BARRY DUNHAM, THE :
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL :
COMMITTEE, THE FEDERAL :
ELECTION COMMISSION AND :
DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE :
:
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

Plaintiff Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] hereby offers this Memorandum in support of his motion for a temporary restraining order, to enjoin Defendant Barack Hussein Obama, a/k/a Barry Obama, a/k/a Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barack Soetoro, a/k/a Barry Dunham, a/k/a Barack Dunham [hereinafter “Obama”] from running for the office of President of the United States; to enjoin Defendant, Democratic National Committee from Nominating Defendant Barack Hussein Obama, a/k/a Barry Obama, a/k/ a Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barack Soetoro, a/k/a Barry Dunham, a/k/a Barack Dunham’s and placing his name on the ballot for Presidential election, and for expedited discovery in this case. Plaintiff’s Complaint challenges Defendant Obama’s eligibility to run for the Office of President. Defendant Obama is unqualified and ineligible to run for United States Office of the President, as he is not a “natural born” citizen as required by Article
II, Section I of the United States Constitution. The Democratic National Committee [hereinafter “DNC”] has failed to perform due diligence, and to verify the eligibility of Defendant Obama to run for the office of President of the United States.
As set out in Plaintiff’s Complaint, to allow Defendant Obama to continue running for Office of the President will violate the United States Constitution and Laws, which our forefathers set out to protect.

Plaintiff seeks focused and expedited discovery, so that he can demonstrate to the Court, as soon as possible, the full breadth of innocent people affected by Defendant Obama’s fraudulent campaign.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, in order to serve as President, one must be a “natural born citizen” and may not hold dual citizenship or multiple citizenships with foreign Countries. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

There appears to be no question but that Defendant Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen. It is also undisputed, however, that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama’s parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.

Defendant Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and it is uncertain in which hospital he claims to have been born. Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, his half-brother and half-sister all claim Obama was born not in Hawaii but in Kenya. Reports reflect that Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of
pregnancy (which, apparently, was a normal restriction, to avoid births during a flight). By these reports, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew home and registered Obama’s birth. There are records of a “registry of birth” for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.

Upon investigation into the alleged birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Wikipedia English Version, under the subject “Barack Obama,” states Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital. Wikipedia Italian Version, under the subject “Queens Hospital,” states Barack Obama was born in Queens Hospital.

There are further references circulating on the internet claiming examination of the hospital’s records in Hawaii show no birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama), Obama’s mother. However, there are records of a “registry of birth” for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961, in the public records office in Hawaii.

Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008 stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen.

At the time of Obama’s birth in 1961, Kenya was a British Colony. There is a purported Canadian Birth Certificate, posted on the Internet, in the name of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.; however, the date of birth is shown as August 23, 1961.

Under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Obama became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963. Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and critic Andy Martin states that Obama has never renounced his Kenyan citizenship. Andy Martin further states that, on Obama’s Senate web site, Obama tap dances around his own dual nationality when discussing his father. Obama obviously knows, because his father told him, that he (Obama) also held/holds Kenyan nationality.

If, in fact, Defendant Obama was born in Kenya, under the laws of the United States, in effect at the time of his birth, if a child was born abroad, and one parent was a U.S. citizen (which here, of course, would be Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham), Obama’s mother would have had to have lived ten (10) years in the U.S., five (5) of which were after she reached the age of fourteen
(14). At the time of Obama’s birth, his mother was only eighteen (18), and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship.

The laws in effect at the time of Obama’s birth did not recognize U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Obama’s mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a “natural born” citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b), Matter of S-F- and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Att’y Gen. 1944).

Obama could only have become a U.S. citizen if naturalized, and a naturalized citizen is not qualified and/or eligible to run for the office of President of the United States. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section I. Furthermore, if Obama was born in Kenya, his birth father Barack Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya; therefore, Obama would necessarily have become a citizen of Kenya.

Furthermore, if Obama had been born in Kenya, his birth father Barack Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya; therefore, Obama would have automatically become a citizen of Kenya.

Even if Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, he lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother re-married and moved to Indonesia with her Indonesian husband. In or about 1967, when Obama was approximately six (6) years old, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, and moved to Indonesia with Obama. At this time, if Obama was registered in Indonesia as a “natural born” citizen of that country (which, in the absence of any proof that he was born in Indonesia, or that either of his birth parents, for that matter, was Indonesian, he was not) Obama lost his U.S. citizenship, when his mother married Lolo Soetoro, and took up residency in Indonesia. Loss of citizenship, in these circumstances, under U.S. law (as in effect in 1967) required that foreign citizenship have been achieved through “application.”

Such type of naturalization occurred, for example, when a person acquired a foreign nationality by marriage to a national of that country. Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b). A further issue is presented that, at least according to information in circulation on the Internet, Obama’s Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, may have adopted Obama.

The Nationality Act of 1940 provided for the loss of citizenship when a child became naturalized in a foreign country upon the naturalization of his or her parent having custody of such child. Obama’s mother expatriated her U.S. Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, and relocated with her son (Obama) to Indonesia.

Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has received copies of the school registration, in which it clearly states Obama’s name as “Barry Soetoro,” and lists his citizenship as Indonesian. Obama’s father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, Obama’s date of birth and place of birth are listed as August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and Obama’s Religion is listed as Islam. This document was verified by Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt Meagher took the actual footage of the school record.

In or about 1971, Obama’s mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten (10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.

Sometime after the return of Obama to Hawaii, Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, returned to Hawaii and divorced her second husband, Lolo Soetoro. At the time of this divorce, Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, could have regained her U.S. Citizenship. In order to regain her U.S. citizenship, Obama’s mother would have had to take the Oath of Allegiance required. Such Oath of Allegiance may be taken abroad, before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or in the United States, before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of a Court. Such Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court, or the Attorney General; and upon demand, a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered, under the seal of the embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General shall be delivered. The certified copy shall be evidence of the facts stated therein before any court of record or judicial tribunal and in any department or agency of the Government of the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1435.

As stated above, the Nationality Act of 1940 provided for the loss of citizenship when the person became naturalized abroad, upon the naturalization of his or her parent having custody of such person. Obama’s mother expatriated her U.S. Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, and relocated her and her son (Obama) to Indonesia.

Plaintiff believes that Obama’s mother failed to take the oath in order to regain her U.S. Citizenship. If that be the case, Obama could not have regained the U.S. citizenship that he lost upon his mother’s re-marriage and relocation to Indonesia, until he reached eighteen (18) years of age, and unless he took the Oath of Allegiance before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or in the U.S. before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of court.

Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Obama (assuming he had had United States citizenship, by reason of his claimed birth in Hawaii, in the first place) failed to regain his citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance. Since the oath of allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General, if Plaintiff is incorrect, then Obama should be able to produce, in Court, a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered.

Investigation further showed that, in 1981, Obama traveled to Pakistan, using his Indonesian passport. At the time of his travels to Pakistan, Obama was twenty (20) years old. He certainly knew that he retained his Indonesia citizenship, and it is implausible that he could not have known that he had failed to regain his United States citizenship (if, again, he had been born in Hawaii). Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. Had Obama regained his United States citizenship, he would have been traveling on a United States Passport.

Obama and his campaign office have been asked for Obama’s Certificate of Birth, in order to prove he is a “natural born” citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution.

After many requests by the media and members of the public for a copy of Obama Obama’s Certificate of Birth, a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was placed on Obama’s campaign website. However, as posted all over the internet three (3) independent document forensic experts have performed extensive forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth posted on Obama’s campaign website. The forensic experts’ findings were the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) is in fact a forgery.

It was further discovered that the original Certificate of Live Birth which had been altered and forged was issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970. Maya Kasandra Soetoro is Obama’s half-sister, who was born in Indonesia, and her birth was later registered in Hawaii. The altered and forged COLB is still on Obama’s campaign website located at http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert.

Further investigation led to Obama’s State Bar Registration and Public Disciplinary Record. On the Illinois State Bar Registration and Public Disciplinary Record, it specifically asks for “Full former name(s). Obama put “None”, when in fact he went by the name Barry Soetoro, and Barry Obama. It is further believed Obama has used the name Barry Dunham. Obama lied on the State government form that he signed under the penalty of perjury.

Even if Obama had and maintained United States citizenship (which Plaintiff believes he failed to do) he also holds citizenship in Kenya and Indonesia. Obama has divided loyalties with foreign countries. Thus, Obama carries multiple citizenships, and is ineligible to run for President of the United States. United States Constitution, Article II, Section I.

All the efforts of supporters of legitimate citizens, candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination were for nothing, because Obama cheated his way into a fraudulent candidacy, and cheated legitimately eligible, natural-born citizens from competing in a fair process, and the supporters of their choice of an eligible U.S. citizen for the nomination.

Voters donated money, goods and services to select a nominee, and were defrauded by Obama’s obfuscations. Obama clearly shows consciousness of guilt by his actions by posting a forged birth certificate on his website, and by and the falsifications he told to cover his loss of citizenship.

Obama proclaims himself a Constitutional scholar and lecturer, but apparently failed to detect his own ineligibility to become President.

Injunctive relief must be granted, because failing to do so will permit the perpetuation of a fraud and the disenfranchisement of every person who voted in a Democratic primary in 2008. Failure to grant injunctive relief would allow a corrupted, fraudulent nomination process to continue.

The denial of injunctive relief would not only allow such a process to continue, but would foster an overwhelming degree of disrespect and cynicism for the electoral process (already sullied in the public mind by irregularities in the last several election cycles) and threaten to confirm the unfortunately widespread belief that no potential candidate has to obey the laws of this country, respect our election process, follow the Constitution, or even suffer any consequence for lying and defrauding voters to get onto the ballot, when they have no chance of lawfully serving if they fraudulently manage to get elected.

If declaratory and injunctive relief is not given, it would be extremely unfair to the country for candidates of either party to become the nominee, when there is any question as to the nominee’s eligibility to serve if elected.

As stated above, Plaintiff as well as tens of millions of American voters, Democrats and persons disinclined to vote for the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, Senator McCain, will suffer irreparable harm, if declaratory and injunctive relief is not granted. Plaintiff does not have any other way of redress regarding these very significant and important issues.
The DNC has failed Plaintiff as well as voters across the country, by its failure to perform due diligence, and to properly ascertain Obama’s ineligibility to run for Office of the President.

Should Obama become the Nominee of the Democratic Party, and it should then be discovered by virtue of malfeasance, or negligence, on his part not to have revealed material evidence showing him to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America, presumably his nomination or his election will at some point be voided, to the irreparable harm of Plaintiff and others, including but not limited to:
A) Functional, or actual, disenfranchisement of large numbers of citizens,
being members of the Democratic Party or other persons wishing to
vote for a viable candidate other than Senator McCain, who will have been deprived of the ability to choose and to elect a Constitutionally eligible candidate of their liking;

B) Irreparable Harm to the structure and integrity of the Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee. In turn this too would lead to Disenfranchisement; and

C) A severe and genuine likelihood of turmoil or even civil disturbance, by virtue of reaction to such disenfranchisement.

II. THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PUT A STOP
TO DEFENDANT OBAMA’S FRAUDULENT CAMPAIGN SCHEMEPlaintiff is plainly entitled to a temporary restraining order, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to halt the use of Defendant Obama’s fraudulent campaign schemes to secure the Office of President of the United States, knowing he is not eligible under the provisions of the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I.

Specifically, this Court must grant Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) because: (1) there is reasonable probability that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits; (2) they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief; (3) there will be little or no harm to the Obama if relief is granted; and (4) the public interest demands a grant of relief. See, e.g. Swartzwelder v. McNeilly, 297 F.3d 228, 234 (3rd Cir. 2002); Alessi v. Pennsylvania Dep ’t of Public Welfare, 983 F.2d 1444, 1447 (3d Cir. 1990); Prison Health Servs., Inc. v. Umar, Civil Action No. 02-2642, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12267 (E.D. Pa. May 8, 2002). The standards for a preliminary injunction and a TRO are the same. Mertz v. Houstoun, 155 F. Supp.2d 415, 425 n.12 (E.D. Pa 2001); Bieros v.

Nicola, 857 F. Supp. 445, 446-47 (E.D. Pa. 1994). While the degree of probability of success on the merits required to obtain such relief varies among Federal Courts of Appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit requires only a “reasonable likelihood” of success. See Johnson & Johnson Orthopedics, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg.Co., 715 F. Supp. 110, 112 n.1 (D. Del. 1989). Plaintiff easily meets each of the four requirements for a temporary restraining order.
A. Plaintiff Has A Very Strong Likelihood of Success in Challenging Obama’s
Eligibility to Run For Office of President of The United States
If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the U.S. laws on the books, at the time of his birth, stated if a child was born abroad, and only one parent was a U.S. Citizen (which plainly applies to Obama) Obama’s mother would have had to have lived ten (10) years in the U.S., five (5) of which were after she reached the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama’s birth, his mother was only eighteen (18), and therefore it is an impossibility that she met the residency requirements, under the prevailing law, to give her son Obama U.S. Citizenship. The laws in effect at the time of Obama’s birth withheld U.S. citizenship from children born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Obama’s mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a “natural born” citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b), Matter of S-F- and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Att’y Gen. 1944). If born in Kenya, Obama could have become a United States citizen by naturalization at some date subsequent to his birth — but a naturalized citizen is not qualified to be President, and it would be a terrible travesty and disservice to the public and to an orderly electoral process to permit an unqualified non-citizen or naturalized citizen to be placed on the general election ballot. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section I.

Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states in pertinent part: “(a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten (10) years, at least five (5) of which were after attaining the age of fourteen (14) years.”

Furthermore, if Obama had been born in Kenya, his birth father Barack Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya; therefore, Obama would have automatically become a citizen of Kenya.

Even if Obama was born in the United States — which Plaintiff believes he was not — he apparently lost his United States citizenship when he was six (6) years old. Obama lived in the care and custody of his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. Obama’s mother married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, and relocated with Obama to Indonesia. There is no indication that Obama’s mother, during his minority; herself took the Oath of Allegiance necessary for her to regain her U.S. Citizenship. Presumably, therefore, Obama could not have regained his U.S. Citizenship until he turned eighteen (18) years, and upon taking the Oath of Allegiance before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or in the U.S. before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of court. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama failed to regain his citizenship, by taking the Oath of Allegiance.

If Plaintiff is incorrect in making this allegation, it should be a simple matter, as the oath of allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General, for Obama to produce in Court a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered — if, in fact, he took the oath. 8 U.S.C. § 1435, Nationality Act of 1940.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is supposed to represent and protect the interests of working Americans, which includes securing a Democratic Nominee on the Presidential Election ballot who represents the Democratic vision, and who is qualified and eligible to run for the office of President under the qualifications of the United States Constitution.

The DNC has failed to make adequate inquiry into Obama’s eligibility status.

Should Obama become the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, and it should then be discovered that he concealed information showing him to be Constitutionally ineligible to serve as President, as every major party nominee has political enemies with resources behind them sufficient to institute and to maintain court proceedings to that end, it is unthinkable that there would not be an effort made to disqualify Obama, to strike his name from the ballot, to declare him ineligible to assume the Office of President if elected, or even to force him to resign or be removed from office, were he to be elected and sworn in January 2009. Any of these outcomes would be a disaster to the political stability of the United States, to our country’s standing in the world, and to public confidence in the electoral process, and would inflict irreparable harm upon Plaintiff and others, including but not limited to:
A) Functional, or actual, disenfranchisement of large numbers of citizens,
being members of the Democratic Party, who would have been

deprived of the ability to choose a nominee of their liking; and
the disenfranchisement of voters of whatever affiliation who would have
liked the opportunity to select a Constitutionally-eligible candidate other
than Senator McCain;
B) Irreparable Harm to the structure and integrity of the Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee. In turn this too would lead to disenfranchisement; and
C) A severe and genuine likelihood of political turmoil, and even civil
disturbance by virtue of reaction to said disenfranchisement.
B. There Will Be Minimal Harm To Obama If Relief Is Granted
Granting Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order will result in negligible harm to Defendant Obama, or the DNC. The Obama campaign and the DNC have raised millions of dollars to support his candidacy for the presidency. If Obama was born in Honolulu as claimed, it should be short work for him (or a person acting in his behalf) to obtain, and to present to the Court, a verifiably genuine, certified copy of his birth certificate. Likewise, assuming proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, if Obama’s mother (during his minority) or Obama himself (after reaching the age of 18) regained the United States citizenship lost by reason of Stanley Ann Dunham’s second marriage to the Indonesian Lolo Soetoro and her relocation with Obama to Indonesia, those facts will be susceptible of proof from public records, as Obama (given his considerable resources) should be able to produce in court in a matter of a few days, at most.
Should it be the case that, as Plaintiff alleges, Obama is either a non-citizen of the United States, or is a citizen only by virtue of naturalization (as in the case that, in
C:\Documents and Settings\Geoff\Local Settings\Temporary Internet 1 5
Files\Content.Outlook\RUX63DMN\ObamaMemSupportTRO0 82 108 (2).doc

fact, he was born in Kenya) manifestly it is better that those facts, which is to say Obama’s ineligibility to be President of the United States, come to light now, rather than hereafter.
C. The Public Interest Supports A Grant of Relief
Plaintiff meets the fourth prong of the temporary restraining order test, as well, because the public interest supports the request for immediate relief. No legitimate public interest whatsoever can be served by permitting the continuation of what amounts to a knowingly unlawful, fraudulent scheme to obtain the presidency for an individual who, whatever his political views, his accomplishments, or his personal qualities, is simply not eligible under the Constitution to hold the office. Plaintiff, the people of Pennsylvania, Democratic voters nationwide, potential voters desiring an alternative to Senator McCain, and even non-voters who, even if indifferent to which candidate becomes President, have an interest in avoiding the disruption or even civil disturbance that might attend a further-delayed determination of Obama’s ineligibility, all have a compelling interest to be vindicated far more effectively and in a more targeted way if the United States Constitution is upheld and Obama is removed from the Presidential election.
D. Conclusion
This Court should issue a temporary restraining order, prohibiting Obama from being formally confirmed as the Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States, and enjoining Obama, the DNC, and persons acting in concert with them or in their behalf, from continuing to solicit donations for his candidacy, pending expedited discovery and a prompt hearing, at which time Obama’s and the DNC’s attorneys can satisfy the Court, by appropriate testimonial and documentary evidence, that Obama qualifies as a natural-born

citizen of the United States, and if elected will be eligible under the Constitution to serve in that office.
Plaintiff has demonstrated a very strong likelihood of success that this fraudulent campaign scheme of Obama’s violates the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I; that Plaintiff and millions of U.S. citizens will suffer irreparable injury, if relief is denied; and that the failure to grant injunctive relief would pose nothing less than a danger to Constitutional government and potential civil disturbance. The balance of hardships imposes
little burden on Obama: all he need do is to prove that he was born in Hawaii, and that he (or, during his minority, his mother) took the Oath of Allegiance to restore U.S. citizenship lost when Obama’s mother re-married an Indonesian citizen and moved with Obama to Indonesia.
III. THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
Plaintiff also seeks leave from this Court to begin discovery immediately so that Plaintiff can demonstrate to the Court, as part of preliminary injunction proceedings, the full extent of Obama’s fraudulent schemes in way of attempting to run and get elected as President of the United States knowing he is ineligible as he is not a “natural born” citizen. It is crucial Plaintiff obtain certified copies of Obama’ s birth records, oath if it exists, adoption records, passport records and all other records which prove he is not a citizen of the United States and/or a “natural born” citizen.
Courts have authorized expedited discovery on good cause shown, notwithstanding the strictures of Rule 26(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (that

no discovery shall take place until the parties have conferred pursuant to Rule 26(f). Indeed, the Third Circuit has emphasized that “[u]nder the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and our jurisprudence, district courts have broad discretion to manage discovery.” Sempier v. Johnson & Higgins, 45 F.3d 724,734 (3d Cir. 1995). Specifically, in the context of expedited discovery sought for purposes of a preliminary injunction motion, courts have inquired as to the “reasonableness of the request in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. O’Connor,
194 F.R.D. 618, 624 (N.D. Ill. 2000); see also Educational Comm ’n for Foreign Sch.Med. Graduates v. Repik, Civil Action No. 99-1381, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7185, at *7 (E.D. Pa.May 14, 1999) (“Expedited discovery in connection with a preliminary injunction motion is appropriate.”). In Yokohama Tire Corp. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 612, 614 (D. Ariz. 2001), in ruling on a motion to permit expedited discovery in advance of a Rule 26(f) scheduling conference, the court stated that “[a]bsent credible authority to the contrary, the Court adopts a good cause standard.” See also Pod-Ners, LLC v. Northern Feed & Bean, 204 F.R.D.675, 676 (D. Colo. 2002).
The reasons furnished by Plaintiff in support of his request pass any of the legal thresholds used by district courts in assessing motions to expedite discovery. Here, there is good cause for discovery to begin immediately. Plaintiff believes that, at this moment, there is a strong likelihood that, in the absence of injunctive relief, Obama will be formally nominated by the Democratic Party as its nominee for the Office of President of the United States. Plaintiff’s request also works minimal prejudice or unfairness to Obama, himself, as (at most) all that Obama would have to do in person (although certainly he would be entitled to appear and to give testimony, or submit an affidavit

stating the facts) would be to execute authorizations, prepared by his attorneys or by members of his staff, for relevant birth, passport, consular (Oath of Allegiance) and other relevant documents to be obtained and certified.
Finally, Plaintiff’s discovery request is narrowly tailored to obtain only the information it needs to pursue preliminary injunctive relief prohibiting Obama from running for President, and enjoining the DNC from naming Obama as a Democratic President Nominee.

IV. CONCLUSION

This Court should grant Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order and should allow focused discovery to begin immediately.

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Philip J. Berg
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney in Pro Se
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Identification No. 09867
(610) 825-3134

• Leave a comment... (28)

Submitted by PUMA08’s Will Bower Live From Denver

When the Clinton and Obama campaigns announced last week that Senator Clinton’s name would be placed into nomination, a group of Clinton delegates cheered for a moment and went right back to work. With Hillary Clinton’s name “officially” on the ballot, the petition signatures were no longer technically needed. But this group of determined individuals pressed on.

“When we started this effort, it was the ONLY way for us to be able to vote in Denver to represent the people who elected us,” said a Clinton delegate from Texas. “We’re proud of what we did. We’re going to see it to the end. Just like our candidate – we don’t quit.”

According to DNC rules, a floor nomination petition needs a minimum of 300 signatures from voting delegates to be submitted. In July, a small but determined group of Clinton delegates and volunteers started reaching out to fellow delegates in true grassroots fashion – one by one – to collect the signatures. This proved to be slow going since Democratic Party officials would not provide contact lists for delegates. The 300 Delegate Petition group was born.

After national and international mainstream media attention, petitions started pouring in. When they received the requisite number of petitions, they once again took a breather and went back to work. DNC rules state that no more than 600 petitions can be submitted. They’re working on it.

“We’ve got well over 300 petitions now in hand,” explained Sue Castner, a Clinton delegate from Portland, OR. “Since we never consulted with Senator Clinton’s campaign, we don’t know if ‘the petition that wouldn’t die’ had anything to do with the two joint campaign announcements made last week. We will probably never know but it certainly made us feel good.”

Signatories include a governor or two, county Democratic party chairs, members of the diplomatic corps, and even some brave Obama delegates. The names of those who signed the petition will remain a mystery unless Senator Clinton decides to file the petition, in which case, their names will be a part of recorded history.

As a meager reward for those delegates who saw the nomination process as a path to party unity and signed this historic document, a numbered commemorative pin will distinguish them from fellow delegates. Rest assured, the green pin, featuring the number 300 with a pen, will be THE most coveted pin in Denver.

• Leave a comment... (20)

At the start of the primary season, my wife and I, both African-Americans and life-long Democrats, discovered we were in different corners. I was in Hillary Clinton’s corner, while my wife was in Barack Obama’s. I don’t recall exactly how our politically heartwarming discussion began, but since I am the one who’s writing this blog entry, I’ll blame my wife with landing the first salvo.

“What do you think about Barack Obama?,” my wife queried. I knew I was about to enter the twilight zone. I didn’t really want to answer. I was in a no-win situation. My marriage was doomed!

After bracing myself, I said, “I’m a Hillary Clinton supporter because she is the strongest candidate with more experience.” My wife looked at me with disbelief and disappointment because I was not supporting Barack Obama, her candidate of choice.

Then, she probed, “Why don’t you support Obama?” And, I simply answered, “He is just too inexperienced for the huge job of president of the United States.”

My wife proceeded to make her case, saying Obama could do a good job; and a black man should be given a chance; and he represents change.

She struck a nerve with me when she played the “change card” since change is Obama’s main theme. I carefully countered that the “change” battle cry has been used by every politician since the beginning of time, and it is meaningless. As we went back and forth, eventually, I asked my wife, “What is Obama going to change?” Silence followed. Did I win the debate, I thought? Not! From that point, we simply agreed to disagree.

Since then, my wife has become a political junkie. Emails, blogs, websites, books, radio, television are feeding her insatiable appetite for information on the election. She took in the information, and without any further domestic debating, arrived at her own conclusions about Obama’s candidacy. She is a changed person. She is no longer an Obama supporter. Now, that’s change you can believe in.

Here is a summary of my wife’s transformation:

Step 1: Barack Obama should be president of the United States.
Step 2: Hillary Clinton is a much stronger candidate, but she hoped that Barack Obama would win the
Democratic Party’s nomination.
Step 3: Barack Obama is a weak candidate, and she hoped that Hillary Clinton would win the
Democratic Party’s nomination.
Step 4: Barack Obama is a terrible candidate and must not be elected president of the United States.
Step 5: If Barack Obama wins the Democratic Party’s nomination, she will vote for John McCain.

My wife makes it a point to remind me she came to her current views on her own. Well, a happy ending because my wife and I are now are on the same page (whew). Marriage saved!

• Leave a comment... (158)

When I awoke the morning of June 4, 2008, I thought I would be bitterly disappointed. After all, the nominating contest between Senators Clinton and Obama had been decided the night before by a march of cowardly Super Delegates, bowing to pressure from the party leadership to forcibly shut down the process. Surely I would be furious or curled up in the fetal position crying my eyes out. That would be only natural since I worked harder for Hillary than I had for any presidential candidate – ever.

Did I want her to win so badly because she is a woman? No. Did I want her to win because she is an eminently qualified woman with a spine of steel, one who offers bold, progressive policies, is ever prepared, energetic, a worker bee and a visionary who is willing to roll up her sleeves to get the job done? Yes.

She’s my candidate.

The truth is I was relieved the morning of June 4th, even serene. I thought, since the race has been declared over, at least she won’t get flogged today. For the first time in six months, I wouldn’t have to watch, or avoid watching, the frat-boy media hit squad trash her mercilessly, simply because they knew they could get away with it. With very rare exception, no one, save her own husband, stood up to declare anything was wrong with that disgraceful practice.

But I was wrong in my assessment that the honor killing, the gang attacks and unforgivable disrespect to a sitting United States Senator were over. Pundits were wringing their hands, alternately furious and mystified as to why Hillary hadn’t just collapsed to the floor in a puddle the night before. Why hadn’t she gotten out of the way of the DNC power elite’s chosen messiah so he could have his historic moment on the stage to claim his crown?

Her historic moment was completely ignored.

Suddenly everyone wanted to kick Hillary off the stage. Actually, it was not sudden. The Democratic elites and misogynist male media, along with hopeless females like Andrea Mitchell and Maureen Dowd, who bond with their male offenders, either out of a need for self preservation, jealousy or self-loathing, had been trying to get rid of Hillary since before the New Hampshire primary in January. They rubbed their hands together gleefully after Iowa, waiting for her to be declared dead. Then she won – and kept winning.

Ironic that Hillary convincingly won two out of three primaries even in the last week of the contest. She did this with a false Associated Press story being released early Tuesday morning reporting she had already conceded – while voters were just going to the polls in South Dakota and Montana. Yet these media blowhards were telling us she hadn’t even earned a moment to celebrate her victories with her supporters who had been working for her faithfully for sixteen months. None of us, male or female, could contain our rage at this last stroke of disrespect. How politically idiotic, never mind thoughtless, that Senator Obama couldn’t wait one more day to have the news cycle to himself. Why ignore her? Why ignore the millions of voters whose help he would need to win the election in the fall?

The DNC, suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome, cannot understand why we hold her in such esteem and want her to lead us. Certainly we cannot understand why she would be tossed out like so much garbage. I have seen many women treated this way in my lifetime and been on the receiving end of some of this myself. The hurt is not lessened by time or age.

Senator Clinton’s candidacy is just as historic as his. Why is this never spoken of?

She is not only the first woman to ever win a primary, she won the votes of 18,000,000 people, more than any primary candidate in history. She won almost every large state, all the swing states and arguably had the electoral map in her pocket, yet the berating, belittling drumbeat grew ever louder for her to just sit down and shut up like a good little girl and get out of the way.

Hillary, will you for the love of God just get out of the way? Your success is but a mere inconvenience. And your 18,000,000 voters should sit down and shut up, too. Just pretend you didn’t notice that fair reflection and democracy were thrown out the window. Just pretend you didn’t notice that the far stronger candidate was kicked to the curb. Just shut up and sit down, will you, for the good of the party.

Perhaps you think I have taken this campaign too personally. Well, what is the correct response then, watching grown men, who presumably have wives, daughters, sisters and mothers, making comments about Hillary such as “it cries,” or the collection of quotations I will never be able to get out of my head:

A Super Delegate needs to take her into a room and only he comes out, that kind of scenario. (Olbermann) The only reason she was elected to the Senate is that people felt sorry for her because of her husband. (Matthews) When she is on camera, I involuntarily cross my legs. (Carlson) Doesn’t it seem like the Clinton’s are pimping their daughter Chelsea out in some weird way? (Shuster) We don’t want to have to watch a woman grow old in the White House. (Limbaugh) If she had any dignity, she’d just bow out. (Alter) Some women deserve to be called bitches. She’s Alex Forrest in “Fatal Attraction.” She sounds like your nagging mother-in-law. She’s like your ex-wife waiting for her alimony check on the courthouse steps. She-Devil. The psycho ex-girlfriend of the Democratic party. What does she want anyway? She has unpleasant ankles. That cackle!

And my all-time favorite: Someone needs to take her out behind the barn.

Even more unforgivable to the media it seems, is that she would actually stand before voters on flatbed trucks and in town halls across America and offer specific policy solutions. Why couldn’t Hillary understand this was not nearly as important as the myriad comments we had to endure about her pantsuits?

I remember waking up early in the morning of each successive primary, terrified at what negative press the day would bring, how they would spin the exit polls, what awful things they would say. The day of the Pennsylvania primary, where she was outspent 3:1 yet still won by ten points, listening to Wolf Blitzer and company, you would have thought she was getting trounced to the tune of double digits.

But Senator Clinton was not the only one done dirty in this contest. Her voters bear the scars as well. We were and are called racist, bitter, Archie Bunkers, over the hill, uneducated, clueless, shoulder-pad feminists and sweeties and much worse. Wow. We were painted with the same dirty brush they used on her.

Lou Dobbs and Greta Van Susteren stand alone as journalists who reported fairly.

I watched my own mother receive daily abuse in our home, a non-stop barrage designed to make her feel small despite the fact that without her strong work ethic and fortitude, we would have all been out in the street. Perhaps that’s why it was harder for me to witness a more qualified woman be figuratively defecated on in favor of an affable younger shape shifter with no discernable experience. Hillary Clinton actually won this contest by any reasonable metric and yet was declared the loser.

It is cold comfort at this moment, but I am heartened by the fact that millions of women and progressive men in this country are outraged that the stronger candidate was treated like the scullery maid, an inconvenience who should be brought to heel so she could drag this particular man’s inexperienced, unqualified behind across the finish line. Senator Obama was certainly limping to that line and if not for the mercy of the Super Delegates, he would not be able to claim the nomination even today. But for their weakness and lack of good judgment, this contest would, and should, be decided at the Convention. With everything in my power, I work to make sure that is still a possibility. Remote or not. To those who wish me to abandon my principles in the name of a convenient party unity, I say no deal.

How can I reconcile what feels like an injustice on so many levels? Are we to be deprived of excellent leadership because it does not fit in with the DNC’s back room fix and the media’s cozy little narrative?

Most painful is that we were all fooled into thinking sexism was a thing of the past. We have discovered these last months just how false a notion that is.

What kind of a message are we sending to our daughters when we tell them, you can reach as high as you want – as long as you don’t reach that high. What are we teaching our sons when they watch how this woman was treated and see no punishment meted out for such behavior.

When you demean one woman, you demean us all. Surely if the racist equivalent had ever been leveled at Senator Obama, there would have been hell to pay and many of these self same pundits would now find themselves on the unemployment line.

On the night of her victory speech in Ohio, Hillary Clinton said, “For everyone who’s been counted out, but refused to be knocked out; for everyone who has stumbled and stood right back up; for everyone who works hard and never gives up — this one is for you!”

Hillary stood tall in the face of ridiculous odds and opposition, undeterred by attacks that never would have been leveled at any male candidate. She taught boys and girls everywhere to speak up for their beliefs, to fight on till the buzzer sounds. I will ignore voices that wish to take away her triumph. It was and is an amazing victory. Those who deny or diminish it, or turn a blind eye to the injustice of the outcome, do so to their eternal shame.

Hillary Clinton will always be my Joan of Arc in a pantsuit. I know she will continue to stand up and work for the ideals and causes that belong to all of us.

The men and women of this country deserve nothing less.

• Leave a comment... (63)

Written by Guest Blogger & Just Say No Deal Coalition Member Heidi Li Feldman, J.D., Ph.D. - Please Visit Her Blog : HeidiLi’s PotPourri

Below appears a chapter from: Eighty Years And More: Reminiscences 1815-1897 by Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) New York: T. Fisher Unwin, 1898. I have made some cuts and emboldened the parts I found especially fun, interesting, or both.

When I finished reading the chapter below, I thought about the many wonderful speeches I have heard Senator Clinton give about women who work and who raise children.

In honor of Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s record of her life, let’s use the upcoming 160th anniversary celebration of the First Women’s Rights Convention as an occasion to assist Senator Clinton while she works to retire her debt.

Celebration of the 160th anniversary of the First Women’s Rights Convention occurs this weekend. For more information on that and related activities go here.

CHAPTER IX.
THE FIRST WOMAN’S RIGHTS CONVENTION.

IN the spring of 1847 we moved to Seneca Falls. Here we spent sixteen years of our married life, and here our other children–two sons and two daughters–were born.

Just as we were ready to leave Boston, Mr. and Mrs. Eaton and their two children arrived from Europe, and we decided to go together to Johnstown, Mr. Eaton being obliged to hurry to New York on business, and Mr. Stanton to remain still in Boston a few months. At the last moment my nurse decided she could not leave her friends and go so far away. Accordingly my sister and I started, by rail, with five children and seventeen trunks, for Albany, where we rested over night and part of the next day. We had a very fatiguing journey, looking after so many trunks and children, for my sister’s children persisted in standing on the platform at every opportunity, and the younger ones would follow their example. This kept us constantly on the watch. We were thankful when safely landed once more in the old homestead in Johnstown, where we arrived at midnight. As our beloved parents had received no warning of our coming, the whole household was aroused to dispose of us. But now in safe harbor, ‘mid familiar scenes and pleasant memories, our slumbers were indeed refreshing. How rapidly one throws off all care and anxiety under the parental roof, and how at sea one feels, no matter what the age may be, when the loved ones are gone forever and the home of childhood is but a dream of the past.

After a few days of rest I started, alone, for my new home, quite happy with the responsibility of repairing a house and putting all things in order. I was already acquainted with many of the people and the surroundings in Seneca Falls, as my sister, Mrs. Bayard, had lived there several years, and I had frequently made her long visits. We had quite a magnetic circle of reformers, too, in central New York. At Rochester were William Henry Channing, Frederick Douglass, the Anthonys, Posts, Hallowells, Stebbins,–some grand old Quaker families at Farmington,–the Sedgwicks, Mays, Mills, and Matilda Joslyn Gage at Syracuse; Gerrit Smith at Peterboro, and Beriah Green at Whitesboro.

The house we were to occupy had been closed for some years and needed many repairs, and the grounds, comprising five acres, were overgrown with weeds. My father gave me a check and said, with a smile, “You believe in woman’s capacity to do and dare; now go ahead and put your place in order.” After a minute survey of the premises and due consultation with one or two sons of Adam, I set the carpenters, painters, paperhangers, and gardeners at work, built a new kitchen and woodhouse, and in one month took possession. Having left my children with my mother, there were no impediments to a full display of my executive ability. In the purchase of brick, timber, paint, etc., and in making bargains with workmen, I was in frequent consultation with Judge Sackett and Mr. Bascom The latter was a member of the Constitutional Convention, then in session in Albany, and as he used to walk down whenever he was at home, to see how my work progressed, we had long talks, sitting on boxes in the midst of tools and shavings, on the status of women. I urged him to propose an amendment to Article II, Section 3, of the State Constitution, striking out the word “male,” which limits the suffrage to men. But, while he fully agreed with all I had to say on the political equality of women, he had not the courage to make himself the laughing-stock of the convention. Whenever I cornered him on this point, manlike he turned the conversation to the painters and carpenters. However, these conversations had the effect of bringing him into the first woman’s convention, where he did us good service.

In Seneca Falls my life was comparatively solitary, and the change from Boston was somewhat depressing. There, all my immediate friends were reformers, I had near neighbors, a new home with all the modern conveniences, and well-trained servants. Here our residence was on the outskirts of the town, roads very often muddy and no sidewalks most of the way, Mr. Stanton was frequently from home, I had poor servants, and an increasing number of children. To keep a house and grounds in good order, purchase every article for daily use, keep the wardrobes of half a dozen human beings in proper trim, take the children to dentists, shoemakers, and different schools, or find teachers at home, altogether made sufficient work to keep one brain busy, as well as all the hands I could impress into the service. Then, too, the novelty of housekeeping had passed away, and much that was once attractive in domestic life was now irksome. I had so many cares that the company I needed for intellectual stimulus was a trial rather than a pleasure.
….

Up to this time life had glided by with comparative ease, but now the real struggle was upon me. My duties were too numerous and varied, and none sufficiently exhilarating or intellectual to bring into play my higher faculties. I suffered with mental hunger, which, like an empty stomach, is very depressing. I had books, but no stimulating companionship. To add to my general dissatisfaction at the change from Boston, I found that Seneca Falls was a malarial region, and in due time all the children were attacked with chills and fever which, under homeopathic treatment in those days, lasted three months. The servants were afflicted in the same way. Cleanliness, order, the love of the beautiful and artistic, all faded away in the struggle to accomplish what was absolutely necessary from hour to hour. ….

I now fully understood the practical difficulties most women had to contend with in the isolated household, and the impossibility of woman’s best development if in contact, the chief part of her life, with servants and children. Fourier’s phalansterie community life and co-operative households had a new significance for me. Emerson says, “A healthy discontent is the first step to progress.” The general discontent I felt with woman’s portion as wife, mother, housekeeper, physician, and spiritual guide, the chaotic conditions into which everything fell without her constant supervision, and the wearied, anxious look of the majority of women impressed me with a strong feeling that some active measures should be taken to remedy the wrongs of society in general, and of women in particular. My experience at the World’s Anti-slavery Convention, all I had read of the legal status of women, and the oppression I saw everywhere, together swept across my soul, intensified now by many personal experiences. It seemed as if all the elements had conspired to impel me to some onward step. I could not see what to do or where to begin–my only thought was a public meeting for protest and discussion.

In this tempest-tossed condition of mind I received an invitation to spend the day with Lucretia Mott, at Richard Hunt’s, in Waterloo. There I met several members of different families of Friends, earnest, thoughtful women. I poured out, that day, the torrent of my long-accumulating discontent, with such vehemence and indignation that I stirred myself, as well as the rest of the party, to do and dare anything. My discontent, according to Emerson, must have been healthy, for it moved us all to prompt action, and we decided, then and there, to call a “Woman’s Rights Convention.” We wrote the call that evening and published it in the Seneca County Courier the next day, the 14th of July, 1848, giving only five days’ notice, as the convention was to be held on the 19th and 20th. The call was inserted without signatures,–in fact it was a mere announcement of a meeting,–but the chief movers and managers were Lucretia Mott, Mary Ann McClintock, Jane Hunt, Martha C. Wright, and myself. The convention, which was held two days in the Methodist Church, was in every way a grand success. The house was crowded at every session, the speaking good, and a religious earnestness dignified all the proceedings.

These were the hasty initiative steps of “the most momentous reform that had yet been launched on the world–the first organized protest against the injustice which had brooded for ages over the character and destiny of one-half the race.” No words could express our astonishment on finding, a few days afterward, that what seemed to us so timely, so rational, and so sacred, should be a subject for sarcasm and ridicule to the entire press of the nation. With our Declaration of Rights and Resolutions for a text, it seemed as if every man who could wield a pen prepared a homily on “woman’s sphere.” All the journals from Maine to Texas seemed to strive with each other to see which could make our movement appear the most ridiculous. The anti-slavery papers stood by us manfully and so did Frederick Douglass, both in the convention and in his paper, The North Star, but so pronounced was the popular voice against us, in the parlor, press, and pulpit, that most of the ladies who had attended the convention and signed the declaration, one by one, withdrew their names and influence and joined our persecutors. Our friends gave us the cold shoulder and felt themselves disgraced by the whole proceeding.

If I had had the slightest premonition of all that was to follow that convention, I fear I should not have had the courage to risk it, and I must confess that it was with fear and trembling that I consented to attend another, one month afterward, in Rochester. Fortunately, the first one seemed to have drawn all the fire, and of the second but little was said. But we had set the ball in motion, and now, in quick succession, conventions were held in Ohio, Indiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and in the City of New York, and have been kept up nearly every year since.

The most noteworthy of the early conventions were those held in Massachusetts, in which such men as Garrison, Phillips, Channing, Parker, and Emerson took part. It was one of these that first attracted the attention of Mrs. John Stuart Mill, and drew from her pen that able article on “The Enfranchisement of Woman,” in the Westminster Review of October, 1852.

The same year of the convention, the Married Woman’s Property Bill, which had given rise to some discussion on woman’s rights in New York, had passed the legislature. This encouraged action on the part of women, as the reflection naturally arose that, if the men who make the laws were ready for some onward step, surely the women themselves should express some interest in the legislation. Ernestine L. Rose, Paulina Wright (Davis), and I had spoken before committees of the legislature years before, demanding equal property rights for women. We had circulated petitions for the Married Woman’s Property Bill for many years, and so also had the leaders of the Dutch aristocracy, who desired to see their life-long accumulations descend to their daughters and grandchildren rather than pass into the hands of dissipated, thriftless sons-in-law. Judge Hertell, Judge Fine, and Mr. Geddes of Syracuse prepared and championed the several bills, at different times, before the legislature. Hence the demands made in the convention were not entirely new to the reading and thinking public of New York–the first State to take any action on the question. As New York was the first State to put the word “male” in her constitution in 1778, it was fitting that she should be first in more liberal legislation. The effect of the convention on my own mind was most salutary. The discussions had cleared my ideas as to the primal steps to be taken for women’s enfranchisement, and the opportunity of expressing myself fully and freely on a subject I felt so deeply about was a great relief. I think all women who attended the convention felt better for the statement of their wrongs, believing that the first step had been taken to right them.

Soon after this I was invited to speak at several points in the neighborhood. One night, in the Quaker Meeting House at Farmington, I invited, as usual, discussion and questions when I had finished. We all waited in silence for a long time; at length a middle-aged man, with a broad-brimmed hat, arose and responded in a sing-song tone: “All I have to say is, if a hen can crow, let her crow,” emphasizing “crow” with an upward inflection on several notes of the gamut. The meeting adjourned with mingled feelings of surprise and merriment. I confess that I felt somewhat chagrined in having what I considered my unanswerable arguments so summarily disposed of, and the serious impression I had made on the audience so speedily dissipated. The good man intended no disrespect, as he told me afterward. He simply put the whole argument in a nutshell: “Let a woman do whatever she can.”

With these new duties and interests, and a broader outlook on human life, my petty domestic annoyances gradually took a subordinate place. Now I began to write articles for the press, letters to conventions held in other States, and private letters to friends, to arouse them to thought on this question.

The pastor of the Presbyterian Church, Mr. Bogue, preached several sermons on Woman’s Sphere, criticising the action of the conventions in Seneca Falls and Rochester. Elizabeth McClintock and I took notes and answered him in the county papers. Gradually we extended our labors and attacked our opponents in the New York Tribune, whose columns were open to us in the early days, Mr. Greeley being, at that time, one of our most faithful champions.

In answering all the attacks, we were compelled to study canon and civil law, constitutions, Bibles, science, philosophy, and history, sacred and profane. Now my mind, as well as my hands, was fully occupied, and instead of mourning, as I had done, over what I had lost in leaving Boston, I tried in every way to make the most of life in Seneca Falls. Seeing that elaborate refreshments prevented many social gatherings, I often gave an evening entertainment without any. I told the young people, whenever they wanted a little dance or a merry time, to make our house their rallying point, and I would light up and give them a glass of water and some cake. In that way we had many pleasant informal gatherings. Then, in imitation of Margaret Fuller’s Conversationals, we started one which lasted several years. We selected a subject each week on which we all read and thought; each, in turn, preparing an essay ten minutes in length.

These were held, at different homes, Saturday of each week. On coming together we chose a presiding officer for the evening, who called the meeting to order, and introduced the essayist. That finished, he asked each member, in turn, what he or she had read or thought on the subject, and if any had criticisms to make on the essay. Everyone was expected to contribute something. Much information was thus gained, and many spicy discussions followed. All the ladies, as well as the gentlemen, presided in turn, and so became familiar with parliamentary rules. The evening ended with music, dancing, and a general chat. In this way we read and thought over a wide range of subjects and brought together the best minds in the community. ….

….

My nearest neighbors were a very agreeable, intelligent family of sons and daughters. But I always felt that the men of that household were given to domineering. As the mother was very amiable and self-sacrificing, the daughters found it difficult to rebel. One summer, after general house-cleaning, when fresh paint and paper had made even the kitchen look too dainty for the summer invasion of flies, the queens of the household decided to move the sombre cookstove into a spacious woodhouse, where it maintained its dignity one week, in the absence of the head of the home. The mother and daughters were delighted with the change, and wondered why they had not made it before during the summer months. But their pleasure was shortlived. Father and sons rose early the first morning after his return and moved the stove back to its old place. When the wife and daughters came down to get their breakfast (for they did all their own work) they were filled with grief and disappointment. The breakfast was eaten in silence, the women humbled with a sense of their helplessness, and the men gratified with a sense of their power. These men would probably all have said “home is woman’s sphere,” though they took the liberty of regulating everything in her sphere.

• Leave a comment... (27)

For some of you considering a protest vote against Obama, John McCain might seem to be the most obvious choice. Some of you might think staying home is the only option… Here is good news for you, especially if you’re a progressive or a feminista. Her name is Cynthia McKinney, from the Green Party. If you have never heard of her, it’s not your fault. The mainstream media is suppressing what she has to say, or even that she is running at all.

McKinney, a former Democratic Congresswoman from Georgia, is the only candidate in the race that proposes to provide healthcare for all. She is a fighter for American workers; she authored a living age bill for the workers. Just as Hillary has been a tireless advocate for global human rights, as she eloquently expressed in her 1995 “Women’s Rights are Human Rights” speech, McKinney is also dedicated to international human rights issues. As the highest-ranking Democrat in the House Human Rights Subcommittee, she dedicated herself to end human rights abuses in many countries, most notably in the Congo and Rwanda. While Hillary has been a staunch advocate for veterans on the Armed Service Committee, McKinney was instrumental in enacting many policies for veterans, including health benefits for Vietnam War veterans and increased support for homeless veterans. Despite being a longtime Democrat, she left the Democratic Party last year, due to the Party establishments’ maltreatment of her. She served for 12 years in the Congress as well as 4 years in the Georgia state legislature, giving her a wealth of experience— the kind that actually facilitates real change.

Cynthia McKinney was officially nominated as Presidential candidate at the Green Party Convention this past weekend. She chose Rosa Clemente, journalist and youth activist from New York, as her vice-presidential nominee. Her pick of VP marks the first time in American history that two women will run together on the same presidential ticket.

Why do we have to be forced to choose between two men every four years to lead our nation? If you are sick and tired of this, like me, it’s time to consider an alternative. Hillary ran a genuinely historical campaign that made 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling, only to be defeated by a systematic force that harasses and hampers any woman who wants to lead our nation. Hillary conceded, but it’s not the end of our struggle; it’s time to beat the ultimate patriarchal structure at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The best way to do it is to VOTE FOR THE WOMAN candidate running, come November 4th. Ideally, not just any woman, but a woman who is committed to the same ideals Hillary has been dedicated to and fighting for, for decades.

You might say that a McKinney vote will be a wasted one. But a vote for McKinney is an infinitely better option for a protest vote than anything other choice (such as John McCain— who Hillary believes needs to be defeated). Perhaps, if it becomes clear that a considerable number of Hillary Democrats’ votes went to McKinney, the Democratic Party might be forced to acknowledge their mistakes. A vote for Senator Obama shows that we either approve of or turned a blind eye to the sexist treatment Senator Clinton endured during this primary. A vote for McCain is another one that will continue to uphold the status quo that has traditionally kicked women out of the power structure.

I say, “Just Say No Deal to the boy’s club and check out what Cynthia McKinney has to say.” Visit: gp.org … I think you might find that voting for her is far better than voting for McCain or staying at home— which essentially amounts to an abandonment of our democratic ideals. So, spread the word, she deserves a chance to be considered. Such action, regardless of whether you vote for her in November or not, serves as an act of rebellion against the old boys’ establishment and the mainstream media that has consistently undermined intelligent and ambitious women.

• Leave a comment... (117)

My name is Paulie Abeles and until a few days ago, most people knew me as a typical busy wife and mom. I am a life-long Democrat. My father, a triple eagle at Boston College, campaigned for JFK’s first Senate campaign; my mother actively supported Democratic candidates. My parents instilled in me a strong sense of fairness and equality, a thirst for knowledge, and an expectation that intelligent discussion should be based on well-researched facts. I graduated from Smith College and have worked for Salomon Brothers, The Stars & Stripes, and The Freight Forwarders Council.

I have spent the past 6 months actively supporting Hillary Clinton by setting up a network of bloggers to ensure that Senator Clinton’s positions were understood by the electorate. My family and I campaigned on her behalf in the primaries. I supported Hillary Clinton because of her experience, knowledge of the issues, and her practical approach and commitment to the bread-and-butter issues facing this country.

During the campaign, I have become increasingly alarmed by the refusal of the media to properly scrutinize Senator Obama’s actions and associations. I have also been appalled by the political maneuverings of the DNC to ensure that their chosen candidate was selected—including, just as one example, breaking their own rules to ensure that the two states that supported Hillary were stripped of their delegates even though five states broke the rules.

Lastly, I have been aghast at the vitriol and name-calling being spewed by Obama supporters against anyone who has an honest disagreement with them. As documented throughout by the “attack timeline” formerly found on the HRC website—the Obama campaign employed a concerted strategy of constantly questioning the likeability, honesty, experience, and integrity of Clinton. While the candidate portrayed himself as ‘above it all’—his campaign relentlessly faxed pages and pages of material designed to stoke the fires of false controversies.

I do not believe that Barack Obama would make a good president of the United States. Frankly, I think there is a minimum standard of accomplishment and experience we should expect from a candidate for the toughest job in the world. By any metric Obama falls short. Kirk Watson couldn’t name Senator Obama’s legislative accomplishments. I can– two bills: to promote democracy in the African Congo and to name a post office. Certainly, Senator Obama’s 130 “present” votes in the Illinois legislature when asked to take a stand on controversial issues do not inspire confidence. Many of the people that supported Hillary Clinton have similar reservations about Senator Obama’s fitness to lead. Thus, on Saturday, I helped organize an informational meeting and teleconference with John McCain for supporters of Hillary Clinton who were trying to decide whether to support Barack Obama or John McCain.

Less than 48 hours later, I was attacked, called “deeply racist”, a “lunatic”, “rabid” and with “a history of jobs, statements, actions and practice that leave her very vulnerable to accusations that she is a ‘racist’”. One site even claimed: “keeping black people out of the party has been a lifelong ambition of hers.” The basis of the attack was a controversy involving my husband’s ancestor, Thomas Jefferson.

As many of you have probably heard, some descendents of Sally Hemings, a slave in the household of Thomas Jefferson, have claimed that they are descendents of Thomas Jefferson. Sally Hemings had 3 sons: Thomas Woodson, Madison Hemings, and Eston Hemings. Descendents of Thomas Woodson had their DNA tested 7 times—each time there was no match. Descendents of Madison Hemings declined to be tested. The white descendents of Eston Hemings had their DNA tested and were a match to a Jefferson, but the DNA tests could not determine if the Jefferson genes were from Thomas Jefferson or one of the 27 other Jefferson males that lived in the area at the time and visited frequently. Additionally, since Thomas Jefferson was 64 at the time of Eston’s birth and was suffering from prostate cancer, which often caused impotency, it is less likely that Eston was a son of Thomas Jefferson. A 2001 Scholars Commission of 13 prominent Jefferson historians (including the former chair of Harvard’s Department of Government), examined all the evidence for a year, and issued a 500-page report that concluded that the allegations of a relationship between Hemings and Thomas Jefferson were not true, and that was not enough evidence to determine Eston Hemings’ paternity.

During 2003, a member of the Jefferson family set up a Yahoo chat room for family members and Hemings descendents to discuss the issues. Unfortunately, discussions became strained and many individuals who disagreed that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings were barred from the site. Bloggers from both sides used assumed names to try to get information from the other side. When the moderator discovered me, a Washington Post reporter asked me if I was on the chat room under a pseudonym—and I—foolishly perhaps—answered honestly. However, it was never a racial issue. Eston Hemings’ descendents (the only Hemings that applied) are, by any calculus, white. No doubt passions at the time were overheated, and honorable people can disagree. Part of the consideration was that as DNA typing becomes more sophisticated, a definitive analysis could prove the issue in the future.

This is the sum and total of the activities for which I have been vilified. I am a private citizen who has never held a position with either the Clinton or McCain campaign. But, there is a curious double standard at work here. Barack Obama, the presumptive nominee of our party