Sunday, September 21, 2008

"Keep Passing This Around"

"Feminist Alert"

We need to make sure this is in every Obamabot's face cause this is the facts. "Obama" does not care about you or me. What he will do just to get elected...

Pay Equity starts at home, Barack.
"The most recent statistics are for the half-year from Oct. 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, excluding interns and focusing on full-time personnel. For someone who workedonly until, say, last Feb. 29, extrapolating up to six months' service simplifies this analysis. Doubling these half-year figures illustrates how a year's worth of Senate employees' paychecks should look.Based on these calculations, Obama's 28 male staffers divided among themselvestotal payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama's average male employeeearned $54,397.Obama's 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, onaverage.Why this disparity? One reason may be the under-representation of women in Obama's highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama's five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women."

"The New Agenda"


This is the problem we have, NOW needs a message sent to them that they dropped the ball, and there organization has made it clear they have lost there focus, But on the other hand the "The New Agenda" is addressing NOW endorsement...


Democracy In Suffrage

mission statement has said it all, we are the new deal, cause we address sexism misogyny, on the first sentence of the mission statement. If we as women of the United States of America, if we keep dancing around what the reality is, then we will never get taken serious. We need warriors, we need to stop this mandy pandy pandering. This is what wrong, we need to, as in Women's right are Human Rights, We need to quit cow towing to society, and say enough is enough. We need to shout from the roof tops foul.

Here is what we need to do, NOW needs to have there coffers smacked, ie no money will change there tune. Second NOW never properly address the misogyny in the primary, but got up in arms over the cover of a magazine with Obama and his wife. They need a reality check. I support any organization that supports women, but look at there little July get together in Washington, did they have a large celebration for the anniversary of Seneca Falls Convention. "Nope it got an honorable mention, as a woman's group it should have centered around that. If it was not for Lucretia Coffin Mott, or Elizabeth Cady Stanton where would we be NOW, pardon the pun...

Let's as Women ( Suffragettes ) & Men of Honor address this how it is...

NOW has turned there backs on Women, because of a few issues, instead of focusing on the whole picture. NOW has lost there focus, and ride on as being one of the first. "NOW" needs to be debunk and scraped until they come up to page...

I am leaving NOW & Forever...

Democracy In Suffrage & The New Agenda

Let's carry it across the finish line...

The New Agenda responds to NOW endorsement
September 20, 2008by Violet Socks, EditorcloseAuthor: Violet Socks, Editor Name: Violet Socks, EditorEmail: violetsocks@gmail.comSite: Violet Socks is the editor of website, and also blogs as the Reclusive Leftist..See Authors Posts (7)
The Washington Post headline reads: Women’s Group Condemns NOW Endorsement of Obama.
Okay, that’s putting it a bit harshly. We’re not condemning NOW; we’re raising our collective eyebrow in puzzlement. (But other than that, it’s a great piece. Thanks, Garance Franke-Ruta!)
Here’s the full text of our press release:
The New Agenda responds to NOW Endorsement
Sept. 19, 2008 - The New Agenda, a non-partisan women’s advocacy organization, recognizes the decades of worthy work and achievement by the National Organization for Women. But The New Agenda is concerned that NOW’s recent endorsement of Barack Obama leaves many women in this country out in the cold.
This precedent-setting move marks the first time in NOW’s 42-year history that it has endorsed an all-male ticket.
Since its founding in 1966, NOW has endorsed only five presidential candidates:
1972 Shirley Chisholm for President1984 WalterMondale/Geraldine Ferraro for President/Vice President2003 Carol Moseley Braun for President2008 Hillary Rodham Clinton for President2008 Barack Obama/Joseph Biden for President/Vice President
The New Agenda co-founder Amy Siskind says, “We find it quite perplexing that NOW has chosen this moment to endorse an all-male ticket.” The endorsement seems all the more puzzling given the fact that the Republican Party is running its first female candidate for Vice-President, Gov. Sarah Palin, and the Green Party is fielding its first all-woman presidential ticket with Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente.
“Women need to stand together and help one another,” says Siskind. “Women’s issues such as unfair pay, domestic violence, and unpaid leave impact women of all political parties.”
The New Agenda is a not-for-profit organization and will not be endorsing a candidate in the presidential election.
The group is in talks with representatives from both Senator Obama’s and Senator McCain’s campaigns about the platform of women’s issues it wants to see addressed.
The New Agenda has also requested a meeting with Gov. Sarah Palin to discuss the group’s platform.
Jennifer Borg, another co-founder of The New Agenda, says, “We want to give Sarah Palin a chance to tell us what Sarah Palin believes on women’s issues.”

"Terrorist Ties You Cannot Dennie"

"Texas Hill Country Another Post, I Had To Post On Here"
Job Well Done

ANOTHER Terrorist Fundraising For Obama? Will It Never End???
Posted on September 21, 2008 by Texas Hill Country
Hatem El-Hady was the chairman of an Islamic “charity” named Kindhearts with was closed by the US government in 2006 for terrorist fundraising as a part of the “Holy Land Foundation” series of closures. These “foundations” sent millions of dollars to Hamas in Lebanon, according to the US government.
And, according to FPM, El-Hady’s “leadership of Kindhearts is not the only thing that has brought him scrutiny by federal law enforcement officials. Last summer, El-Hady was questioned by the FBI concerning his knowledge of possible conspirators in a UK-based terror plot.”
Now, Judicial Watch has new news on El-Hady’s current activities… “El-Hady’s new mission is to move Obama into the White House.”
Interestingly enough, El-Hady even had his own page on, a website modeled after myspace and facebook where supporters can have their own page, blog and add “friends.” The most notable thing about El-Hady’s page… one of his three “friends” was Michelle Obama.
When news of the connection between El-Hady and Obama leaked, Michelle Obama’s name was quietly removed from El-Hady’s page, then the page was closed all together. Little Green Footballs has screenshots of the evolution from Friend, to Not Friends, to Gone.
An interesting thing to note is that El-Hady had earned 288 points on Points are earned by attending events, phone banking, writing superdelegates, and a variety of other things. The 288 points may not seem like much, but it puts him at a ranking of around 30,000 out of several hundred thousand people, so he was obviously active.
So, my question is this… How many of these “bad guys” have to come out of the woodworks for the American people to go… “WTF?”

"I urge all to write every one of your Represenatives"

"Why" is it family planning, how about women's educational choice programs. We need to write every Republican, Democrat, Independent, or other who represent us and tell them it is about time women are not denied choice or most important an alternative, like comprehensive education on disease, and birth control. Maybe if we kept education and female health all on one page we would not have these misconceptions, and the oh my god christian in your face screaming abortion would not be. I keep saying if we have real health classes that teach "our" children around 5-6 or six years of age, the whole nine yards. It is proven in other countries they have the lowest disease rate, lowest teen pregnancy rate. "OK" I am done complaining, "Now" my Suffragettes and Men of Honor let's write these fools and get them on the good stick...

HHS tries to take away "Birth Control"

July 23, 2008
Senators to Leavitt: Abandon Attempt to Undermine Women's Health
In letter to HHS Secretary, 28 Senators Say Proposed Rule Would Limit Women's Family Planning Options, Access to Health Care Services
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Twenty-eight U.S. Senators today wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt urging him to drop a draft regulation which could deny access to critical family planning options to millions of American women. The draft rule, which surfaced last week in news reports, aims to change the definition of abortion to include all contraceptives and therefore allow health care providers and corporations to refuse to provide family planning.

The draft regulation could have the effect of severely undermining hard-fought state laws that guarantee women's access to birth control and could put federal programs like Medicaid and Title X, which provide family-planning services to millions of women, in jeopardy as well.

"As a matter of public policy, it is utterly irresponsible for the federal government to hinder women's access to contraceptive services. We urge you not to pursue this course of action as it would seriously undermine the access of millions of American women to affordable and effective reproductive-health care," the Senators wrote.

Last week, Senators Patty Murray and Hillary Rodham Clinton called on Leavitt to kill the draft rule. While the Senators have not heard back from the Secretary directly, a Department spokesman indicated that HHS "has an obligation to enforce" laws that would allow the hiring of health care professionals who could deny family planning options to women.

The full text of the Senators' letter follows:

Dear Mr. Secretary:

It has come to our attention that a draft regulation is being prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services that would have the effect of encouraging health-care institutions and individuals to refuse to provide birth control to patients who need it. We are writing today to urge you to abandon plans to promulgate such a rule. Though the proposed rule purports to enforce two existing pieces of legislation known as the Church and Weldon amendments, in fact, it goes much further. The draft regulation could deny access to critical family planning for women across the country.

In particular, the regulation, if it is published as it presently exists in its draft form, will define abortion as "any of the various procedures … that result in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." (Emphasis added.) In other words, the draft regulation would define birth control as abortion and therefore allow individuals and health-care corporations to refuse to provide family planning.

By medical definition, a pregnancy does not begin until a fertilized egg implants in a woman's uterine wall. Most modern forms of birth control work, among other ways, by blocking a fertilized egg from doing so. Calling a fertilized egg "before implantation" a "human being in utero" is factually and biologically incorrect. Confusing the definitions of contraception and abortion could have profound implications, leading to disarray in law, regulations, and policy.

Here are but a few examples:

First, the regulation would allow health-care institutions – HMOs, health plans, and hospitals, for instance - to claim "conscientious objection" to birth control in addition to abortion, and to refuse to prescribe contraception and make referrals for birth control.

Second, the regulation directly undermines many important state laws. It could threaten rape survivors’ access to emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms, and might even prevent women from learning that this option exists. Fourteen states currently have laws guaranteeing that access. Similarly, six states have laws ensuring that pharmacists will fill women’s birth control prescriptions. This draft regulation could directly undermine those laws. Finally, 27 states have laws guaranteeing contraceptive equity in health-insurance plans; this draft regulation could place those guarantees in jeopardy.

Third, the regulation appears to stand in open conflict with at least two federal programs that require contraceptive services to be provided to clients upon request: Medicaid and Title X. The Medicaid program includes birth control as a mandated benefit for patients. The sole purpose of the Title X program is to provide family planning and other related reproductive-health services. This regulation could throw both programs into chaos by telling both individual program staff and health-care institutions that they may refuse to provide family planning after all.

The fact is, most Americans – regardless of their position on reproductive choice -- agree that increasing access to birth control prevents unintended pregnancies – and results in fewer abortions. As a matter of public policy, it is utterly irresponsible for the federal government to hinder women’s access to contraceptive services.

We urge you not to pursue this course of action as it would seriously undermine the access of millions of American women to affordable and effective reproductive-health care.


Senator Patty Murray
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Barack Obama
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Maria Cantwell
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Senator John F. Kerry
Senator Bernard Sanders
Senator Robert Menendez
Senator Charles E. Schumer
Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Senator Sherrod Brown
Senator Claire McCaskill
Senator Ron Wyden
Senator Richard J. Durbin
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Senator Jon Tester
Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
Senator Tom Harkin
Senator Max Baucus
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Blanche Lincoln
Senator Russ Feingold
Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Senator Edward Kennedy
Senator Harry Reid
Senator Christopher J. Dodd