Please blast far and wide.  Keep calling congressmen.  This press conference
conditions response to Obama's speech tonight, tell them you want them to join
Jones, Fiengold, Lee, McGovern.  EVERYONE LOUD AND CLEAR NOW!! Capitol
switchboard (24x7): 202‐244‐3121  (if you don't know your congressman give
operator your zip code.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/12/1/183411/732

Senators, Reps Hint Unrest in Legislature on Afghanistan

by Ralph Lopez Tue Dec 01, 2009

Hours ahead of Obama speech on Afghanistan, press conference of members from
both Houses, including Rep. Walter Jones who represents Marine base Camp
Lejeune.  Jones calls into question consistency of reported 2013 withdrawal date
with 30,000 troop escalation, saying through an anecdote "that's not going to
happen."  All report deep concern among constituents heard during Thanksgiving
break.  Uncertain whether 41 votes needed to block funding in Senate are
present.

     RUSH TRANSCRIPT: MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HOLD A NEWS CONFERENCE ON AFGHANISTAN

         DECEMBER 1, 2009

         SPEAKERS:  SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD, D-WIS.

                    REP. WALTER B. JONES, R-N.C.

                    REP. JIM MCGOVERN, D-MASS.

                    REP. BARBARA LEE, D-CALIF.

         FEINGOLD:  Good afternoon and thanks for coming.  I particularly

     want to thank my colleagues from the House for joining me on this

     issue, which we've already been working on together for quite a few

     months, awaiting the president's decision that he'll announce tonight

     with regard to Afghanistan.

         And I, for one, want to say I'm grateful that the president took

     his time to listen to as many people as possible, and I think he's

     been extremely thoughtful about it.  And I also want to say that

     anything I say would be tempered by giving the president the

     opportunity to actually explain how what I'm hearing about this plan

     would actually hold together.

         So having said that, I certainly continue, and I think my

     colleagues continue, to question the wisdom of sending in tens of

     thousands of more troops into Afghanistan.

         We all know why many of us voted for the invasion in the first

     place in 2001.  It had to do with removing Al Qaida from Afghanistan

     and getting the top leadership.  We did not succeed in getting the top

     leadership, but the goal continues to be, as the president articulated

     with regard to Pakistan and Afghanistan, dealing with Al Qaida, not

     simply nation-building in Afghanistan.

         And I, at various hearing, have had the opportunity to ask people

     like Admiral Mullen, Ambassador Holbrooke, and others:  Aren't you

     concerned that a big troop build-up in Afghanistan may well further

     destabilize Pakistan?  And wouldn't that be more serious?  They

     couldn't deny it.  And today, Prime Minister Gilani of Pakistan

     specifically stated that he was concerned that the increase of troops

     in Afghanistan could further destabilize Pakistan.

         So the purpose of all this here is to protect Americans, is to do

     the best thing in terms of our national security.  And the question

     is:  Is this troop build-up a good idea in light of the entire global

     strategy of going after Al Qaida?  Al Qaida is not principally based

     in Afghanistan anymore and so I have a very serious question about

     this.

         There are also reports that the president may be talking about a

     timeframe of three years to bring the troops home.  Now, I would be

     very much in favor of this.  I had an article in The Wall Street

     Journal in August saying we ought to have a flexible timetable to

     bring the troops home, but I don't see how that dovetails with

     increasing our American troop presence in the next couple of years to

     over 100,000.

         So I'm terribly concerned about this.  I'll give the president a

     chance to articulate his views, but I think the group of us here and

     many others will be taking action if, in fact, the decision has been

     made to greatly increase the troops in that area.

         Congressman McGovern?

         MCGOVERN:  Like Senator Feingold, I want to first commend the

     president for thinking long and hard about this issue.  That kind of

     deliberation is a welcome change from the previous administration.

         Unfortunately, if the reports are true, I believe he has reached

     the wrong conclusion.  Sending 34,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan

     will make it 34,000 times harder to extricate ourselves from this

     mess.  If our fight is truly with Al Qaida, then we're in the wrong

     country.  They have moved to Pakistan.  I've seen this movie before

     and it doesn't have a happy ending.

         President Karzai is corrupt and incompetent.  He cheated in the

     most recent election, and I don't want any more American servicemen or

     -women to risk their lives for his corrupt government.  And I'm a

     little bit stunned by the quick and inexplicable pivot by some in the

     administration from rightly denouncing Karzai's behavior to now

     embracing him as our dear friend.

         I think our support for Karzai actually discredits us with the

     Afghan people.  The cost of this escalation will be enormous both in

     terms of blood and treasure.  At a time of great economic crisis here

     in the United States, I would respectfully suggest that rather than

     nation-building in Afghanistan, we should do a little more nation-

     building here at home.

         Finally, if the president is indeed going to request a major

     escalation in U.S. military forces, and I hope the reports are wrong,

     I would urge that before a single additional troop is sent that

     Congress have a chance to fully debate his proposal and have an up or

     down vote.  This is a big deal.  This is a major escalation, and

     Congress has a major role to play.

         JONES:  Senator, thank you very much.  I'm pleased to join.  I'm

     a Republican and I've got Camp Lejeune Marine Base in my district,

     Cherry Point Marine Air Station and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base

     where these Marines and servicemen in the district love America.

     There's no question about it.

         I'm here today because of my concern that we're about to wear out

     and break the military.  I've spoken to generals from the past.  I've

     spoken to officers who are now in the military.  And we are about the

     wear out the military.

         I did write the president a few weeks ago and I thanked him.  As

     my colleagues have just said, I thanked the president for taking his

     time, with the hopes -- and we'll find out tonight exactly what his

     proposal will be, but let me read a couple comments and then I'm going

     to cease.

         Marine Sergeant Doug Copeland, who is scheduled to deploy with

     the 1st Battalion, 8th Marines, in October, said he approved of the

     troop surge as a means to assist troops already on the ground, but

     believed a date for leaving the country was coming too late.

         Now I would like to quote a Navy corpsman down at Camp Lejeune,

     currently with the Combat Logistics Regiment 27, who said he doubted

     the proposed timeline would see troops out of Afghanistan.

         "Now," to quote the corpsman, "as far as a proposed date for

     2013, that's not going to happen."

         This is why I agree with Senator Feingold, my friend Jim

     McGovern, and my friend Barbara Lee.  We need, as a Congress, to

     debate this issue.  We have, for too long, forgotten the Constitution.

     The Constitution says, "to declare war."

         Here we have been in Afghanistan and Iraq seven and eight years,

     and now we're going to ask our military to continue to go there.

     We've got to have an end point to this strategy or there is no

     strategy.

         Thank you for letting me be a small part of this.  Thank you,

     Senator.

         FEINGOLD:  Congressman Lee?

         LEE:  Thank you very much.  Let me also thank Senator Feingold

     and Congressman Jones and Congressman McGovern for their leadership

     and for standing today united in opposition to any escalation in

     troops in Afghanistan.

         As one who'd, in 2001, voted against the authorization to use

     force -- because I believed then, as I believe now, that any open-

     ended military escalation and conflict would lead not to an increase

     in our national security but harden and create more anger and more

     hostility in the world.

         And eight years later, we're seeing this take place,

     unfortunately.

         I have introduced H.R. 3699, that would just basically deny the

     funding for any increase in troop levels.

         Now, I'm very realistic about how much of a chance we have to

     move that through Congress, but I think we need to debate, fully

     debate, as my colleagues have said, what this means in terms of blood

     and treasure.

         As the daughter of a military officer, I support our troops.  But

     I tell you one thing.  We recognize, and Senator Feingold laid this

     out, in terms of our troops being put in harm's way and what the real

     strategy should be, and it's Pakistan.

         We, many of us, believe in nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear

     disarmament.  That's the way we move forward in seeking global peace

     and security, not in escalating a conflict where the British and the

     Soviets historically have shown is no win, militarily.

         And so I, too, commend the president for being deliberative in

     this process, for taking his time.  As an earlier -- as an early

     supporter of President Obama, I believe that it's our duty and

     responsibility, here in a democracy, to respectfully disagree when we

     believe that we can move forward in a new direction.

         So I just want to thank my colleagues for their leadership and

     for calling us all together to let our voices be heard.  Thank you.

         FEINGOLD:  Questions?

         QUESTION:  Senator Feingold, forgive me.  I walked in as you were

     talking (OFF-MIKE) but you were saying (OFF-MIKE) true that you were

     going to (OFF-MIKE) some action in the Senate.  What kind of action

     will you be taking?

         FEINGOLD:  Well, action can include, obviously, not permitting

     funding for additional troops.  It can include resolutions for time

     frames to withdraw troops, as many of us have worked on together with

     regard to Iraq and other approaches that we'd be open to.

         But, as far as I'm concerned, everything would be on the table,

     in terms of trying to prevent this error from occurring.

         QUESTION:  Senator, you still would need 41 votes to stop

     advancing the bill that would pay for the troop escalation.  Do you

     think that you have those votes?

         FEINGOLD:  I can't say that I have them right now.  This is the

     first event I know of where a group of -- bipartisan group of members

     from both houses have raised questions about this possible policy.

         But I can tell you this.  I was just at our Democratic Conference

     lunch, and I spoke out on this.  And I won't say who said what, but

     the number of people who joined me in expressing these very concerns

     was significant.

         Many members of my caucus and, I believe, members of the

     Republican Caucus, perhaps from different philosophical perspectives,

     will come to the same conclusion, that this is a mistake to move in

     the direction of this huge troop buildup.

         So I -- I think it's possible it will be a bipartisan vote that

     could prevent such funding.

         JONES:  Just very quickly, we all were home for the Thanksgiving

     holidays.  And I'm not exaggerating.  When we were home during the

     Thanksgiving holidays, I cannot tell you the number of people -- and

     I'm not exaggerating -- that said, "What are we trying to accomplish

     in Afghanistan?  How about our country?  We can't even fix the streets

     in your district, Congressman."

         We need to start thinking about that.  The cost of this is

     astronomical.  The cost to the wounded, both physically and mentally,

     is going to be astronomical.  We've got to have an end point to what

     we're trying to accomplish.

         FEINGOLD:  And on that point, I'll just add that the president

     has said he wants to send in these additional troops to finish the

     job.  I say, and I think the American people say, what job?

         What's the job that he's talking about?  That's not at all clear.

         QUESTION:  To the House members, do you think there are votes in

     the House now, on a bipartisan basis to lock such a deployment or to

     not pay for the troops through a supplemental?

         LEE:  Let me say, first, as a member of the Appropriations

     Committee, I understand the political dynamics of appropriating money

     for wars.  However, I introduced H.R. 3699 a couple months ago, and,

     you know, we have 23, 24 co-sponsors.

         And, basically, what that resolution says is no additional funds

     will be appropriated for any escalation or any more troops to be send

     to Afghanistan.

         And I talked to my colleagues who want to sign on, haven't signed

     on yet.  But I tell you, this is one time where I think that we see,

     on both sides of the aisle, some unreadiness.

         The American public -- what, over 50 percent of the American

     public, they're war-weary.  They understand what the costs are, in

     terms of not only our treasure but also in terms of the lives of our

     brave young men and women.

         MCGOVERN:  And let me -- and let me just add that, you know, both

     the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and the Defense

     Appropriations Committee have said that this will require a

     supplemental package.

         The president's going to have to request additional funds beyond

     what exist.

         And as I said in my opening statement, it is my hope that the

     president will submit his request to Congress before he sends an

     additional troop to Afghanistan.  And I would hope that the speaker of

     the house and the Senate majority leader and the minority leaders of

     both the House and Senate would agree to that.

         We should have a full debate.  This is about war.  And we should

     have a full debate and a thorough debate, and then we will see where

     the votes are.

         I will tell you this -- and I think Walter and Barbara will back

     me up on this in terms of our colleagues in the House -- even amongst

     people who are saying that they feel they might have no choice but to

     support the president's package, there is an uneasiness.  People are

     really concerned about this.

         You know, there's no clarity to the policy.  Hopefully we'll get

     clarity tonight, and maybe we'll even get the outlines of how the

     president envisions this coming to an end.

         But, you know, 35,000 additional troops is a big deal.  This is a

     major escalation.  And it's going to be 35,000 times harder to

     extricate them from this -- from this conflict.

         QUESTION:  Congressman McGovern, how much political capital would

     the president expend, giving that monies (ph) in this, if he did

     extract a win on this?

         MCGOVERN:  If he -- I don't...

         QUESTION:  If he won on this?  If he did win the funding from

     Congress.

         MCGOVERN:  How much political capital would he -- well, look, I

     mean, I'm a -- I'm a big fan of the president's.  I mean, I -- you

     know, this is -- you know, this is not -- you know, to me, you know, I

     mean, there's a lot of things he's doing that I think are quite

     extraordinary and I'm going to support him on.

         And I appreciate that he's deliberated long and hard over this.

     But I think he's come to the wrong conclusion.

         And -- and, you know, what I fear is that we're getting sucked

     into a war with no end.  And that's what our constituents are telling

     us, you know, when we go back home -- what's going on here?  I thought

     you were going after Al Qaida.

         Well, General Jones tells us that there's virtually no Al Qaida

     members in Afghanistan.

         Then why are we having this major surge?

         I mean, there's a lot of -- a lot of uneasiness and confusion

     amongst the American people.  But I will tell you, I do not think that

     this is the right thing to do.  And I think a lot of members, you

     know, should have the -- the members should have the opportunity to

     vote up or down, and we shouldn't have to vote on this after the

     deployment has begun.

         LEE:  Let me just go back, quickly, to the funding.  We're in the

     middle of -- the Senate is debating a health care reform.  You know

     the debate in terms of our deficit, in terms of resources.

         We have a huge unemployment rate in our country.  We have to look

     at better strategies in terms of our national security.

         I believe, as many have said, that we're talking about not 34,000

     to 40,000 additional troops, but many have indicated over time this

     would take eight to 10 years, possibly 400,000 to 500,000 troops, to

     finish whatever job that needs to be finished.

         And so I'm concerned that we're going to engage once again in a

     -- in a debate and in a funding strategy that's going to create more

     in terms of our deficit and, once again, take away from many of the

     domestic needs that we have right here at home.

         QUESTION:  Senator Feingold, the president will apparently

     propose a three-year (inaudible) and move these troops (inaudible).

     Could you react to this?  (inaudible)?

         FEINGOLD:  I really don't believe that this president would take

     such a serious step as a time frame to remove the troops to pacify

     members of Congress.  He's doing what he thinks is right.  We disagree

     with the particular decision.

         I think what happened is President Obama was given a series of

     choices, none of which suggested getting out of there.  All of them

     were about escalation or the status quo.  And finally, as I understand

     it, he said, "that's not right.  Let's take a look at some ideas that

     have to do with us actually not having an open-ended commitment."

         So I give him credit for that.  What I don't understand is how

     that squares with a situation where we had only 30,000 troops there at

     the end of last year.  We have 70,000 now.  This will push us over

     100,000.  That doesn't even include the NATO troops.  I don't see how

     those two fit together.

         But I am grateful apparently that there is some conversation

     about a timetable, which is precisely what I think would make sense in

     this context.

         QUESTION:  Senator Lugar made the statement, speaking of

     (inaudible).  Do you think it would be wise to put the health care

     debate aside and bring something to the floor to begin (inaudible)

     about money (inaudible).

         (UNKNOWN):  No.  I think we need to finish the health care bill,

     but I think we have to show the capacity to do a couple of things at

     once, and if necessary we could have some debate with regard to this,

     with a time certain early next year to have a thorough debate.  But I

     do not think we should delay the health care bill in the Senate.

         QUESTION:  If you don't want to see escalation of troops, ideally

     what would you like to hear the president say tonight?

         (UNKNOWN):  I'd like to see him propose a timeframe to withdraw

     our troops in, I hope, a shorter period than three years, and to

     acknowledge that it doesn't make sense for us in terms of our national

     security to keep pouring all these resources; that it's a great

     concept to try to nation-build Afghanistan, but it probably wouldn't

     work and, in fact, it cannot possibly be our number one international

     or domestic priority given the pressures we're facing.

         LEE:  Let me just say, I hope also that the balance would change

     in terms of a military strategy versus the diplomatic and economic

     strategies.  When we saw the supplemental several months ago, we saw a

     nine-to-one on the military in terms of the increase of troops, and

     very little in terms of the diplomatic and the political strategies in

     terms of the funding.  So I would hope to see that balance shift

     today.

         (CROSSTALK)

         QUESTION:  Congressman McGovern?

         MCGOVERN:  Yes?

         QUESTION:  (inaudible).  Is that enough for you?  Does that

     mitigate this escalation (inaudible)?

         MCGOVERN:  No, no.  One is I will applaud him for trying to

     devise an exit strategy.  And again, saying that you have an exit

     strategy and actually having a strategy are two different things, so

     we'll have to hear the details tonight.

         But I think it is important that -- that, any time you go to war,

     that there's -- that you have a clearly defined mission, a beginning,

     a middle, a transition period and an end.

         So if he can do that tonight, I think that's an -- I would -- I

     would applaud that.

         However, it doesn't change the fact that I think that sending

     35,000 more troops to Afghanistan is fundamentally wrong.  I think

     this is a mistake.

         And, you know -- and again, I -- we don't know.  We haven't done

     any whip counts.  We don't know where the votes are.  We do know that

     there's a lot of uneasiness.  We do know that people who have gone --

     who were home for the Thanksgiving, we're hearing from the

     constituents about how concerned they are about this.

         So I hope -- I hope there's more clarity to the policy because

     there hasn't been.  I hope he can better define the mission.  But, for

     me, sending additional troops is a mistake.

         FEINGOLD:  Thank you very much.

         END

United Students Against Sweatshops celebrate a great victory!

United Students Against Sweatshops � 18 November 2009 � WE WON! Honduran Union Signs Historic Agreement With Russell Athletic!

JUST OVER A YEAR AGO, RUSSELL ATHLETIC ANNOUNCED IT WOULD CLOSE Jerzees de Honduras in response to workers� organizing efforts. During that year, USAS organized the largest boycott in the history of modern student activism. Now, as a direct result of our efforts, we have won an unprecedented victory � the company has agreed to meet worker demands to reopen the factory and re-hire all 1200 workers, who have been without jobs for 10 months or more. View the details of the agreement here.

Landmark Victory: A Precedent is Set

This is one of the most significant youth-led campaign victories in recent times and one of the most significant campaign victories of the global justice movement. No one has ever forced a multinational corporation to reopen a facility it shut down in the global race to the bottom. This victory has also proven that together, we can successfully fight back when those in power take advantage of the economic crisis to attack working people. We should take strength and inspiration from the example of the workers of Jerzees de Honduras. We can fight back � and WIN � against policies that benefit a privileged few and hurt our communities.

Thank You!
Your campus organizing, e-mails, faxes, phone calls, direct action and donations were essential to winning this campaign. We are standing on the shoulders of previous generations of activists. We built on top of USAS victories of the past twelve years, from the sit-ins in the late 1990s that resulted in supply chain transparency and university labor codes of conduct to the formation of the Worker Rights Consortium in 2000. As Russell and SITRAJERZEESH work to implement this agreement, please continue to support our efforts by making a tax-deductible donation to USAS. We need your continued support to sustain our movement.

The struggle continues! �La lucha sigue!

In solidarity,
United Students Against Sweatshops

� Now Why would a Giant Corporation Shut Out Workers in Honduras? �

� That�s the stuff! �

Details of the Historic Victory by Honduran Factory Workers

The factory workers of Jerzees de Honduras and their union SITRAJERZEESH reached an unprecedented settlement with Russell Athletic after United Students Against Sweatshops waged the largest boycott in the history of modern student activism. Details include:

� The factory will be reopened in Choloma and be renamed Jerzees Nuevo Dia (New Day).

� Russell will immediately recognize the union of Jerzees de Honduras workers, SITRAJERZEESH, and has committed to collectively bargaining in good faith.

� Russell will rehire all 1200 former Jerzees de Honduras workers, either at Jerzees Nuevo Dia or other Russell facilities.

� FAIR TRADE MEANS EVERYONE GETS A LIFE OF DIGNITY �

� A BOLD NEW IDEA ������� Everyone�s Entitled to a Decent Life �

New York Times � 18 November 2009 � by Steven Greenhouse � The agreement was �unprecedented� in terms of scope and size and in �the transformative impact it can have in one of the hardest regions of the world to win respect for workers� rights.�

The anti-sweatshop movement at dozens of American universities, from Georgetown to U.C.L.A., has had plenty of idealism and energy, but not many victories.

Until now.

� No time�s better than RIGHT NOW! �

From the time Russell shut the factory last January, the anti-sweatshop coalition orchestrated a nationwide campaign against the company. Most important, the coalition, United Students Against Sweatshops, persuaded the administrations of Boston College, Columbia, Harvard, New York University, Stanford, Michigan, North Carolina and 89 other colleges and universities to sever or suspend their licensing agreements with Russell. The agreements � some yielding more than $1 million in sales � allowed Russell to put university logos on T-shirts, sweatshirts and fleeces.

Going beyond their campuses, student activists picketed the N.B.A. finals in Orlando and Los Angeles this year to protest the league�s licensing agreement with Russell. They distributed fliers inside Sports Authority sporting goods stores and sent Twitter messages to customers of Dick�s Sporting Goods to urge them to boycott Russell products.

� We can break the chain! �

Thank you absolutely to infinity and beyond.

Warm regards, solidarity,
love and the kitchen sink,
with high hopes for all our
futures, forever and a day,

Prosecute Them In Brief

POP

Hutch
Stuart Hutchison
info@...
HUTCH. 973.406.7827

Cell 862.226.6939

Prosecute Them Now
117 Chestnut Drive
Wayne NJ 07470-5639

[Please forward widely and sorry for any duplicates]

If you have trouble reading this go to:
PDA NJ Newsletter Nov. 14th

PDA New Jersey "Newletter" November 14, 2009

I do need your help and input on numerous items....

I. IMPORTANT ! Change of Date for Statewide Conference and Holiday Gathering

a) I am sorry to inform you that we will be re-scheduling the event to January 30,2010.

I know many of you were looking forward to this event, especially now when our spirits are at an all time low in NJ, to help energize us into next year, unfortunately Tim Carpenter, who has been waging a battle for over a year now, has to start 6 weeks of treatment, rendering him unable to make the date of December 5th.

As much as we are disappointed, we wish Tim a speedy recovery and look forward to him being in NJ on January 30, 2010

b) I have confirmed with the hotel, we will be able to follow the previous agenda with the exact same costs and events for the day, so the only difference would be the date of Saturday, January 30^th. If you have any questions concerning what our conference agenda was, click here :                                                                  

                        http://groups.google.com/group/pda-nj/web/pda-nj-dec5

�          You can also make reservations and payments for which events you would like to attend with individual Pay Pal buttons.

c) **Hotel Accommodations** � I know a number of you have made room reservations, please call and change your reservation ...now !

�          and the cost per night will remain at $65.00 + tax  per night,

�          but you have to call and tell them to change your reservation to Friday, January 29,2010 or Saturday, January 30.

�          Call 732-828-6900 and say you want to change your room reservation from the "Progressive Democrats of America" Block of rooms to January 29 or 30^th (or if you plan on staying both nights).

�          PLEASE DO THIS ASAP!

       d) If you know of any organization who would like to table at our conference, we are offering 6 ft. table                                     space at $30 each.  

�          For Further Details, click here. vendor_letter.pdf

�          For Application to do Tabling, click here. vendor_applicaton.pdf

�          To Pay Click on Button:    

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

II. PDA New Jersey Membership State Wide Conference Call 

Monday � November 16 � 9:00 PM

Conference Dial-in Number:   (605) 475-4875

Participant Access Code:          668422#

Call is open to all members of PDA in New Jersey .

Rules for call:

�          Upon entering the call, please state your name and county .

�          When not speaking please press *6 to mute your phone.

�          After I read each item or give brief description of the agenda, I will call upon people by county to give their thoughts/suggestions, etc.

�          Please do not speak out of turn, show respect for all that are on the call.

�          If there is something you would like for me to add to the agenda, please email a brief summary to me at ProgressiveDemocracySoJersey@...

Agenda:

1. Preparing for Statewide Conference

I am looking for volunteers to help out with numerous tasks to be performed that day in order for it to run smoothly and be a smashing success.

a) People who would be willing to transport speakers to and from the airport ?

b) People to help with registration at the 3 different events and collect money if not pre-registered*:

�          Registration starts at 9am for the 10 am to 1:30 pm  PDA conference � cost of $12.00 at the door ?

�          Registration starts at 2pm for the 3pm-5pm Healthcare Forum � cost of $5.00 at the door ?

�          Registration starts at 6 pm for the 7 pm-10 pm Dinner �*Exception: Reservations must be made in advance?

                   1. Someone to handle sitting arrangements for dinner and place cards?

c) People to man the display table for PDA-NJ

d) Someone to handle the sale of authors books who will be speaking that day (sign in table of forum speakers)

e) the Chinese Auction

�          gathering items for Auction

�          A person to handle the sale of tickets for the auction � have people write name and phone number on back of tickets.

�          When should we draw winners??? at end of Forum? or during Dinner?

f) a person to manage vendors and directing them where to set up and arranging any special needs they may have? maybe combine this duty with the person handling authors table?

g) Other ideas of way we can raise funds to pay for the traveling expenses of PDA National members and other speakers for the day ? (Remember besides covering the costs of venue we do need to pay for traveling and accommodations. This amount could range up to about $2500.00)

h) we are in need of a power point presentation projector...does anyone have one or do we need to rent one?

i) do you know of any entertainment that might be willing to donate their talents to the day or

evening events ?

2. Update on Mobilization for Healthcare in NJ � looking for someone to act

as moderator for this part ....Carol... Manijeh....Mary Ellen ????

a) What actions should we take ?

�          sit ins at insurance companies ?

�          sit ins at Senators offices?

b) Getting in touch with more religious groups/churches ?

�          having showings of Money Driven Medicine at the churches or

�          sponsor the screening and invite the churches/groups to attend/co-sponsor ?

3. Planning for up coming Congressional races in 2010 �

            a) Who are we looking to replace (R & D's) - what districts?          

            b) Who do we have to run as potential candidates?

            c) What can we do to raise funds for these candidates?

            d) Most important how many are willing to contribute their time to help elect these   candidates? (If you want change in DC, we are the only ones who can make that change but it is going to take everyone to pull  together to make it happen)

            e) We need to start setting up organizing meetings for these campaigns

4. Update on Marriage Equality Vote

I am hoping to have someone on the call to give us an update to where this stands. If/when they

may be bringing it to a vote?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

III. Other Up Dates About PDA

1. Join Us on November's Conference Call with Andy Worthington

We are delighted to announce that Andy Worthington will be PDA's Accountability & Justice

Team's Guest Speaker on this month's conference call.

�          Please note  the call will be on Wednesday ,November 18th,* at the usual time

�          9:00 PM EDT,    8:00 PM CDT,    7:00 PM MDT,    6:00 PM PDT

�          To register for the call, go to https://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/309/personalopt1.asp?formid=meet&c=1252642

*Note: Normally our monthly calls are held on the the 2nd Wednesday of the month

Andy wrote "The Guant�namo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison"
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/the-guantanamo-files/ 

and writes a blog at http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/

�         You can see his new film, Outside the Law: Stories from Guant�namo, at the following

       times and places: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/outside-the-law-stories-from-guantanamo/

�         To hear a recent interview with him, go to:  http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/10/28/the-guantanamo-files-andy-worthingtons-radio-interview-with-france-kassing/

Please join him � Live � on November 18!

2. Other Up Coming Conference Calls

Tuesday 17th: Healthcare for All / Single Payer Call

Wednesday 18th: Stop Global Warming/Environmental Issues Call

Thursday 19th: Southern and Eastern Regional Call < NJ State Leadership

Tuesday 24th: Clean, Fair, Transparent, & Accurate Elections Call

            Please RSVP for any of these calls here. https://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/309/mtglist.asp?formid=meet&mtgview=L

3. PLEASE HELP PDA TO CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR PROGRESSIVES

a) Together with our allies, PDA kept single-payer healthcare alive much longer than anyone thought possible, which demonstrates its majority support. PDA never wavered, they never strayed from our goal, together we made tangible progress--please help us carry on. https://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/309/mtglist.asp?formid=meet&mtgview=L

b) Being a grassroots organization, PDA counts on the membership for their funds. No doubt the down turn in the economy has had a draining effect on the budget, making it difficult at times to meet just the standard obligations of paying for the database, let alone trying to meet payroll for the few paid staff members. Currently there are only 7......yeah you heard me right.....ONLY SEVEN !!!! sustainers in New Jersey....to me that is shameful !!!!! So other than my hubby and I giving monthly, there are only 6 others in NJ.

�          If you want PDA to continue the fight for Progressives, I suggest you think about contributing !!!!

�          Donations can be made on a one time basis,

�          or you can choose to become a �hange Makes Change sustainer and have an amount charged to your credit card or checking account automatically every week, month, or quarter (three months).

�          Even the smallest monthly contribution of $5.00 from each member would mean allot. How do you think Obama managed to raise so much for his campaign? At least with PDA you know we are fighting for the you....and a progressive agenda.....and not for some snake oil salesman. [ If only half of the 200,000 members gave $5 per month that would be $500,000 or $6 million per year. We could really give Progressives a voice with that amount. Just think what we could do if more than half  of 100,000 gave more than $5.00....WOW ..... members of Congress would know we are a force to be reckoned with]

c) Instead of donating to the DCCC - DSCC � DNC send your money to where we are working to elect Progressive candidates like Marcy Winograd: http://www.winograd4congress.com/

�          MoveOn's most recent mailing will raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to support incumbents who voted for the bad healthcare bill.

�          PDA hope to raise tens of thousands of dollars to back only candidates who support Medicare for All and women's reproductive rights.  http://pdamerica.org/articles/misc/2008-01-24-01-07-46-misc.php

That's all for now but keep pushing Lautenberg and Menendez to support Bernie Sanders in his single-payer fight in the Senate. http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=14212486

In Peace & Solidarity

Joanne O'Neill

PDA � NJ State Coordinator

Please sign up at our other sites to keep up to date on what is happening in New Jersey

   State:     http://groups.google.com/group/pda-nj/   &  http://www.pdnj.org/  

 National:  http://www.pdamerica.org/  

Accountability & Justice -    http://groups.google.com/group/NJAJ

Dear Friend,

I'm writing to ask you to take a quick email action that could
help put a stop to a tragedy that is unfolding in West Virginia.
A coal company is blowing apart a vital place called Coal River
Mountain for mountaintop removal coal mining.

Studies have shown that the ridgelines of Coal River Mountain
have Class 7 wind potential - the best there is - and that a
wind farm on top of the mountain could generate approximately
1.2% of West Virginia's total energy needs and create hundreds
of permanent jobs in the area, while also generating long-term
tax revenue. Each explosion destroys the ridgelines and
diminishes the possibility of a clean energy future.

Please take a quick email action to help stop the blasting of
Coal River Mountain, and support the communities that live
nearby that are promoting a more sustainable development plan
with long-term jobs, energy supplies and tax revenues.

I emailed key officials in the Obama Administration to ask them
to do everything in their power to stop the destruction of Coal
River Mountain.

I hope you can take a minute to send a message to them today.

Please follow this link and send your message!


http://ga3.org/campaign/save_crm_greenpeace?rk=A1gnZ4MaP804W



If you do not wish to receive emails sent from your peers on behalf of this
organization, please click this link:
http://ga3.org/ran/opt-out-taf.tcl?friend_email=impeachbushnj%40yahoogroups%2eco\
m


******************************
This email is Powered by Convio, Inc.

http://www.convio.com

******************************

I ask you and media who still believe in integrity to act to inform our citizens on the dishonest leadership of the national Chamber of Commerce.  The COC doesn't advance any small business; they're in bed with the huge mega-corporations.  They are the best chamber big money buys.

At the very least, there should be an intensive investigation of the practices of the COC from January 20th, 2001 through now.  They should be statutorily defined as a lobbying organization on behalf of their big business clients, and COC should not enjoy any sort of tax-exempt status.

This is a scandal waiting for daylight.  Please act on behalf of all citizens, not only the top 1% of us.

Thank you for your consideration.

Submitted by PROSECUTE EM on Fri, 2009-11-06 20:26.

�

Act Blue � 5 November 2009 � It takes courage, and we need to show them how much we appreciate them for doing so.

THESE ARE THE PROGRESSIVE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WITH GUTS TO STAND UP to Big Insurance, Big Pharma and to the pressure from their own party bosses. They stood with the American people and ordinary working families when push came to shove and both political parties decided propping up a disastrous health care system and a corrupt Insurance Industry was more important than keeping the promise made over and over to working families. These were the men and women who promised to vote against any health care reform bill that didn't include, at the minimum, a robust public option. 60 signed a letter to Secretary Sebelius and 18 took the FDL Pledge.

Democratic members of Congress need to understand that a healthcare reform bill with a Public Option is simply not an option � it�s a requirement. The congress members on this list have said in no uncertain terms that they will not vote for a bill without a public option all the way through Conference. That takes courage, and we need to show them how much we appreciate them for doing so. Thanks for everything else you�re doing for the public option.
Text copyright � 5 November 2009 Act Blue

�Even though insurance companies make money not providing health care, the so-called reform bill gives so much power and money to the insurance companies that we are giving far too much for the few benefits which the bill may confer.�

�The insurance companies get at least another 26 million customers.�

�They will receive at least an extra $50 billion in new revenue.�

�They will be able to raise premiums 25%, even though in each of the last four consecutive years the industry has raised premiums by double digits.�

�As long as there are for-profit health insurance companies, there will be no effective way to protect consumers against ever escalating premiums, co pays and deductibles, unless the insurance companies know that people at a state level will always have a choice to reject the insurance companies and establish a single-payer not-for-profit system.�

�That is why the Kucinich Amendment must be put back in the health care bill, not just to protect the rights of states to pursue single payer, but to protect the rights of consumers to be free of the economic death grip of the insurance companies.�

Progressive Democrats of America � 2 November 2009 � by Tim Carpenter � We�ll do our best to make this bad bill better in the House and in the Senate. Then we�ll take this fight to the states.

The Kucinich Amendment, which would give the states a clear path for enacting their own single-payer legislation, was stripped from the bill.

The Weiner Amendment, which would substitute the clean, clear language of HR 676 for the behemoth of a introduced, may not be given its vote in the House � in spite of Speaker Nancy Pelosi�s promise.

While single payer hangs in the balance, PDA will continue to fight for single payer at the state level. Meanwhile, we have a small window of opportunity to get the Kucinich Amendment back in the bill and to make sure that Speaker Pelosi follows through on her promise to allow a vote on single-payer � the first ever in the House.

Democratic House leaders can insert what is called a �Manager�s Amendment� into legislation, even when it is closed to any other amendments. The managers are the majority and minority members who �manage� debate for the bill on each side. See Center for Policy Analysis

We need to call these �managers� and insist that the Kucinich Amendment is restored into the healthcare bill. We also need to urge these leaders to exert pressure on Speaker Pelosi � and exert it on her ourselves � to follow through on her promise to put the Weiner Amendment to a vote.

We�re all frustrated by the Affordable Health Care for America Act � HR 3962 � the House�s lamentable healthcare reform bill, if you can call it reform at all. We think of it as tweaking a badly broken system � at best it�s a band-aid on a hemorrhaging system � although, it does appear to be drawing fewer flies than the Senate version.

There�s still time to make it better � much better � but not a lot of time.

We need to call the bill�s �managers� on Monday, November 2, and insist that the Kucinich Amendment be reinserted in the bill. Pelosi reneged on her deal with Weiner � she can make up for it by reinserting the Kucinich amendment.