Lynette Long

LYNETTE LAUNCHES NEW WEBSITE ON CAUCUS FRAUD

Announcing the Launch of  http://www.lynettelong.com/CAUCUSFRAUD/

A Website Devoted Specifically to Caucus Fraud. If you think caucuses are boring think again.

At the caucus fraud website you’ll find

·         An in-depth analysis of each of the 14 caucus states

·         Over 100 Videos that take you inside a caucus

·         Gripping Eyewitness Reports of Caucus Fraud

·         Private Emails and Testimonials Never Seen Before

·         Articles and Videos on Obama’s 4 day Induction Camp - Camp Obama

·         And for the geeks in the crowd, election results, demographics, caucus rules and poll results.

·         And lots, lots, more.

If you think you know what happened at the caucuses – think again.

Please help distribute this site and paste the link everywhere.

Thanks. Lynette

TWO MINDS…SIMILAR THOUGHTS

By Olivia Taylor-Young

We have always been a two career couple…which translates into being a two-plus computer and a two-office-In-our-home couple as well. But this summer, at our individual keyboards, we’ve spent more time fighting more facets of the same battle than we ever could have imagined.

For example, on today’s editorial page was Dionne’s syndicated column from the Washington Post. In it, the writer wondered when the Democratic party’s leadership will finally be wrested from the Clintons and why "Obama is having difficulty ... seizing control of a party whose nomination he won fair and square." So I emailed him that he was operating under the fallacy of false premise. “Obama's campaign was anything but fair and square.” I wrote. “In fact, it successfully pulled off a bloodless coup.

“There is widespread evidence of caucus fraud.” I continued. “From across the nation, people have signed affidavits and provided video documentation detailing their experiences of intimidation, threats, slashed tires, unidentified 'voters' being bussing in to caucus events, moderators ( who -- by law -- must be impartial) wearing Obama buttons and throwing out Hillary ballots, no checking of identification…” etc. etc. etc.

I also noted that, as a lifelong Democrat, I initially did not want to believe how thoroughly my party’s primary process had been corrupted; but that kind of thinking now seems like it was in another life. Regarding caucus fraud, I continued, “The more I delved into research, the more data I gathered and the more people I corresponded and spoke with nationwide, I couldn't help but realize how profoundly their stories echoed one another’s. Sure, there were variations. But these had more to do with location and individual aspects, The over- all caucus experiences were far too similar to be the result of a few unscrupulous, overzealous Obama campaign workers. The caucus take-overs were a well planned, well orchestrated example of voter fraud. The video documentation, in case you question such authenticity, was provided by people who felt they were taking part in an exciting moment in history and wanted to record the event for posterity. They were at an historical juncture...but not the kind of history they expected.”

“If you want to categorize me as an typical disgruntled Hillary supporter,” I continued, “you are certainly entitled to your opinion. In response, I suggest you look up www.lynettelong.com. She has some startling documentation which verifies what I am writing you...and I don't believe after reading her credentials that you can pass her off as a sure loser or far out nutcase. Also in response, I'd like to add that, since the Rules Committee debacle, I've been in contact with many wonderful people across the country and can categorically state first hand that dismissing Hillary's supporters into a single focus category (usually angry, slightly delusional old time feminists with nothing else to do) is, in itself, delusional. I've been emailed by both men and woman, people as young as early twenties and all the way up to their nineties. Veterans from WWII, Iraq and everything in between. Young parents and their own parents and even their grandparents. College students and professors. The Democratic party has, so far, been unwise to the point of stupidity to dismiss the anger, passion and sheer voting power of people who feel the party has lost its moral compass as well as its moral authority to lecture anyone about election fraud.

ON THE CUTTING EDGE

ON THE CUTTING EDGE: New Non-Partisan Group To Promote Women's Agenda

newagendapress@yahoo.com

A Movement Is Born: The New Agenda

New Non-Partisan Group Formed To Promote Women's Agenda

August 11, 2008 --On Monday, 30 women from around the country who are leaders of various women's organizations or have worked as community activists came together in Westchester, NY, to found a group called The New Agenda, a non-partisan organization to advance women’s issues.   

"We will pool our talents and leverage already established 'friends of the family' organizations to launch a grass roots and grass tops effort to register women voters, organize a national 'get out the vote' effort around women’s issues," says Amy Siskind. "Our long-term goal is to cultivate and groom women to run for public office at all levels of government – including the presidency," adds Siskind, a former Wall Street executive who is active in Democratic politics and is a founding member of Together4US, which is supporting efforts to put Hillary Clinton's name on the ballot at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. 

"The first order of business for our group is to persuade candidates for the presidency, Senate and House to incorporate a number of women’s rights goals and policies into their platforms," says Siskind. These include:

• Mandating paid maternity leave;

• Ensuring that affordable healthcare is available to women and children;

• Passing the Fair Pay Act in the Senate;

• Helping women establish and run small businesses;

• Reducing domestic violence;

• Allocating 20 percent more party money to female candidates than to male candidates until the number of women elected to Congress is on par with their percentage of the population; and 

• Strengthening FCC regulations to penalize content that denigrates women. 

CLINTON WILL BE PUT UP FOR NOMINATION

from Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

Sen. Hillary Clinton's name will be put up for nomination at the Democratic National Convention, according to Marc Ambinder.

"Within the past week, Clinton advisers informed the Obama team that many of Clinton's staunchest supporters felt strongly that something had to be done, and that Clinton had concluded that, in part for the sake of unity, their wishes ought to be respected.  They heard back immediately: the Obama campaign had always been open to having her name placed in nomination alongside his."

NEW WEAPONS AT DENVER CONVENTION

The Denver Convention might be a racuous event.  Several Pro-Hillary groups are planning to protest and the police in Denver are getting ready with weapons the like of which you won't believe.

BOUGHT AND PAID FOR!

   

By Lynette Long

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

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

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

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

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

JOHN ALDER              NJ        $2500 from PELOSI     ALDER  endorses OBAMA

JASON ALTMIRE          PA        $10k FROM PELOSI     ALTMIRE endorses OBAMA

ANDRE CARSON          IN         $10k FROM PELOSI     CARSON endorses OBAMA

JOE DONNELLY           IN         $10k FROM PELOSI     DONNNELLY endorses OBAMA

GABRIELLE  GIFFORDS AZ      $10k FROM PELOSI     GIFFORDS endorses OBAMA

BARON HILL               IN         $10k FROM PELOSI     HILL endorses OBAMA

RON KLEIN                 FL         $10k FROM PELOSI     KLEIN endorses OBAMA

NICK LAMPSON           TX        $7500 FROM PELOSI   LAMPSON endorses OBAMA

TIM MAHONEY          FL         $10k FROM PELOSI     MAHONEY endorses OBAMA

JERRY MCNERNEY      CA        $10 FROM PELOSI       MCNERNEY endorses OBAMA

HARRY MITCHELL       AZ        $10k FROM PELOSI     MITCHELL endorses OBAMA

PATRICK MURPHY       PA        10k FROM PELOSI       MURPHY endorses OBAMA

JOE SESTAK                 PA        $10k FROM PELOSI     SESTAK endorses OBAMA

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

ZACHARY SPACE         OH       $10k FROM PELOSI     SPACE endorses OBAMA

               

NIKI TSONGAS             MA      $10k FROM PELOSI     TSONGAS endorses OBAMA

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

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

It seems Obama was just posing as a Washington outsider.  But in reality—all the real Washington insiders Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Clyburn, Hoyer, and Kerry were on his team all along.  Pelosi’s Pac might be named PAC to the Future, but it took direct action to purposely undermine the first significant female candidate for the presidency in history. In so doing, she pushed women back decades.  Call Pelosi’s office at 415-556-4862 and let her know how you feel.  Let’s not just call her biased against women; let’s call her finished.   

FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY, BEFORE IT DISAPPEARS. 

POWER TO THE PEOPLE - BILL CLINTON IN ETHIOPIA

Bill Clinton greets villagers during his visit to the Ethiopian highlands. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty images

He dropped out of the sky and left, an hour or so later, the same way, helicopter rotor blades driving a gritty dust storm from the dirt playing field into the faces of hundreds of Ethiopian hill villagers. They waved and clapped and shook the hand of a white-haired man who used to hold the most powerful office on the planet and who has just failed to help his wife secure it in her turn. Yet the people of Rema had no idea who William Jefferson Clinton was or what he was doing in their village.

One man knew the name, though his wife looked blank. "Clinton," said Awke Tiruneh, whose hut the president had been due to visit but didn't, because of the tight schedule powerful men run to. "He is from Germany." It is the only foreign country Tiruneh has heard of, because a German NGO is based on Rema's doorstep, but he has not a clue where either Germany or America are. The outside world is the village on top of the next hill, a long, rocky walk down one mountain and up another.

Link to this audio
Former US president Bill Clinton discusses climate change, Kyoto, Aids and the US election

Yet Clinton came to put Rema on the map, hailing it as a model for the developing world and a place that could teach the US a thing or two. Rema, in the northern highlands, is now the first solar-powered village in Ethiopia - a cluster of 1,100 homes that shine in the dark evenings like white beads on a string. Every home has electric light from an energy-efficient LED bulb hanging from the straw ceiling. Children can do schoolwork after 6pm while women weave the gabi - a white cotton head-to-toe wrap that is worn in church and in the evenings to keep out the cold (now Clinton has one too). Night classes have started in the school for adults who want to learn to read, there is a solar-powered fridge at the health centre that cannot run out of fuel, and women no longer have to walk a mile to the well, thanks to a solar-powered pump. High-quality equipment has been installed that will last for 25 or 30 years. Villagers pay around 80p a month to cover the cost of maintenance and new batteries.

Rema has become a model for the future energy needs of developing countries, Clinton believes. Solar power could be a revolution for Africa. "It's the energy equivalent of the cellphone movement," he says.

Bill is not the only Clinton whose imagination has been caught by this project. His 28-year-old daughter Chelsea is there too, as are Clinton's brother Roger and 14-year-old nephew Tyler. Chelsea took indefinite unpaid leave from her management consultancy job to help her mother's unsuccessful bid for the Democratic nomination. "She wasn't back at a new task yet so she wanted to come with me, and I love it," her father tells me later in the presidential suite at the Addis Ababa Sheraton, whose marbled elegance and air conditioning would make a Rema villager's eyes pop. "We like to travel together."

The shade of Hillary's momentous campaign travels with them. Clinton speaks of it with a sort of warm afterglow, in spite of the panning he personally received. "I'm immensely proud of Hillary," he says. "Her performance in March, April and May, to June 3, was literally miraculous. If you'd told me, given the facts that existed on March 1, that she'd come back, win more popular votes, do as well as she did, I would never have believed it ... I thought she learned, she grew and I think by the end she was running like a house on fire.

"I'm very grateful actually, personally, that I had a chance to get out and see so much of America, because her only option after she lost all those caucuses in February and knew she was going to be outspent was to raise this incredible grassroots campaign. And Chelsea made 450 appearances for her mother. In the last three months alone I went to 350 different communities. I got to see parts of America I never saw when I was running or serving, and it was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life."

Now, however, he is on a whistle-stop tour of his charitable foundation's projects in Africa: today Ethiopia, tomorrow Rwanda, the next day in and out of Liberia and on to Senegal. Much of it is to do with health - Clinton's influence, his ability to flatter, charm and persuade, has had great success in negotiating down drug prices for Aids and malaria for the developing world. He is pushing to increase dramatically the numbers of women with HIV given drugs in pregnancy to stop their babies becoming infected. But here in the northern highlands of Ethiopia, we are looking at ways to mitigate the effects of climate change.

"My whole theory about climate change is that the biggest problem in aggregate is the fact that India and China are about to pass the US in emissions and no country is going to agree to remain poor in order to avert climate change. We have to be able to show that there are economically viable options.

"I think it is really important that the vast mass of countries that are developing find ways to skip the carbon stage of economic development - ways that accelerate rather than undermine their wellbeing."

Shouldn't the US take steps to reduce its own emissions before it starts visiting its ideas on Africa? "I think that the United States does need to pass climate change legislation, we need to put a price on carbon, we need to set up a capping trade system and one that can't be cheated on: I agree with all that. But when people say that most loudly, they are usually looking for an excuse to do nothing, and if we burn up the planet then no one will give you laurels for having come up with the best available excuse to do nothing. Your grandchildren won't be proud of you. And we may have an irreversible situation," he says.

"Secondly, because all these developing countries have to be worried about the problems at hand, feeding the people that are there, educating them, providing basic healthcare, having some near-term economic strategy, I think that people like me who care about this stuff have to find economically attractive options for them."

PAID TO REGISTER!

Yesterday Paula Abeles and I and couple of other people were walking past the corner of Conneticut and Q NW and a group of 40 DNC trainers and volunteers were role-playing registering  people to vote.   As loyal Hillary supporters we tried to educate them about Barack Obama.  The vast majority of them were uninformed, but a few were intellectually combative.  We continued to watched the training and noticed one of the trainers teaching the volunteers to offer money for voters to register.  One of the women with us shouted, "You're offering money.  That's illegal."  The trainer quickly responded, "You misunderstood."  An argument ensued.  Another trainer came up to me and yelled, "We're going to call the police."  "We're going to have you arrested."  I looked at her in amazement.  "For what, standing on public property."  She yelled back, "For harrassment."  Interesting since I hadn't said anything.  I should have dialed the police on my cell phone.  Anyway, I contacted Channel 7 and they came out and did a story today. Here it is, hot off the press.

AUDACITY OF A FRAUD

by Guest Blogger Soldier for Hillary

This historical election for Senator Obama, based on his words, can be traced all the way back to Selma, Alabama. A place Senator Obama states in his speech in 2007 he owes his very existence to.  His passionate speech before a congregation at Brown Chapel A.M. E. Church tells the story of how the protests in Selma played a part in him being able to stand there before them that day.
The riveting story on how JFK played a part in his father having the chance to be one of the young Africans who were bought to this country to give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country this is, was poignant and beautiful as he described how the events and his very existence came about reflects in this passage of his speech:

"This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country.  He met this woman whose great-great-great-great grandfather had owned slaves.  But she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that in the world as it had been, it might not be possible for us to get together an have a child.

He goes even more in depth, filled with emotion as he describes the impact of this movement on who he is, and where he is today ....

"there was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge.  So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.  So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama.  Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma Alabama.  I'm here because somebody marched.  I'm here because you all sacrificed for me.  I stand on the shoulders of giants".

Moving..riveting and nothing but LIES.  The march in which he refers happened on 7 March 1965, when demonstrators attempted to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma Alabama. It is mathmatically impossible for Obama senior and Ann Dunham to decide to marry based on the "march" in Selma and produce Senator Obama, if Senator Obama was born in AUGUST 1961 and the march in Selma happened in 1965.  How can he state JFK was responsible for the first airlift bringing Kenyans over when Kenyan nationalist leader, Tom MBoya was responsible between 1959 & 1960 on gaining financial support for this endeavor?  JFK was responsible for the SECOND airlift and had nothing to do with the first. Senator Obama's father was already in Hawaii studying. But there are those who had an impact and were part of that movement that Senator Obama carelessly used in a speech for political gain, destroying our history without KNOWING our history....

CALLING ALL VOTES, FROM THE NYT

By MICHELLE COTTLE

Published: August 9, 2008

Washington

NEARLY everyone in the Democratic Party seems to think that officially entering Hillary Clinton’s name into a roll-call vote for the presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention would be a dangerous show of disunity. It’s true that having America watch as some portion of Mrs. Clinton’s 1,640 pledged delegates thumb their noses at Barack Obama would disrupt the party’s vision of a carefully scripted Denver love-in. But finding a constructive way for Mrs. Clinton’s seriously aggrieved loyalists to channel their anger and disappointment could wind up being the path of less destruction for Mr. Obama’s campaign. Plus, it’s the right thing to do.

You don’t have to be a die-hard Clintonite, or even much of a feminist, to be moved by the significance of her presidential campaign. In 1972, the Democratic presidential candidate Shirley Chisholm made history by having her 151.95 delegates entered into the convention record. Mrs. Clinton amassed more than 10 times that number. Her achievement deserves an official salute.

Symbolic gestures and signs of respect always hold a larger meaning for the campaign that came in second. More than a few of Mrs. Clinton’s devotees, including plenty headed to Denver this month, are in need of catharsis and a bit of closure. They remain convinced that their gal got a raw deal, that she was treated unfairly by the news media, that she was cheated out of her Florida and Michigan delegates by hostile power brokers like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, that she was a victim of sexism, that the historic nature of her candidacy was callously dismissed in all the hullabaloo over the historic nature of Mr. Obama’s, and on and on and on.

Some of these allegations ring truer than others. But many of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters believe them intensely enough to want to make trouble for Mr. Obama. Discouraging Mrs. Clinton’s name from being entered into a roll-call vote would give her legions yet one more opportunity to feel that their candidate had been snubbed.

Giving them the chance to see their beloved candidate honored in a highly public forum could, just maybe, help release a little steam from the pressure cooker. Beyond that, there could be other, more direct benefits for Mr. Obama’s candidacy.

A roll-call vote for Mrs. Clinton could help Mr. Obama look magnanimous instead of messianic. Fair or not, the man has earned himself a reputation as arrogant. These days, John McCain’s campaign spends much of its time watching for the tiniest show of self-importance by Mr. Obama to exploit. By making a grand gesture, inviting (even publicly urging) Mrs. Clinton to sign the (already circulating) petition to have her name submitted for nomination would help Mr. Obama look like a swell guy.

Yes, we would all be reminded of how close the Democratic race for president was when, on the convention floor, delegation after delegation rose to cast its votes. (A few die-hards for Mrs. Clinton might even get mouthy.) But in the end, the tally would indicate that Mr. Obama won. He beat Mrs. Clinton, the inevitable nominee who drove far-more-experienced politicians than Mr. Obama from the race before it even began, and who beat every other guy in the race.

He did it. And he could demonstrate that he is now so comfortable with his victory that he is willing to let Mrs. Clinton tout her achievement as well. (Better still, the delegate total for Mr. Obama would almost certainly be higher than it stood at the end of the primaries, because many of Mrs. Clinton’s superdelegates — and probably even a few of her pledged delegates — would decide to cast ballots for Mr. Obama.) Sure, some portion of Mrs. Clinton’s delegates will never be satisfied with any gesture. They are determined to sink Mr. Obama in the hopes that their candidate can come back and win this thing in 2012.

But the kamikaze cohort is just one, admittedly very noisy, subset of a larger pool of wounded supporters. The trick is to find a big, public way to separate the zealots from those who just want a concerted effort by the party and its candidate to show a scrupulous commitment to respecting every vote cast.

Is this desire reasonable? Sensible? Logical? Maybe not. But in presidential campaigns, reason and logic rarely carry the day.

Michelle Cottle is a senior editor at The New Republic.