Juanita Bynum domestic violence saga

Standard

 

photo by psalm 11, courtesy of flickr

Hat Tip: D. Aileen Dodd, Mike Morris, Atlanta Journal Constitution  

Thomas Weeks, the 54-year-old bishop who shares an international ministry with estranged wife Juanita Bynum, was released on bond Friday after surrendering on charges that he assaulted his wife.

Weeks spent about six hours inside the Fulton County Jail before emerging at 1:40 p.m., holding a finger to his lips to signal that he had no comment. He climbed into the passenger seat of a silver, four-door Jaguar and rode away.

In a brief hearing at the jail, bond was set at $30,000 on a charge of aggravated assault and $10,000 on a charge of terroristic threats, and a magistrate ordered Weeks to have no contact with Bynum or her sister, Tina Culpepper. Weeks, dressed in a gray suit and bow tie, sat silently in the small jail courtroom, his cuffed hands in his lap.

His next hearing will be Sept. 7 in Fulton County Superior Court.

Bynum, a fiery national evangelist whose sermons empower women to walk away from dead-end relationships, was allegedly struck by her husband Tuesday in a hotel parking lot after the pair had dinner together to discuss a reconciliation.

Police said Bynum, 48, has been whisked away by family as they decide what to do next.

A lawyer for Weeks said he will continue his ministry and try to reconcile with his wife after the allegations are dealt with.

“He is extremely sad over the events that have taken place,” said Edward Garland, one of the two attorneys representing Weeks. “I think there is hope on his part that the relationship can get past these difficult moments.

“He has never had any accusation of any sort like this from her or anyone esle,” said Garland. “There are a lot of circumstances surrounding these events that will be explained at a later time. He is turning it over to the court system at this point.”

Weeks, Garland said, will meet with “a variety of pastors over which he presides, and with his father, who is a minister, and he’s going to make a prayerful decision as to how he proceeds. He’s dedicated his whole life to the ministry, and we’re very hopeful that he will be able to continue to lead the ministry.”

Bynum and Weeks are co-founders of Global Destiny Church in Duluth. They were married in 2002 in a lavish televised wedding that featured a 7.76-carat diamond ring. They separated three months ago, said Bynum’s sister, Tina Culpepper.

According to an Atlanta police incident report, Bynum said her husband “choked her, pushed her down, kicked and stomped her.”

She told police Weeks “continued stomping” her into the ground until a hotel bell man pulled him away. Police also said Weeks threatened Bynum’s life.

Culpepper said the couple was meeting for dinner at Concorde Grill in the Renaissance Concourse Hotel near Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport Tuesday night.

Police said the couple had met to work out their differences. Things soured, and Weeks walked out to the parking lot about 10:30 p.m., police said. He then turned back around and attacked her, said Officer Ron Campbell.

Weeks also threatened Bynum’s life during the attack, police said. “Anytime you tell a person, ‘I’m going to kill you,’ that moves it up to a felony,” Campbell said.

The bruises found on Bynum also were serious enough to bring felony aggravated assault charges against Weeks.

In a comment posted on her MySpace page, the Pentecostal evangelist said, “I am currently recovering from all of my injuries and resting well … this too shall pass.”

Her publicist, Amy Malone, said Bynum wants to keep the matter private.

“People are interpreting it to mean the two of them were fighting,” Malone said. “They were not fighting. She was assaulted.”

Clergy across metro Atlanta said they were saddened by the news of the public beating of Bynum, a respected “prophetess” whose star rose under the leadership of Bishop T.D. Jakes. Bynum is one of the leading speakers at Megafast, which has attracted hundreds of thousands of people to metro Atlanta in recent years.

Mixing love and ministerial work can take its toll on relationship for pastors with successful followings, clergy say.

“It is tremendously hard to balance a relationship,” said the Rev. Cynthia L. Hale, pastor of Ray of Hope Christian Church. “If you happen to be more successful than your spouse or make more money or have greater prestige that is where the challenge comes in. There are many men who are secure in life, but there are also men who are insecure and they have struggled with having their wives [or girlfriends] excel in ways they don’t.”

Weeks has retained two lawyers: the well-known Garland, who in the past has represented NFL star Ray Lewis in his murder trial and millionaire James Sullivan, who ordered the murder of his socialite wife; and Louis Tesser.

The couple had a home in Duluth, Culpepper said. Upon their separation, Bynum moved to Waycross, where her administrative offices are located.

Members of a Georgia non-profit group, Love for All People, were working late Thursday to hire two bodyguards to protect Bynum. Culpepper said Bynum was appreciative but that it would not be necessary.

Word of the public fight spread to clergy across metro Atlanta who have either met the couple or know of them.

Once a homemaker, a hairdresser and a flight attendant, Bynum’s big break came when televangelist Bishop T.D. Jakes invited her to speak at one of his conferences several years ago.

Jakes, who has worked closely with Bynum, had no comment, his spokeswoman said.

Operators at Bynum’s ministry in Waycross, Juanita Bynum Ministries, asked the public “to be in prayer for her.”

Advertisements

Laura Richardson’s brush with racism shaped future

Standard

 

Hat Tip: Rachel Kapouchunas, CQ Politics

Personal acquaintance with racism has prompted many members of minority groups to enter the political arena. But few say they had that path set for them as young as Laura.

Richardson, the Democratic state lawmaker from California who on Tuesday won a special election runoff to become the newest member — and the 40th African-American — in the current U.S. House.

Richardson related to CQPolitics.com prior to the runoff in California’s 37th District that she is a child of a mixed-race marriage, with a African-American father and a Caucasian mother who divorced. Richardson said she watched her mother struggle with racism as she raised her and her sister in California during the turbulent 1960s, and recalled as a young child asking her mother why strangers threw eggs at their car and cursed at them while they shopped at stores.

“My mother tried to explain all those things to me, but eventually she just said to me, ‘You should be a person who makes better laws,’” said Richardson, who now is 45 years old. “And that’s what got me since the age of about six of wanting to be a public servant.” She added that her mother exposed her to politics and the news.

Richardson’s career trajectory is symbolic of the political progress made by African-Americans over recent decades. She won the special election to succeed the late Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, also a black Democrat, who was Richardson’s former boss and whose mentorship helped Richardson launch her own political career in local office and the California Assembly. Millender-McDonald’s death of cancer on April 22 created the vacancy that Richardson will fill after Congress returns to work from its summer recess.

In fact, the special election primary that ensured Richardson’s ultimate victory in the overwhelmingly Democratic 37th put a different spin on racial politics in the “minority-majority” district, which is located in Los Angeles County and is centered on the city of Long Beach.

Black activists who wanted to maintain African-American representation in the district mainly rallied around Richardson. Hispanics, who now make up a larger share of the district’s population but whose voting participation has lagged, found a candidate to champion in Democratic state Sen. Jenny Oropeza.

Running in a single-ballot June 26 primary that included a total of 17 candidates — 11 of them Democrats — Richardson prevailed by 37 percent to 31 percent over Oropeza. Though Richardson fell short of the majority vote needed for an outright victory, the seven-week runoff campaign was a formality: She won Tuesday’s contest with two-thirds of the total vote and a margin of well more than 2-to-1 over the Republican nominee, police sergeant and Iraq war veteran John M. Kanaley.

Though race and ethnicity were inescapable factors, particularly in the primary, Richardson told CQPolitics.com she was “disappointed” that most of the news coverage was focused on these matters rather than the candidates’ views on policy issues.

“I don’t run only from the basis of being African-American,” Richardson said. “That’s who I am, but when I’m running, I’m running to represent the people in my area, whoever they might be.”

Richardson believes her educational background — including a master’s degree in business — and her years working in the private sector combined with her political experience to boost her to a win. Before her six-year stint as a Long Beach City councilwoman, Richardson worked for Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, and prior to that, as a field deputy for Millender-McDonald.

Richardson states that public officials should advocate for issues that may not be popular and speak out for those who lack a strong voice in the political process. She will be representing a district that includes some of the state’s most underprivileged communities as well as a large portion of middle-class Long Beach. Minorities make up almost 85 percent of the population in the district: More than two-fifths of the total population is Hispanic and about one quarter of the district’s residents are African-American.

Richardson said she was eager to continue some of the late congresswoman’s legacies, such as her practice of holding “senior briefings” for residents in the district, which offered issue lessons on topics such as elder abuse and identity theft.

Richardson also intends to work with the late congresswoman’s daughter, Valerie McDonald, on remedying disparities in the health care system. McDonald was one of Richardson’s competitors in the special election primary.

Richardson would like to improve the region’s education and transportation systems and also reduce the number of unemployed residents in her district. She said the jobless rate in the 37th hovers close to 14 percent. Richardson also hopes encourage Congress to re-examine trade agreements which she believe do not help domestic unemployment rates.

The war in Iraq and its financial impact on the country are among Richardson’s major concerns.

“I just find it’s ironic that we can find money to fight a war but we can’t find money to help our own people in our communities,” Richardson said. She added that redeploying troops and placing the National Guard back in the states “can’t happen soon enough.”

Richardson likely will take liberal stances on many issues that will make her a reliable vote for the Democratic Party leadership. She already has been strongly critical of President Bush, to whom she has penned letters slamming his education, health care and Iraq policies — which she posted on her campaign Web site.

She hopes to win an assignment to the coveted Ways and Means Committee, but noted she would be pleased to serve on the Transportation or Homeland Security committees.

Richardson is cognizant of the fact she will enter Congress mid-session but said the outpouring of support she’s already received from members has helped her to feel comfortable entering her new position.

In addition, she portrays herself as having a strong work ethic that will help establish her early as an active participant in the lawmaking process.

“What I believe people know about me and respect about me is that I work extremely hard,” Richardson said. “I’m not going to Washington to go to another chicken dinner. That’s not what we’re here to do. We’re here to work.”

The Audacity of Evasion: Barack Obama and the Reparations debate

Standard

Barack Obama nimbly evaded the question of reparations last month in CNN’s Youtube debate and tried to turn the question toward something more “mainstream” in calling for more funding for education for our schools.  It was a deliberate and craven deception that calls into question his true love for African people in this country and throughout the diaspora.

While increasing numbers of us are singing Kumbaya with white liberals over his ground-breaking candidacy, there are people like me who believe that his reparations equivocation is yet another affirmation of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. 

Obama, a former constitutional law professor, rarely sprinkles any of his stump speeches with critical race theory. Some of our contributors, like NMP and yogo, are lawyers and have found no contradiction between support of Obama or Hillary and their support for the African American community.  I am not so sanguine.  

One candidate had the cohones to support reparations for African Americans and Congressman Kucinich is to be commended.  Hillary, Biden, Richardson, and Dodd didn’t comment.   Edwards and Obama shot the idea down and yet we still shout Barack’s name from the rooftops.  Why?

Obama’s peers in the constitutional law community are not so sanguine either, and many have written extensively  regarding the need for and the ample legal precedent supporting the call for slave reparations.  I’d like to explore some of those with you here. 

Professor David Hall of Northeastern University School of Law has written, “Reparation is deeply rooted in the American legal system.  All first-year law students during their course in contracts are made aware of the contractual injury of unjust enrichment.  The legal remedy for unjust enrichment is restitution, one of the three main remedies for contractual breaches.”

“Reparation, though generally thought of as applying to collective or group remedies, is merely another form of the historic and accepted remedy of restitution.  Some authors have presuasively demonstrated how restitution, and thus reparation, in addition to their longstanding legal tradition, have deep spiritual roots within various religious traditions.  Thus, our culture and our legal system have a long-standing affinity with these remedies.”

Opponents downplay and reject the concept of historical enrichment by their ancestors and question the necessity for restitution. Alfreda Robinson, Associate Dean of the George Washington University Law School has written, “In contrast, reparations opponents contend that reparations discouse and demands for reparations unnecessarily “trouble ‘settled’ waters.”  In their view, reparations discourse creates racial and ethnic strife by resurrecting painful memories that Americans would rather forget.” 

“Reparations opponents further argue that the reparations debate wastes sparse intellectual, social, political, and economic resources that African Americans should direct elsewhere, that it focuses on ancient claims, blames inappropriately present day white Americans for the sins of their deceased ancestors and racial blood group, and holds African Americans captive to an underserved and debilitating victim’s image.”

This seems to be the side that Obama’s on.  The side that would rather not have this discussion and the side the rejects out of hand a discourse of restitution.   His collegues reject that handkerchief head talk and have moved forward to initiate litigation despite the presence of resistance. 

Again, Professor Hall, “Despite this resistance, the idea of reparations for African Americans for the atrocities and unjust gains of slavery and the slave trade has now reached center stage.  The prominence is due in large part to recent lawsuits that have been filed against corporations, and against govermental entities.  But reparations for African Americans is not a new topic or issue. It has always been with us, yet we have always managed to keep it locked up in the closets of our collective consciousness.”

The question of restitution is clearly locked up in the double consciousness of former Harvard Law Review President Barack Obama, and will not ever be set free as long as he believes himself to be a viable Presidential candidate.  Y’all may not like that, but it’s the damn truth.  I see no need to let the “Safe Negro” slide on that.   In the place of reparations, we see the cruel and deceptive attempt to graft the candidacy of Obama, as if by its mere existence, it has the power to heal the deep wounds of genocide, slavery, and white supremacy. It doesn’t. 

The healing that needs to take place can only take place by advancing the discourse reparations and by creating a framework that leads to resititution.  Professor Hall writes, “As we go through the difficult and technical issues related to reparations in the context of American slavery and racism, it is important not to lose sight of the spiritual dimensions and realities of this remedy within this context. For if understood properly, we could begin to see that reparations, like all legal remedies, are attempting to do more than just transfer resources form one party to another.

“The legal system, through its system of remedies, is also trying to address deep wounds and restore broken relationships.  If there is a compelling scenario where psychic wounds and broken spirits exist, it is within the collective experience of slavery and racism in America.  Reparations, despite its long delay and its numerous procedural and substantive challenges, offers this nation a great opportunity for spiritual cleansing.”

Healing and spiritual cleansing are both advanced subliminally by the Obama campaign as traits he has the capacity to bring to our nation as President.  The reality is that we”ll get neither if he doesn’t have the courage to acknowledge the necessity for reparations.  The conundrum of power in this country is that those who demonstrate the cohones to lead rarely get elected or stay elected to do so.

Bloomberg bows out

Standard

 Michael Bloomberg Takes Press Questions at The Commonwealth Club of California

 Hat Tip: By Rachel Capochunas, CQ Politics

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg issued a definitive-sounding denial that he will run for president in 2008 during an interview with television newsman Dan Rather taped for airing on the HDNet cable network Tuesday night.

And Bloomberg, according to a partial transcript provided to CQPolitics by HDNet, is outdoing even the famed non-candidacy announcement of 19th century Republican William Tecumseh Sherman.

When the Civil War general made his “Shermanesque” statement rejecting entreaties that he run for the 1884 GOP nomination, he acknowledged the possibility that he might win, stating that he would not serve if elected. Bloomberg, on the other hand, tells Rather that “nobody’s going to elect me president of the United States.”

This is not a matter, according to the transcript, of self-doubt on Bloomberg’s part. Instead, the longtime Democrat who won for mayor in 2001 and 2005 as a Republican moderate and then switched again this June to independent contends that his willingness to take politically contrary views would limit his appeal as a national candidate.

Bloomberg stressed that his beliefs are not “tailored to what is politically popular.” continuing, “I believe that certain things and if somebody asks me where I stand, I tell them. And that’s not a way to get elected generally.”

The comments came after Rather raised the speculation that Bloomberg, a billionaire media magnate, might stage an independent presidential bid — a topic that has drawn intensified interest since Bloomberg, who holds strongly liberal views on most social issues, quit the Republican Party earlier this year.

When asked by the former longtime CBS Evening News anchorman if he would run, Bloomberg first simply stated “no.” When Rather pressed further, asking if there were any circumstances under which Bloomberg would run for president, Bloomberg first responded that he didn’t know, then added, “If I don’t say ‘no’ categorically, you’ll then read something into it. The answer is no.”

Laura Richardson coronation today

Standard

The run-off election to replace the late Juanita Millender McDonald will take place this evening and California State Representative Laura Richardson can take her place as the newest member of the Congressional Black Caucus.   There has been little news to report in the last several days and I’ve been trying to put some finishing touches on a few opinion pieces. 

This past Sunday’s debate was interesting in that it didn’t really make any news.  Obama did quite well and Hillary held her own as usual and tried to stay above the fray.   The state of the Iowa race is still in flux but it now appears that from two of the latest polls that Mrs. Clinton has opened up a lead in both Iowa and South Carolina.   Her South Carolina lead is statistically insignificant over Obama.   If Iowa doesn’t go Hillary’s way, South Carolina will become a significant battle ground.

Tell me what’s on your minds.   Consider this an open thread. 

A recipe for indifference

Standard

I love cooking shows and the Food Network.  I’ve been bothered by the lack of ethnic diversity on the channel, but I am buoyed by creative and cheerful southern cooks and restaurateurs like Paula Deen.   Miss Paula is probably my favorite. People with her charm and warmth are part of what make living in the south tolerable.   Her recipes are full of rich ingredients and served with love.    It’s more than just cooking for Miss Paula; it’s almost her way of saying thank you to God for the many blessings he’s bestowed, and for the comfort of good food, good friends, and close family.   

Fine dining is a combination of all of those important ingredients and she understands that intuitively.  Like entertaining and fine dining, column writing is an art.  Among the ingredients of good column writing:  a sense of humor, a strong vocabulary, and the ability to tell a story.    George Will, the conservative Washington Post Columnist that also has a gig on ABC’s public affairs program, “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” is reputed to be a columnist of legendary prowess.   

He and other conservatives have overplayed the sanctimony in their crocodile tear commentary over the last several years.  We’ve been consistently treated to well coordinated campaigns of right–wing talking points while they’ve been surreptitiously engaged in a long ideological march to remake our courts in their overwhelmingly white, right-wing and indifferent image.   George Will’s latest Sunday column is no different.  However, along with a dash of tasty hypocrisy and indifference, he also adds some special ingredients: fantasy and prevarication. 

Will measured the ingredients in his column to deliberately poison people like me with severe allergies to white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.  Will’s foils this week are liberals, and by extension, Barack Obama.  Obama announced his “opposition” to the Leslie Southwick nomination some time back.  As I’ve said before, he must do a helluva lot more than issue a press release to stop my criticism. He gon’ hafta do some heavy lifting’ instead of going through the motions of opposition as he usually does.  

Anyhoo, Will does a great job of minimizing the racial insensitivity of this nomination and this nominee.  He has the audacity to criticize African American critics of this nomination and dismisses out of hand the fact that only one African American sits on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and more than 37 percent of Mississippians are African American, Will says, “This “diversity” argument suggests that courts should be considered representative institutions, like legislatures, and that the theory of categorical representation is valid: people of a particular race, ethnicity or gender can be understood and properly represented only by people of that same category.”   

I hate taking mofo’s to school, but I’m forced to in this instance. First, Will’s argument with respect to the courts not being representative institutions, like legislatures, is totally, and completely disingenuous.  We all know that for purposes of ideology, the makeup of the courts are methodically tracked by liberals and conservatives alike and any omission that fails to recognize this constitutes hypocrisy.    

According to the Alliance for Justice,  “Judge Southwick’s views are especially critical because the Fifth Circuit has been subject to extraordinary partisan engineering: during the Clinton administration the Republican Senate blocked two moderate nominees to that court to hold seats open for the next president. For one of the seats, President Clinton first submitted a nominee in mid-1997; for the other he submitted a nominee in early 1999.”   

“Indeed, Judge Southwick’s home state Senator Trent Lott stated about the Senate’s role in confirming Clinton judges: “Do I have any apologies? Only one: I probably moved too many judicial nominations already.” Benefiting from this obstructionism, President Bush exploited the opportunity to appoint deeply conservative judges like Priscilla Owen and Edith Brown Clement to the court.”  

Second, there is the issue of this nominee’s more ominous rulings regarding employment discrimination.  The Richmond v. Mississippi Dep’t of Human Services, case is instructive of Southwick’s views on racial discrimination. Again, the Alliance for Justice, Bonnie Richmond, a social worker for the Mississippi Department of Human Services was fired when, at a meeting that included top agency executives, she used a racial slur, referring to an African American co-worker(who was not present at the meeting) as a “good ole n*****.” The Mississippi Court of Appeals, in a 5-4 decision joined by Judge Southwick, upheld the Mississippi Employee Appeals Board’s decision to reinstate her.   

“The majority found that, taken in context, this slur was an insufficient ground to terminate her employment, because there was no specific rule she violated, because it “was not motivated out of racial hatred or racial animosity directed toward a particular co-worker or toward blacks in general,” and because it did not give rise to workplace problems other than offending the coworker who was called a “n*****.”   

“Two of the dissenters, deeply troubled by the majority’s preoccupation with context and its failure to acknowledge the “inherent offensive [ness]” of the slur, observed: “The … majority opinion seems[s] to suggest that absent evidence of a near race riot, the remark is too inconsequential to serve as a basis of dismissal. Such a view requires a level of myopia inconsistent with facts and reason.”  

This legal analysis fascinates me because it seeks to minimize the power of the most inflammatory racial epithet in the lexicon.  It is disingenuous in the extreme to rule that the Mississippi Department of Human Services had no legal basis for terminating her.  They damn sure did and the fact that everyone in that room was white should speak volumes.  This remark was reported by high-ranking white executives in the agency and they called Bonnie Richmond on her bullshit.  They fired her ass as they shoulda done.   

Southwick, and a majority on the court of Appeals, ruled, in effect, that whites exercising the prerogatives of state power never have the right to use it to defend the rights of African Americans.  Had Bonnie Richmond made a covert anti-Semitic remark, or had the shoe been on the other foot, and a black used a racial epithet toward a white co-worker, we wouldn’t even need to have this discussion. George Will consciously participates in the misidentification of the victim in this case as a man, which so far has turned up twice, in both the Post and the Wall Street Journal. I suppose calling a woman a N***** behind her back is politically less palatable and mean spirited.   

The post-hearing report by the Alliance for Justice reveals, “In response to a written question posed by Senator Durbin (D-IL), Judge Southwick indicated that he could not find a single non-unanimous case, of the more than 7000 opinions that he wrote or joined, in which he voted in favor of a civil rights plaintiff or wrote a dissent on behalf of a plaintiff.”  

What we have here, in the selection of judges like Southwick, and the failed nominations of Michael Wallace and Charles Pickering for the same seat, is a continuation of the patterns of discriminatory intent and the conscious and deliberate support of white supremacy that Mississippi Senators have engaged in from time immemorial.   

Widener University Law Professor Mary Ellen Maatman, in a stunning article, “Speaking Truth to Memory: Lawyers and resistance to the end of white supremacy,” wrote, “The stark truth is more complicated and unpleasant. Lawyers built the systems of disfranchisement and segregation that rendered Deep South African Americans second-class citizens. When those systems were threatened, lawyers fought to sustain them. From the White primary’s end in 1944 until the overturn of miscegenation laws in 1967, a cadre of elite Deep South lawyers and judges used a remarkably consistent rhetoric to defend White Supremacy by opposing Black suffrage, the Fair Deal, desegregation, federal civil rights legislation, and legalization of interracial marriage.” 

 “For these lawyers, opposition to legally mandated racial equality arose from their knowledge that White Supremacy in the Deep South depended on the twin pillars of de jure disfranchisement and segregation. This understanding, coupled with an undying belief in White Supremacy’s tenets, drove their work before and after they led massive resistance to Brown. Indeed, their resistance to Brown was but one part of a long legal campaign for restoration of the White Supremacy and embedment of supremacist assumptions in “the law of the land.” In short, they wanted to ensure that African American “inferiority”would be inscribed in American “hearts and minds”—and the law—“in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”  

Maatman argues that this bitter history of opposition should be viewed as a whole.  In this way, Judge Southwick’s unwillingness to see discrimination in the jury selection of black defendants, his willingness to punish black defendants for striking hostile white jurors for cause, and his mistreatment of a gay parent in a child custody case-makes perfect sense.  Mississippi’s judiciary clearly has different strokes for different folks and the arbitrary and capricious star-chamber quality of its administration of justice merit the strictest scrutiny.    

Instead of acknowledging the truth, Will stoops to call out Obama for his tepid opposition as if he’s an errant child, and defends the elevation of white supremacy and homophobia to constitutional legal principles fit to defend “Why does Obama think Southwick should have ruled differently in the two Mississippi cases? Because he thinks Southwick applied the law inappropriately? Or because he does not like the result? Obama is seeking the office from which federal judges are nominated.  Southwick explained himself, in writings and testimony to the Senate.  Now Obama has explaining to do.”  

Along with Obama’s explanation of his tepid opposition to the Southwick nomination, George Will needs to explain why he continues to stir the pot of racial indifference and homophobia and willingly serves it up to the public as something wholesome.

 

Donna Edwards swings into action

Standard

Donna Edwards for Congress

Coordinated in campaign colors white, yellow and blue, the Donna Edwards for Congress campaign headquarters opened this evening in Temple Hills, Md.   As I walked to the door, I was met by the candidate. Donna is refreshingly down to earth and engaging.  I spoke with the candidate briefly and explained my reason for attending without giving too much away. 

The best way to get over the funk of disillusionment with the political process is to help somebody.  For all of the right reasons, Donna is fantastic candidate worthy of my time and support.  A good crowd of progressives from both Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties were present and it was diverse-just like Donna’s campaign staff. 

[photo, Aisha N. Braveboy, State Delegate]To get the party started, Donna was introduced by freshman Maryland State Delegate Aisha Braveboy.  Delegate Braveboy movingly spoke of her continuing support for Donna because Donna is a candidate that genuinely speaks of issues important to the community: medicare, medicaid, education, and the disaster that is No Child Left Behind. 

Donna stepped up to the mike and to the assembled guests that February 12, 2007 presents the people of Maryland’s fourth congressional district the opportunity to turn the page on the deceitful, dangerous, and disatasrous Bush regime.  Donna eloquently spoke of leading the nation for change against both Republicans and Democrats that stood with the Bush Adminstration’s agenda of mass deception-a not so veiled reference to Congessman “Fat Albert” Wynn.  Instead of deception, she wants America to be a country and a district that takes the lead in expanding health care access, education, and a country in which leaders look to actually lead.

Finally, my favorite part was Donna’s pithy ending, “Our phones are on, our pencils are sharpened, and our numbers are growing.” Indeed.  Funds permiting, I can come back in mid-September and do some door-to-door canvassing.  With a district approximately 800 square miles, she’ll need all the volunteers she can muster to beat Fat Albert.  If y’all are interested, lend a sistah a hand. The Donna Edwards for Congress HQ can be reached at 301-316-1880.