[mpen-dayton4] FW: "American exceptionalism versus a true history of minorities" & "Vice President Koch: (MONSTROUS)" & "TPP Seen as Door for Foreign Suits Against U.S." and more
FYI. Best, Munsup
P.S. "He who dares not offend cannot be honest" - Thomas Paine
P.P.S. Please reply back to me with 'unsubscribe' on the subject line if you no longer want to receive my e-Newsletters. The convenient link to unsubscribe is no longer available due to security reasons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· FW: IPAD Magic
· FW: "American exceptionalism versus a true history of minorities"
· FW: Special Enrollment Period: You may qualify
· FW: Cda healthcare - panel disc CBC Sunday night
· FW: tax time (info with OBAMA care)
· FW: ✎ thank President Obama -- sign please
· FW: This could get ugly....!!
· FW: My Lai (The Scene of the Crime) & War with Iran, by the Numbers
· FW: Iran deal isn't stopping war hawks from trying to derail negotiations (important)
· FW: Vice President Koch: (MONSTROUS)
· FW: urgent - Koch brothers
· FW: Hobby Lobby decision attacks equality like Citizens United attacks democracy
· FW: fasttrack TPP hands over rights of citizens in democracy to international business corporations
· FW: Trans-Pacific Partnership Seen as Door for Foreign Suits Against U.S.
· FW: Enough about Rahm. Here is what you need to know about Chuy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: albert baca
Subject: FW: IPAD Magic
Turn on speakers.
Can someone explain to an old dummy how he did it?
http://ipadvideolessons.com/blog/150224-ipad-magic/
From: Jimmy Franco
Subject: "American exceptionalism versus a true history of minorities"
American Exceptionalism Versus a True History of Minorities
The 2016 elections are now approaching and many candidates on the political right are being asked if they believe in the doctrine of "American exceptionalism". This doctrine is being widely disseminated and can negatively affect the status of social and political issues...
continue reading
Moderator: Jimmy Franco Sr.
LATINOPOV.COM
From: HealthCare.gov Reminders
Subject: Special Enrollment Period: You may qualify
Special Enrollment Period ends April 30
If you owe the fee for not having coverage in 2014, you may qualify for a Special Enrollment Period to get covered for 2015. |
If you owe a fee with your taxes for not having health coverage in 2014 and don't yet have health coverage for 2015, you may still be able to get coverage for 2015.
The Health Insurance Marketplace is providing individuals and families who are subject to the fee when they file their 2014 taxes with one last chance to get covered for 2015.
This is too important to put off. If you don't have coverage for the remainder of 2015 you'll risk having to pay the fee again next year for the portion of this year that you don't have coverage. The fee for people who don't have coverage increases in 2015 to $325 per person or 2% of your household income – whichever is higher.
You could save: 8 out of 10 people who enroll in 2015 coverage are getting financial help. Millions have already signed up.
We hope you take advantage of this extended opportunity to get quality coverage this year.
The HealthCare.gov Team
P.S. If you already have 2015 coverage or you want to stop receiving messages about this Special Enrollment Period, click here.
From: albert baca
Subject: FW: Cda healthcare - panel disc CBC Sunday night
This is from a friend in Canada who "snowbirds" in the Rio Grande Valley. He is one of the most knowledgeable people I know and we have had many interesting discussions through the years.
The CBC National is a great news channel, putting to shame all three of our major TV networks. I've watched the CBC National a couple of times during a three week TDY to the Bell Aerospace Plant in Niagara Falls, NY (now closed) and a week long TDY to the USAF Reserve Base in Niagara Falls, NY. The second was in the middle of winter. Talk about fun driving from the Buffalo Airport to the USAF Reserve Base in Niagara Falls in a lake effect snow storm.
If interested in health care, I recommend you watch the video. - Old Al
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings AL
A panel discussion about access to health care in Cda including a discussion about the rich accessing treatement in the US and whether it should be extended to Cda. The female doctor in the discussion was an invitee to address a US congresss panel...she is very clear headed and a strong advocate for making our system better not creating paths for the rich.
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV%20Shows/The%20National/ID/2661534402/
From: Tony Cheng; Working America
Subject: tax time
Have you filed your taxes yet? Did you remember to include information about your health care?
It's probably something you weren't thinking about. When you file your 2014 taxes, you'll have to indicate whether you had health care coverage or not last year. If you skipped out on coverage, you may owe Uncle Sam a tax penalty.
What do you need to know to get through tax season without making yourself sick and having to use that health care plan of yours?
- If you and your family had a health care plan in 2014, it is likely that you meet the "minimum essential coverage" required by law. Most employer plans and all coverage sold through the Health Insurance Marketplaces count as minimum essential coverage.
- If you didn't have a health care plan in 2014, you may be exempt from the requirement to have qualifying health coverage. You should check IRS form 8965 to see if you qualify for an exemption.
- If you didn't have health coverage in 2014 and you don't qualify for an exemption for every month of 2014, you may need to pay a penalty, known as a shared responsibility payment. The instructions for IRS form 8965 include a worksheet that will help you calculate how much you owe.
- If you obtained Marketplace coverage in 2014, depending on your final income, you may have to make adjustments to the premium tax credit you or your family received using IRS form 8962 (see instructions for 8962).
- If you need help filling out your tax forms, you may qualify for free help from the IRS Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) program. You can learn more here.
If all of this is news to you and you're facing a fine for not having health insurance in 2014, visit www.workingamericahealthcare.org to see if you can enroll in a plan today. From March 15 to April 30, 2015, a special enrollment opportunity is available for anyone who is subject to the fine for not having health coverage in 2014. To be eligible to enroll during this special enrollment period, you must verify (1) you were not aware of the tax penalty until after Open Enrollment ended on Feb. 15, (2) you are required to pay 2014 a fee for not having coverage on your 2014 income taxes, and (3) you are not already enrolled in qualifying health coverage. You may even still qualify for financial help through a tax credit or subsidy.
This is the first time taxes and health care have been linked, so don't worry if this all sounds a little new. Just remember-the peace of mind that comes from having your family covered and healthy is priceless.
We're here to help you make sense of health insurance.
From: ✉ Petition
Subject: ✎ thank President Obama -- sign please
| |||
|
From: Judy Burnette
Subject: This could get ugly....!!
From: James Lucas
Subject: My Lai (The Scene of the Crime)
A reporter's journey to My Lai and the secrets of the past.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/03/30/the-scene-of-the-crime
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
War with Iran, by the Numbers by Juan Cole, March 31, 2015; Informed Comment
What would a war with Iran cost? http://portside.org/2015-04-02/war-iran-numbers
Sen. John McCain and others on the American Right are in favor of dropping those pesky negotiations with Iran and just bombing their nuclear enrichment sites. Doing so, however, would only set them back a year or so, and would certainly put Iran on a war footing with the USA. Those who think such bombing runs would be the end of the story, however, are fooling themselves. Bombing Iraq in 1991 and the no-fly zone had a lot to do with taking the USA down the path to a ground war in 2003. Bombing now will almost certainly lead to a similar ground war.
Iran is 2.5 times more populous than Iraq and much bigger geographically. It is likely that Iran war numbers would be three times those of Iraq, at least.
Casualties from a strike on Bushehr Nuclear Plant: Hundreds of thousands.
Likely US troop deaths: 15,000
Likely US troops lightly injured: 270,000
Likely US troops more seriously wounded: 90,000
Direct cost of war: $5.1 trillion
Cost of caring for wounded troops over lifetime: $9 trillion to $18 trillion
Likely Iranian deaths: 300,000 to 1 million
Likely Iranian injured: 900,0000 to 3 million
Iranian displaced: 12 million (out of 75 million)
Opportunity cost to US: $23 trillion of infrastructure, health care improvement
From: Chris Bowers, Daily Kos
Subject: Iran deal isn't stopping war hawks from trying to derail negotiations (important)
The Obama administration announced an historic breakthrough in negotiations with Iran yesterday.
Diplomats agreed to a framework that includes exhaustive inspections of Iran's nuclear program, overcoming intense pressure from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to levy ever-harsher sanctions on Iran—a course of action that would have crippled negotiations and may have led to war.
The Daily Kos community sent over 500,000 emails and calls to Congress opposing new sanctions on Iran in order to let diplomacy continue. I don't know how much difference we made, but any day we help stop a war is a good day, even if we only helped a little.
Now, we need to help the Obama administration bring this victory home.
Can you call your senators to let them know you support the diplomatic framework that was announced by the Obama administration? The Senate switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.
Can't call? Please click here to write your senators an email.
From: ✋ Stop the Kochs
Subject: Vice President Koch: (MONSTROUS)
| ||
|
From: Mona Mangat MD, Doctors for America
Subject: urgent - Koch brothers
I've got bad news. The Koch brothers are at it again.
As we have seen in states across the country, the billionaire Koch brothers are using their fortune to keep the less fortunate from getting healthcare.
Now, they are turning their attention to the progress we are making on Medicaid expansion in the Florida Legislature by targeting key lawmakers who are actively pushing expansion. Their influence could take away any chances of expanding access to care for nearly one million Floridians who desperately need it.
We can't let these billionaires stand in the way of care for patients. Help us fight back!
Now is not the time to back down.
Help us double down and fight the special interests who seek to block care for people in need.
Help us put patients over politics!
Can you donate $100 or $10/month to help us keep the pressure on?
Mona Mangat is the Board Chair of Doctors for America and an Allergist-Immunologist based in St. Petersburg, Florida.
From: Michael Keegan; President, People For the American Way
Subject: Hobby Lobby decision attacks equality like Citizens United attacks democracy
The Roberts Court majority's aggressive efforts to redefine core constitutional concepts like free speech and religious liberty are coming home to roost in the form of elections sold to the highest bidder and laws that were conceived as a shield to protect religious freedom and pluralism being coopted and used as a sword against the rights of LGBT people, women and others. Some updates:
Saving Our Democracy from Big Money
Yesterday marked the anniversary of the Supreme Court's McCutcheon decision, in which the Court's five-justice conservative majority eliminated important caps on individual election spending using the same rationale from Citizens United. We were part of a national day of action against money in politics that included rallies in dozens of cities around the country.
We used the day of action to amplify our call for the president to sign an executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose their political spending. Disclosure is, as the Washington Post put it, the "backbone of accountability," and this executive order is a way for the president -- who recently reiterated his support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United -- to take a big bite out of money-in-politics corruption with the simple stroke of a pen. PFAW and our allies delivered more than 550,000 petition signatures calling for the executive order to the White House.
See my op-ed in Reuters, published yesterday, on why this executive order would be a big step towards President Obama's own articulated vision of "better politics">>
Meanwhile, in the states, we've had some great victories as legislators in Washington State and Montana have passed bills to strengthen important disclosure requirements for state election spending. And in New Hampshire, we just last week scored an incredibly hard fought victory in the State Senate with the passage of a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment that would overturn decisions like Citizens United. If we can get it through the House, New Hampshire will be the 17th state calling for such an amendment.
Fighting Discrimination (and the Hijacking of "Religious Freedom")
In several states, we have been busy fighting back against so-called "religious freedom" bills -- more accurately described as right-to-discriminate bills -- like the one that was recently signed into law in Indiana. These bills are the natural result of the Roberts Court's 5-4 Hobby Lobby decision, which dramatically reinterpreted the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to give corporations religious rights that superseded the rights of their employees not to be discriminated against. Now, in the wake of Hobby Lobby, the anti-gay Far Right has set out to use the Court's disturbing take on religious liberty as a weapon against LGBT people, dangerously allowing claims of religious liberty to be used as a basis for discrimination.
While the bill became law in Indiana, the governor has already been forced to backtrack and work with lawmakers to pass a "clarification" of the bill in an attempt, at least ostensibly, to mitigate its discriminatory impact. We're optimistic that our continued work, along with the ensuing national backlash to Indiana, will make the difference in defeating these bills in the states where they are still pending.
Right Wing Watch Highlights
In a recent speech, Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson embarked on a dark and bizarre fantasy scenario in which he hypothesized about an atheist family being raped and killed. The coverage of the speech by PFAW's Right Wing Watch drove a good deal of media attention.
A true star of RightWingWatch.org, paranoid Religious Right extremist and sometimes-exorcist Gordon Klingenschmitt -- who last year was elected as a Republican to the Colorado State House of Representatives -- sparked outrage after saying a savage attack on a pregnant woman in his state was the result of God's "curse" on America for legalized abortion. The victim of the attack publicly rejected a $1,000 donation Klingenschmitt then tried to make on a website that had been set up to support her in the aftermath of the attack.
Finally, in addition to its ample coverage of right-wing candidates' and movement leaders' activities in the lead up to Election 2016, Right Wing Watch has released a series of profiles of the likely (and one declared) Republican presidential candidates. Find those here>>
Thank you so much for all of your time, your commitment to the American Way and your ongoing support of PFAW.
People For the American Way depends on the support of its members. Help make sure America lives up to the promise of freedom and equality for all by funding the work of People For with a gift today.
From: Andrew Tierman
Subject: fasttrack TPP hands over rights of citizens in democracy to international business corporations
All political representatives who speak for the freedom of people from corporate control, who defend liberty, and who protect democratic values should oppose trade pacts that prevent citizens from making laws to regulate big business.
Congress and the President should not promote a world order in which business and profitability reign sovereign and supreme.
see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-huge-tpp_b_6956540.html
From: khalfani718
Subject: Trans-Pacific Partnership Seen as Door for Foreign Suits Against U.S.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Seen as Door for Foreign Corporate Suits Against U.S. to Be Heard in Secret World Bank Tribunals | 25 March 2015 | An ambitious 12-nation trade accord pushed by President Obama would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment "expectations" and hurts their business, according to a classified document . The Trans-Pacific Partnership -- a cornerstone of Mr. Obama's remaining economic Wall Street agenda -- would grant broad powers to multinational companies operating in North America, South America and Asia. Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings -- federal, state or local -- before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Seen as Door for Foreign Suits Against U.S.
MARCH 25, 2015
President Obama with members of his cabinet speaking to the Democratic Governors Association.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a cornerstone of Mr. Obama's remaining economic agenda.
CreditJabin Botsford/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — An ambitious 12-nation trade accord pushed by President Obama would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment "expectations" and hurt their business, according to a classified document.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership — a cornerstone of Mr. Obama's remaining economic agenda — would grant broad powers to multinational companies operating in North America, South America and Asia. Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.
Backers of the emerging trade accord, which is supported by a wide variety of business groups and favored by most Republicans, say that it is in line with previous agreements that contain similar provisions. But critics, including many Democrats in Congress, argue that the planned deal widens the opening for multinationals to sue in the United States and elsewhere, giving greater priority to protecting corporate interests than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers.
Protesters in Miami against the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Critics argue that the planned deal widens the opening for multinationals to sue in the United States and elsewhere.
CreditJoe Raedle/Getty Images
The chapter in the draft of the trade deal, dated Jan. 20, 2015, and obtained by The New York Times in collaboration with the group WikiLeaks, is certain to kindle opposition from both the political left and the right. The sensitivity of the issue is reflected in the fact that the cover mandates that the chapter not be declassified until four years after the Trans-Pacific Partnership comes into force or trade negotiations end, should the agreement fail.
Conservatives are likely to be incensed that even local policy changes could send the government to a United Nations-sanctioned tribunal. On the left, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, law professors and a host of liberal activists have expressed fears the provisions would infringe on United States sovereignty and impinge on government regulation involving businesses in banking, tobacco, pharmaceuticals and other sectors.
Members of Congress have been reviewing the secret document in secure reading rooms, but this is the first disclosure to the public since an early version leaked in 2012.
"This is really troubling," said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the Senate's No. 3 Democrat. "It seems to indicate that savvy, deep-pocketed foreign conglomerates could challenge a broad range of laws we pass at every level of government, such as made-in-America laws or anti-tobacco laws. I think people on both sides of the aisle will have trouble with this."
The United States Trade Representative's Office dismissed such concerns as overblown. Administration officials said opponents were using hypothetical cases to stoke irrational fear when an actual record exists that should soothe worries.
Such "Investor-State Dispute Settlement" accords exist already in more than 3,000 trade agreements across the globe. The United States is party to 51, including the North American Free Trade Agreement. Administration officials say they level the playing field for American companies doing business abroad, protect property from government seizure and ensure access to international justice.
But the limited use of trade tribunals, critics argue, is because companies in those countries do not have the size, legal budgets and market power to come after governments in the United States. The Trans-Pacific Partnership could change all that, they say. The agreement would expand that authority to investors in countries as wealthy as Japan and Australia, with sophisticated companies deeply invested in the United States.
"U.S.T.R. will say the U.S. has never lost a case, but you're going to see a lot more challenges in the future," said Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio. "There's a huge pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for these companies."
One 1999 case gives ammunition to both sides of the debate. Back then, California banned the chemical MTBE from the state's gasoline, citing the damage it was doing to its water supply. The Canadian company Methanex Corporation sued for $970 million under Nafta, claiming damages on future profits. The case stretched to 2005, when the tribunal finally dismissed all claims.
To supporters of the TPP, the Methanex case was proof that regulation for the "public good" would win out. For opponents, it showed what could happen when far larger companies from countries like Japan have access to the same extrajudicial tribunals.
But as long as a government treats foreign and domestic companies in the same way, defenders say, it should not run afoul of the trade provisions. "A government that conducts itself in an unbiased and nondiscriminatory fashion has nothing to worry about," said Scott Miller, an international business expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who has studied past cases. "That's the record."
Similar chapters exist in the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Central American Free Trade Agreement, but their use has been limited against the United States. Over 25 years, according to the trade representative's office, the United States has faced only 17 investor-state cases, 13 of which went before tribunals. The United States has lost none.
Civil courts in the United States are already open to action by foreign investors and companies. Since 1993, while the federal government was defending itself against those 17 cases brought through extrajudicial trade tribunals, it was sued 700,000 times in domestic courts.
In all, according to Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, about 9,000 foreign-owned firms operating in the United States would be empowered to bring cases against governments here. Those are as diverse as timber and mining companies in Australia and investment conglomerates from China whose subsidiaries in Trans-Pacific Partnership countries like Vietnam and New Zealand also have ventures in the United States.
More than 18,000 companies based in the United States would gain new powers to go after the other 11 countries in the accord.
A similar accord under negotiation with Europe has already provoked an outcry there.
Senator Brown contended that the overall accord, not just the investment provisions, was troubling. "This continues the great American tradition of corporations writing trade agreements, sharing them with almost nobody, so often at the expense of consumers, public health and workers," he said.
Under the terms of the Pacific trade chapter, foreign investors could demand cash compensation if member nations "expropriate or nationalize a covered investment either directly or indirectly." Opponents fear "indirect expropriation" will be interpreted broadly, especially by deep-pocketed multinational companies opposing regulatory or legal changes that diminish the value of their investments.
RECENT COMMENTS
JD
Yesterday
Some of us actually care about other countries. The US has lost few or none of the cases brought by foreign corporations. How many non-US...
WimR
Yesterday
One of the problems of his kinds of agreements is the selection of the judges. Because there isn't much employment on the government side...
mtoro
Yesterday
So the Trans Pacific Partnership would make it legal multinational company to AMEND or REPEAL United States laws!And taxpayers would have to...
SEE ALL COMMENTS
Included in the definition of "indirect expropriation" is government action that "interferes with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations," according to the leaked document.
The cost can be high. In 2012, one such tribunal, under the auspices of the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ordered Ecuador to pay Occidental Petroleum a record $2.3 billion for expropriating oil drilling rights.
Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a member nation would be forbidden from favoring "goods produced in its territory."
Critics say the text's definition of an investment is so broad that it could open enormous avenues of legal challenge. An investment includes "every asset that an investor owns or controls, directly or indirectly, that has the characteristic of an investment," including "regulatory permits; intellectual property rights; financial instruments such as stocks and derivatives"; construction, management, production, concession, revenue-sharing and other similar contracts; and "licenses, authorizations, permits and similar rights conferred pursuant to domestic law."
"This is not about expropriation; it's about regulatory changes," said Lori Wallach, director of Global Trade Watch and a fierce opponent of the Pacific accord. "You now have specialized law firms being set up. You go to them, tell them what country you're in, what regulation you want to go after, and they say 'We'll do it on contingency.'"
In 2013, Eli Lilly took advantage of a similar provision under Nafta to sue Canada for $500 million, accusing Ottawa of violating its obligations to foreign investors by allowing its courts to invalidate patents for two of its drugs.
All of those disputes would be adjudicated under rules set by either the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes or the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.
The Obama administration pressed for — and won — clear transparency rules mandating that tribunals be open to the public and arbitration documents be available online. Outside parties would also be allowed to file briefs.
"Here's what I can tell you as these negotiations proceed," President Obama told reporters in Brussels last year when questioned on the trade deals in the works. "I have fought my entire political career and as president to strengthen consumer protections. I have no intention of signing legislation that would weaken those protections."
There are other mitigating provisions, but many have catches. For instance, one article states that "nothing in this chapter" should prevent a member country from regulating investment activity for "environmental, health or other regulatory objectives." But that safety valve says such regulation must be "consistent" with the other strictures of the chapter, a provision even administration officials said rendered the clause more political than legal.
One of the chapter's annexes states that regulatory actions meant "to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety and the environment" do not constitute indirect expropriation, "except in rare circumstances." That final exception could open such regulations to legal second-guessing, critics say.
Correction: March 27, 2015
An article on Thursday about provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as outlined in a classified document, that would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States over actions that hurt their business or investment expectations misstated when the document was made available to members of Congress. Drafts were available for review soon after being written; it is not the case that the latest document was not made available until last week.
From: Monique Teal, Daily Kos
Subject: Enough about Rahm. Here is what you need to know about Chuy.
Thank you for everything you've given to help Chuy García defeat Rahm Emanuel in the Chicago Mayor's race. Today marks the beginning of the final Get Out The Vote push in Chicago. The finish line is in sight.
Click here to sign up for a final Get Out The Vote call shift!
You've probably heard everything you need to hear about Rahm "Mayor 1%" Emanuel. I know I have. Long story, short: Rahm spent his term as mayor selling out his constituents to corporate interests.
Now he's desperate to gain back the approval of voters and is spending millions of dollars, raised from wealthy elites and conservative political donors, to attack Chuy García in TV ads.
Chuy García, on the other hand, earned his friends, through decades of hard work in Chicago's neighborhoods standing up for the people against the rich and the powerful. Here are just a few of the ways Chuy has earned grassroots support:
- He has worked for better housing and schools in the Little Village community he represents on the Southwest Side.
- He resisted pressure from powerful real estate lobbyists and passed a ban on their refusing to rent homes to people who rely on federally funded housing choice vouchers, including low income families, veterans, the disabled and others.
- He sponsored an ordinance that stopped county officials from cooperating with a Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs program that was tearing families apart based on suspicion of being undocumented immigrants.
Chicago is ready to fire Rahm Emanuel and Chuy García is ready to continue to serve. We just need to get voters to the polls on Tuesday, April 7. That's where you come in. Just one phone call from you can convince a voter to cast their ballot for Chuy García. Will you help?
Yes, I will help Chuy Get Out The Vote in Chicago by making calls to voters from home.
No, I can't make calls but I will chip in $5 to Chuy's campaign.
End of MPEN e-Newsletter
posted by lucas at 5:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home