nonprofit board and giving

Korngold offers a compelling description of the role of a board chair doing the utmost on behalf of the organization. This role encompasses understanding, communication, a strategic focus, and giving at a leadership level. ...“As economic conditions improve, nonprofit hospitals, hospices, clinics and nursing homes that have steadily maintained their fundraising efforts will be the first to benefit,” said AHP Board Chairman J. Gregory Pope, vice president of ...An inquiry into the matter is under way at the State Board of Elections, where officials were surprised to learn that a nonprofit group called the Know Campaign was planning to disseminate the voting data to 350000 randomly chosen households. ... These predators are trying to make some money on the tea-baggers. Here is the info on these guys. If you hate giving money to the government for military, roads, health care, etc., go ahead and give it to these thieves. ...Obama names Hagel, Boren as intel board leaders. WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says two former senators will lead an advisory board charged with giving him unvarnished counsel about the nation's intelligence. ... The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN — the non-profit group that oversees domain names — is holding a meeting this week in Seoul. Farm-equipment maker Agco names former Chrysler executive Tom LaSorda to its board ...The board of directors is the governing body of a nonprofit and is legally accountable for its actions. Directors must oversee the accomplishment of the. ... Giving time is great and necessary, but without money your organization will not thrive. As vacancies occur on your board, replacements will be governed by the non-profits bylaws. The bylaws are the internal rules of governance that the organization's board is bound to operate within. A compliant set of bylaws will ...In the case of nonprofit major gift fundraising we refer to these sales leads as donor prospects. Major donor prospect lists can be created from two sources: (1) from within your organization's existing base of annual donors, volunteers, ... stretch gifts and take on a few solicitations of their own, well, maybe it's time to promote those board members to your "honorary board" and then go find some new board members willing to take on the real work of a nonprofit board. ...Manages staff and board personnel involved in all aspects of identifying, cultivating, soliciting and stewarding major gift and planned giving prospects. • Responsible for developing both long and short-range operational plans to ...I serve as the board chair of a nonprofit global media assistance organization, the Media Development Loan Fund. I've served in that capacity for getting towards twelve (fourteen?) years now, as the organization started by making loans and ... [caption id="attachment_10243" align="alignleft" width="150" caption="Elena Baylis"][/caption] [caption id="attachment_10102" align="alignright" width="101" caption=" "][/caption] Thanks to Opinio Juris and to YJIL for giving me the ...In order for the foundation to track when it has exhausted the matching funds, all giving must be done with a credit card, which carries a 4.75 percent processing fee. Staff from The Pittsburgh Foundation will be available at PPG to help ... The site is a directory of nonprofits' profiles offering financial information, board members' names and details about their mission. "What we've been trying to do over the last year and a half is make the foundation a more active ...When deciding where to make your charitable contributions, you should be able to find a list of board members on the nonprofit's website, which should include their professional titles and affiliations, and ideally, brief bios. ...
My employer, a non profit has reduced it's pay and benefits to it's hourly staff and now many are planning to leave the organization. The hourly staff make up the lion-share of the programs we offer and many are in disagreement in how a select few on our board have reduced our pay and benefits. In contrast several salaried employee's were given bonuses and advanced warnings that this would take place and have used their vacations quickly to avoid losing the benefits before the end of the year. We lower classed workers are miffed at this.


Bruce is a past member of the Board of Directors of the Direct Marketing Association of Washington and currently serves as a member of the Executive Committee of the Free Speech Foundation, an association that champions the rights of nonprofit organizations through legislative and legal action.

In addition to his professional responsibilities, Bruce serves as a Trustee of Joe Gibbs' Youth For Tomorrow New Life Foundation, as a board member of the CHARIS Institute and as Vice President of Time of Grace ministry. He also served four terms on the Board of Regents of Wisconsin Lutheran College. He has previously served as President of God's Word to the Nations Bible Society. Bruce gave the 1994 commencement address at Wisconsin Lutheran College and was given the 1994 Pro Gloria Dei Award at the commencement ceremony. In 2000 he received the Nehemiah award from Youth for Tomorrow.

A graduate of the University of Missouri, and a veteran, Bruce and his wife Kathi have two children, Elizabeth and Matthew.


CHICAGO – Federal authorities arrested Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich Tuesday on charges that he brazenly conspired to sell or trade the Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama to the highest bidder.

Blagojevich also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., the owner of the Chicago Tribune, in the sale of Wrigley Field, according to a federal criminal complaint. In return for state assistance, Blagojevich allegedly wanted members of the paper's editorial board who had been critical of him fired.

A 76-page FBI affidavit said the 51-year-old Democratic governor was intercepted on court-authorized wiretaps over the last month conspiring to sell or trade the vacant Senate seat for personal benefits for himself and his wife, Patti.

Otherwise, Blagojevich considered appointing himself. The affidavit said that as late as Nov. 3, he told his deputy governor that if "they're not going to offer me anything of value I might as well take it."

"I'm going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain," Blagojevich allegedly said later that day, according to the affidavit, which also quoted him as saying in a remark punctuated by profanity that the seat was "a valuable thing — you just don't give it away for nothing."

The affidavit said Blagojevich also discussed getting a substantial salary for himself at a nonprofit foundation or an organization affiliated with labor unions.

It said Blagojevich also talked about getting his wife placed on corporate boards where she might get $150,000 a year in director's fees.

He also allegedly discussed getting campaign funds for himself or possibly a post in the president's cabinet or an ambassadorship once he left the governor's office. He noted becoming a U.S. senator might remake his image for a possible presidential run in 2016, according to the affidavit. And he allegedly said a Senate seat would also provide him with corporate contacts if he needed a job and present an opportunity for his wife to work as a lobbyist.

"I want to make money," the affidavit quotes him as saying in one conversation.

The affidavit said Blagojevich expressed frustration at being "stuck" as governor and that he would have access to greater resources if he were indicted while in the U.S. Senate than while sitting as governor.

U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald said in a statement that "the breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering."

"They allege that Blagojevich put a for sale sign on the naming of a United States senator," Fitzgerald said."

Among those being considered for the post include U.S. Reps. Danny Davis and Jesse Jackson Jr.

Blagojevich also was charged with using his authority as governor in an attempt to squeeze out campaign contributions.

His chief of staff, John Harris, also was arrested.

Corruption in the Blagojevich administration has been the focus of a federal investigation involving an alleged $7 million scheme aimed at squeezing kickbacks out of companies seeking business from the state. Federal prosecutors have acknowledged they're also investigating "serious allegations of endemic hiring fraud" under Blagojevich.

Political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko who raised money for the campaigns of both Blagojevich and Obama is awaiting sentencing after being convicted of fraud and other charges. Blagojevich's chief fundraiser, Christopher G. Kelly, is due to stand trial early next year on charges of obstructing the Internal Revenue Service.



Partial Birth Abortion

To see additional, more detailed images of partial-birth abortion, and documentation from medical experts on the accuracy of these images, click here.

lilpba1.gif (2209 bytes)

Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.

lilpba2.gif (2005 bytes)

The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.

lilpba3.gif (2342 bytes)

The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.

lilpba4.gif (2393 bytes)

The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.

lilpba5.gif (2729 bytes)

The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

To see additional, more detailed images of partial-birth abortion, and documentation from medical experts on the accuracy of these images, click here.


Sunday, November 2, 2008
EDITORIAL: Obama is a 'liar' on abortion

If you want to know Barack Obama's real views on abortion, you should meet registered nurse Jill Stanek.

Mrs. Stanek worked at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois from 1993 to 2001. When she worked in the hospital's Labor and Delivery Department she saw that babies who survived abortion attempts were left to die alone in supply rooms. They could linger for as long as eight hours, without medical care, without even the dignity of a warm blanket or a soft touch. Their tiny bodies were then dumped in the trash. Mr. Obama's spiritual mentor served on the board of the hospital. Mrs. Stanek went on a public crusade to protect these children.

At a 2001 Illinois legislature hearing, Mr. Obama questioned Mrs. Stanek. She insisted that children needed medical care if they were born alive. Mr. Obama said: "Ms. Stanek, your initial testimony last year showed your dismay at the lack of regard for human life. I agreed with you last year and we suggested that there be a Comfort Room or something of that nature be done. The hospital acknowledged that and changes were made and you are still unimpressed. It sounds to me like you are really not interested in how these fetus [es] are treated, but rather not providing absolutely any medical care or life to them."

Mrs. Stanek replied: "What the hospital did was try to make things look better. What it really is, is that the baby is still dead."

In committee testimony, Mr. Obama said it was sufficient to give "comfort care" to a baby that is born despite all the efforts to kill it. "Comfort care" means giving the infant a warm blanket and permitting the baby to be held by someone as it dies. This is the most Mr. Obama could find in his heart to provide - a warm blanket for a child grasping for life. Mrs. Stanek told The Washington Times that Mr. Obama showed callousness when he questioned her in committee testimony: His inability to grasp that babies born alive need medical care was disturbing.

Despite all the details Mrs. Stanek provided in her testimony, Mr. Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act in the Illinois legislature in 2002 - a bill that would give legal protection and medical assistance to a baby born from a botched abortion. Mr. Obama stated that he feared the bill could undermine Roe v. Wade. When a similar bill was put to Congress, other lawmakers had better sense and bigger hearts: The Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed the Senate with a vote of 98-0. It was signed into law by President Bush on Aug. 5, 2002. Infants born alive are now recognized as legal persons with full rights.

Mr. Obama even voted against banning partial-birth abortion - a radical procedure - in the Senate, in October, 2007. Since 2005, he has a 100 percent rating on pro-choice votes by NARAL, a leading, national pro-choice organization.

There is no doubt that Mr. Obama wants not only to uphold existing abortion laws, but a more radical view. At an address before Planned Parenthood on July 17, 2007, Mr. Obama said: "The first thing I will do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." He received a standing ovation. FOCA was introduced in Congress in November 1989 by Rep. Don Edwards, California Democrat. The legislation has since been a focal point for staunch pro-choicers. The bill would codify the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, into law in all the states. This would overturn state laws that have been passed to limit or delay abortions. Contrary to Mr. Obama's pledges to reduce the number of abortions, he really wants to make them easier to get - while overriding state and federal laws.

Mr. Obama wants to uphold an abortion policy that has a disproportionate impact on blacks. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, finds that 13 percent of the U.S. population is black, but 37 percent of all abortions are performed on black women and teens: Blacks are 4.8 times as likely
LISTEN HERE. PTK 69....PEOPLE, that COMITED A CRIME...WERE PUT TO DEATH BECAUSE OF THERE OWN ACTIONS...THEY MADE THE CHOICE TO HARM ANOTHER.....THESE BABIES DID NOTHING WRONG TO ANYONE...THEY ARE HUMAN LIFE...THATS BEING MURDERED AND FOR YOU TO COMPARE THEM TO PEOPLE THAT COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST PEOPLE IS JUST PLAIN INSANE.....THESE BABIES ARE INNOCENT!!! WHY DON'T YOU CARE??? I GUESS YOU HAVE NO HEART
UHHH, HC, LEGHACKING AS YOU BROUGHT UP IS A PROCEDURE TO SAVE SOMEONES LIFE FROM AN ILLNESS... WERE TALKING ABOUT..SOMEONE KILLING A INNOCENT HUMAN..... YOU PEOPLE THAT MAKE UP EXCUSES AND ARE OK WITH THIS ARE TRULY MESSED UP.....SORRY....I THINK YOUR SICK...


Barack Obama helped secure a $25,000 grant for the Blue Gargoyle in August 2000, an organization that was headed by Capers C. Funnye, Jr., Michelle Obama’s first cousin once removed.

Obama as the Illinois Senator reportedly received a home loan of $1.32 million at a rate of 5.625 percent, although the average going rate on that day according to two different surveys was between 5.93 and 6 percent. Unlike what was reportedly available for the general consumer, this special below-market "super super jumbo" loan was secured without an origination fee or discount points. (Questions about the mortgage were first raised by The Washington Post.)

Barack Obama’s “squeaky clean” reputation is again being tarnished by shady entrepreneurs who have supported him financially, this time a convicted Iraqi billionaire who funneled millions to the Illinois senator in 2005.

A British newspaper has published a lengthy story on the scandal, which connects the Democratic presidential candidate and his indicted longtime Syrian financial supporter (currently on trial for corruption) with one of Britain’s richest people, a criminal Iraqi guru named Nadhmi Auchi.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has blasted Hillary Clinton for withholding her First Lady records while he repeatedly ignores requests to release his own lengthy state legislative records.

Obama served eight years in the Illinois State Senate and several media outlets, as well as Judicial Watch, have tried through public requests to obtain his records to no avail.

The Illinois Office of the Secretary of State states it doesn’t have the senator’s records and that it has “received no requests from Senator Obama to archive any records formerly in his possession.”

In other words, Obama could easily make his state legislator records available to the public by having them archived but has chosen not to. Instead, he has offered several stories relating to the documents since announcing his presidential candidacy.

Barack Obama finally was forced to answer questions about his close ties to a domestic terrorist who planted bombs in the Capitol, Pentagon and other government buildings to protest U.S. policy.

During the nationally televised debate in Pennsylvania, Obama was cornered into addressing his decades-long relationship with William Ayers, a Vietnam-era radical and former fugitive from U.S. justice who has proudly admitted setting the bombs in the 1970s.

Ayers, a professor at a public university in Chicago, was a member of the domestic terrorist group Weather Underground and he has publicly said that he doesn’t regret setting the bombs and that his violent group actually “didn’t do enough.” In fact, he still proudly sports a tattoo on his neck featuring the rainbow and lightning weatherman logo that appeared on letters taking responsibility for the bombings.

Ayers and his wife, a fellow Weather Underground terrorist, have long supported and collaborated with Obama, donating money to his campaign and hosting fundraising events at their home. The Democratic presidential candidate and aging radical hang out in the same political and social circles, live in the same Chicago neighborhood and for years served on the board of a Chicago nonprofit.

According the August 8 edition of The New York Times, Accountable America, a liberal group, plans to send a letter “to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions…The warning letter is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.

The group is also hoping to be able to respond if an outside conservative group broadcasts a television advertisement attacking Senator Barack Obama, or another Democratic candidate, by running commercials exposing the donors behind the advertisements.”

Attempts to intimidate individuals from participating in the presidential campaign can be a violation of federal law. A key federal civil rights law (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)), popularly known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, may be applicable if “two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy.”

The chairman of an Islamic “charity” shut down by the U.S. government for funding Middle Eastern terrorists has dedicated himself to raising money for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

With his Ohio-based terrorist funding operation closed, Hatem El-Hady has committed to raising substantial funds for


Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
by Jim Kouri
March 22, 2008
© 2008 NewsWithViews.com

There is a far-reaching scandal brewing for presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, thanks to a radio talk show host based in Oregon. Syndicated talk show host Laurie Roth's revelations make the news story about Obama's relationship with a racist, anti-American pastor look like child's play.

A top official at the Pentagon during former-President George H. W. Bush's Administration and a former CIA intelligence officer maintain that Barack Obama and former Weather Underground honcho William Ayers funneled money to Professor Rashid Khalidi, a known terrorist sympathizer.

Khalidi serves on the faculty of Columbia University in New York and is best known as the professor who invited Iranian President Ahmedinejad to visit Columbia University after he finished his speech at the United Nations. According to confidential sources, Khalidi has direct ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a group on the US State Department's list of known terrorist groups.

"One source for this information was once a top military figure in the 1990s. He doesn't take making allegations lightly. If he says something happened, believe me, it happened," said syndicated radio talk show host Laurie Roth.

"Another source is a former agent for the Central Intelligence Agency, who is an expert in counterterrorism," said Roth, who broke the story on her show Friday night.

"I certainly don't want to demonize someone because they are a woman, black or liberal running for President. I love the idea that in our culture, a black and woman can now run. However, it does matter to me with any candidate, their consistency with good judgment, their voting record, their association with people with questionable backgrounds and commitment to our country," she said during her show. To listen to Laurie Roth's 3-21-08 show click here.

Here are the connections as described by very reliable sources, who possess impressive military, national security and intelligence backgrounds:

Allison Davis, who hired the young Obama into his small, Chicago law firm Davis, Miner, and Barnhill in 1993, left the firm in late 1999-2000 and became a housing developer. Davis went into business with Tony Rezko, the indicted businessman who's scheduled to go on trial for corruption in Illinois, and who was a major fundraiser for Obama.

Davis met Rezko when he was a client of Davis, Miner, and Barnhill. Rezko is currently under indictment in Illinois for demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state government business contracts under Governor Blagojevich. Obama was identified as one of the politicians cited in the indictment as having received political contributions from Rezko out of his kickback funds.

Tony Rezko hosted fundraising events for Obama in his home and was on Obama's US Senate campaign finance committee which collected $14 million for his campaign against conservative Alan Keyes, an African-American who served as an Ambassador during the Reagan Administration. In order to avoid a scandal during his presidential campaign, Obama returned $85,000 that Rezko and his family had donated to him.

In early 2000, while Obama served as a state senator in Illinois, he also sat on the board of the nonprofit Woods Fund. The Woods Fund is a Chicago-based foundation that claims its primary mission is to make financial grants in order to increase and/or create opportunities for disadvantaged people and low-income communities.

The chairman of the Woods fund board in 2000 was Howard Stanback, who like Obama also had connections to Davis, according to the reliable sources.

Davis submitted a grant request to the Woods Foundation for a $1 million investment in his development partnership, Neighborhood Rejuvenation LP, that would be used to finance low-income senior-citizen housing. Under normal circumstances, a board member is supposed to recuse himself or herself from decisions where they have a business or personal relationship.

Obama, who did not recuse himself, voted to approve Davis' grant request. Stanback, on the other hand, abstained from voting. The housing project, which also received a $5.7 million loan from the city of Chicago, in turn donated almost $70,000 in political contributions to Obama's presidential campaign.

In the past, Rezko gave Obama -- who served as an Illinois State Senator -- his first two political contributions in 1995, $1,000 each from two of his companies. In 1998, State Senator Obama wrote letters to city and state officials urging them to fund a Davis-Rezko housing project. It was an obvious quid pro quo arrangement.

Another major fundraiser for Obama is William Ayers, who also sat on the board of the Woods Fund with Obama and is a professor at the University of Chicago.

Bill Ayers, along with his wife Bernadine Dohrn, was an active member of the Weather Underground, a radical left-wing group that advocated vio
Ayers and Dohrn are known to have held at least one fundraiser for Barack Obama in their Chicago home.

During Obama's last year on the board of The Woods Fund (2002), he participated in awarding grants, including a $70,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, a Chicago-based group founded by Rashid and Mona Khalidi.

In another suspected quid pro quo arrangement similar to those with Ayers and Rezko, Rashid Khalidi also held a fundraising event in his home for Barack Obama.

In the Middle East, Rashid Khalidi was known as a man to be reckoned with. From 1972 through 1983, Khalidi was the director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, FAFA. His wife worked there as well.

According to sources, when the Khalidi's left Chicago for Columbia University in New York, Rashid was honored with the Edward Said Chair in Arab Studies at that Ivy League university. Their goodbye party in Chicago included testimonials from Bill Ayers and Barack Obama.
In a related story, during an interview on Thursday morning (March 20) with Black Panther leader Malik Zulu Shabazz, Fox News Channel viewers learned that Shabazz' group endorsed and supported Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States. Even on Fox -- an organization wrongly accused of being "conservative" -- the interviewers were careful in their questioning of Shabazz, a recognized racist and anti-American radical.

The New Black Panther Party leader proudly announced on Fox News that his organization endorsed Obama for President.

"While some people may say that Barack Obama has no control over who endorses him, he should have control over what endorsements are posted on his websites," said Laurie Roth, who, besides hosting a popular talk show, is a regular columnist for NewsWithViews.com
"The endorsement of the New Black Panther Party was posted on Barack Obama's website. Why was this tolerated unless Barack Obama wanted their endorsement? If he does not want their endorsement, how much control over his staff is he going to have once he's elected President?" asks Mike Baker.

The New Black Panther Party is openly anti-White, anti-Jewish, and anti-America. After Obama's Tuesday damage-control speech, his campaign pulled the Black Panthers' endorsement story off their website.

It's also been reported that Obama's campaign staff was allowed to fly a Che Guevara flag inside his office, according to NewsMax.
"Do these revelations demonstrate a pattern of Barack Obama's judgment? If so, then I do not want him dealing with world leaders. I do not want these groups having access to the White House. Do you?" asks the New Jersey-based political strategist.

"It appears the Barack Obama water carriers within the mainstream news media are on the job as usual -- ignoring another story that has the alternative media on the Internet buzzing: Obama's embracement of an endorsement by the radical, racist organization," Baker added.


I joined the board of a tiny nonprofit of which I was a volunteer. I love the cause and thought that my business background would be an asset to the organziation as a board member. The nonprofit has no paid staff, everyone in the org and on the board is a volunteer. The treasurer of 5 years was looking to move on, so I volunteered to be the treasurer. Now less than 6 months later I'm miserable. The organization is a disaster from a management point of view, the board is ineffective, I'm the only one who knows anything about running anything and I simply don't have the time or desire to turn around this organization. I'd like to go back to being a general volunteer and quit my board seat. But if I do there is nobody to fill it, and my position is vital - I handle all donations, bills, financials, etc. What should I do? This is a *tiny* nonprofit, maybe 70 volunteers, 6 board members, budget of $50k a year. Please give advice!!


i am on the board of a nonprofit. our mailing list is around 2500 people. we need a software that will keep track of both our mailing list and our donor information and amounts they gave.





Hillary Front Caught Suppressing Vote - Again!

From the DNC’s taxpayer-funded National Public Radio:

Group with Clinton Ties Behind Dubious Robocalls

by Peter Overby

All Things Considered, May 1, 2008 · Thousands of North Carolina residents answered their telephones last week to hear this message, delivered in a deep, soothing voice:

“Hello. This is Lamont Williams. In the next few days, you will receive a voter registration packet in the mail. All you need to do is fill it out, sign it, date and return the application. Then you will be able to vote and make your voice heard. Please return your registration form when it arrives. Thank you.”

In fact, the deadline to register for the May 6 Democratic presidential primary had already passed. The robocall went to many registered voters who were expecting to vote that day. The call and follow-up mailings left many wondering whether they were registered for the primary or not.

This sounds like a classic example of voter suppression — sowing confusion in order to drive down turn-out. The calls seemed to be aimed at African-American communities, places where Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is expected to run well ahead of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

But the group behind the calls isn’t partisan Republican or ideologically conservative. It’s Women’s Voices Women Vote, a 501(c)(3) charity that states its mission as registering single women to vote…

Just a week ago, the group’s founder, Page Gardner, contacted the North Carolina Board of Elections to let them know about the mailing. She noted that the Women’s Voices packet, which she said was intended to boost registration in general, would arrive in mailboxes just before the primary. Gardner wrote: “We hope this unfortunate coincidence in timing does not lead to any confusion or aggravation for either your state’s voters or registrars.”

Will Evans of the Center for Investigative Reporting , who collaborated in reporting this story, found some Obama backers among the Women’s Voices leadership, but the group mostly has ties to Clinton and her campaign. Gardner worked on former President Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. Board member John Podesta was President Clinton’s chief-of-staff. Maggie Williams, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, used to be on the Women’s Voices leadership team and did consulting work for the group…

The Institute for Southern Studies began investigating after receiving complaints about the robocalls. The institute traced the calls to Women’s Voices, which has acknowledged responsibility.

The Institute turned up other complaints about the group as well, in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. A “Lamont Williams” robocall similar to North Carolina’s ran in Ohio last fall. In Virginia, robocalls days before the February primary caused voters to flood the board of elections with phone calls, in turn triggering an investigation by the state police.

Kromm says this shows at least five months of a “deceptive tactic, illegal in many states.” He notes, “Each time this group is criticized for this activity, they apologize for the confusion.”

The North Carolina attorney general says the robocalls are illegal. State law requires that automated phone calls identify the sponsoring group and give the recipient a phone number or other means of contacting the group. The Lamont Williams call did neither…

As the article notes, a former “leadership team” member at WVWV is none other than Hillary’s campaign manager, Maggie Williams. And Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, John Podesta, is still listed as a “director.”

As the article also briefly notes, these same people have pulled this and other similar voter suppression stunts several times before.

As the aforementioned Institute For Southern Studies points out, this is not an isolated mistake:

D.C. nonprofit aimed at women voters behind deceptive N.C. robo-calls

By Chris Kromm

May 1, 2008

* In Arizona last November, election officials were “inundated with complaints” after Women’s Voices sent a mailing erroneously claiming that recipients were “required” to mail back an enclosed voter registration form. Many who received the mailing were already registered; the mailing also gave the wrong registration date. Secretary of State Jan Brewer denounced the group’s tactics as “misleading and deceptive.” A similar mailing in Colorado that month “[drew] fire and caused confusion,” according to a state press release.

* In Wisconsin, state officials singled out Women’s Voices for misleading and possibly disenfranchising voters, stating in a press release [PDF]: “One group in particular — Women’s Voices. Women Vote, of Washington, D.C. — apparently ignored or disregarded state deadlines in seeking to register voters,” sending in registrations past the January 30 deadline and causing “hundreds of Wisconsin voters who think they registered in advance” to actually not be.

* Michigan officials ended up “fielding tons of calls from confused voters” after Women’s Voices did a February mailing to “380,000 unmarried women” — including numerous deceased voters and even more that were already registered. Sarah Johnson of Women’s Voices “seemed confused by the confusion,” the Lansing State Journal reported.

* A 1.5 million-piece Women’s Voices mailing in Florida falsely stated: “To comply with state voting requirements, please return the enclosed application.” Pasco County’s elections supervisor called it “disingenuous”; another said it created “a lot of unnecessary panic on behalf of the voters,” reported local newspapers. Sarah Johnson of Women’s Voice said, “I’m sorry to hear that.”

* By March, Women’s Voices was backing off the erroneous “registration is required” language, but there were still problems. For example, a mailing in Arkansas allowed that “registering to vote is voluntary,” but a clerk in Washington County reported that “the majority [of forms] sent back to the county come from registered voters, causing needless labor for office employees.”

Problems with the group’s tactics have also been documented in Louisiana, Kentucky and Ohio.

In each state, the Women’s Voices campaigns have brought the same news and the same themes, again and again: Deceptive claims and misrepresentations of the law — sometimes even breaking the law. Wildly inaccurate mailing lists, supposedly aimed at “unregistered single women,” but in reality reaching many registered voters as well as families, deceased persons and pets. Tactics that confuse voters and potentially disenfranchise them.

For such a sophisticated and well-funded operation, which counts among its ranks some of the country’s most seasoned political operatives, such missteps are peculiar, as is the surprise expressed by Women’s Voices staff after each controversy…

Probably NPR is just relieved to find that mean, racist Republicans aren’t behind these shenanigans.

Of course if they were, NPR and the rest of our watchdog media would be screaming for a special prosecutor and round the clock Congressional show trials.

But speaking of fraud, here is just one example of an ad from this taxpayer supported non-partisan 501c3 “charity”:


The presidential candidates tax information for last year are begining to surface. The following is the Clinton reported income for last year.
Bill and Hillary reported income of one hundred million dollars. This income was largely from the sale of both their books. They also gave a generous donation of 10 million dollars......to the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library. The library is a nonprofit. Bill is Chairman of the board, Hillary is the Secretary and Chelsie sits on the board.

I found this very interesting. I chose to post this here in Seniors instead of politics. I feel that instead of extreme left or right wing answers the common sense answers given here are more interesting. The Clinton's income report is the first I've heard so far and I'm waiting with anticipation for McCain's, and Obama's. McCain's wife is part of a major beer dynasty.

Source....Cal Thomas Report.
Bob H.....I'd love to be a fly on the wall in Cheny's tax preparer's office! Too funny about the Bush library. lol
Mister Ed....thanks for info on tax returns for the other two...will research them. I agree about McCain, with a trophy wife and unlimited beer what more could he ask for?





Do nonprofit organizations comprise solely on volunteers? What I mean is, the people that are on the, let's say, board of the organization, do they still get paid for their services? Let's say you have a nonprofit organization and you have a center that is used to give out classes to kids and teens. There are people running the center and the donations goes to the organization. Will some of that money be put aside to the employees, the people who work it? Or is everyone who works it and puts it together all volunteers?

I mean, it seems like those people should get paid for their work. It seems that some of the donations that go to the organization should go to hiring people and giving them a good pay? Is this right or have I got this whole nonprofit organziation thing wrong?

THANKS and I hope I didn't confuse anyone!


Print E-mail story Most e-mailed Change text size

Is Google's data grinder dangerous?
It wants to know more about us than we know ourselves.
By Andrew Keen, ANDREW KEEN is the author of "The Cult of the Amateur." ak@aftertv.com.
July 12, 2007


WHAT DOES Google want? Having successfully become our personal librarian, Google now wants to be our personal oracle. It wants to learn all about us, know us better than we know ourselves, to transform itself from a search engine into a psychoanalyst's couch or a priest's confessional.

Google's search engine is the best place to learn what Google wants. Type "Eric Schmidt London May 22" into Google, and you can read about a May interview the Google chief executive gave to journalists in London.

Here is how he described what he hoped the search engine would look like in five years: "The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as 'What shall I do tomorrow?' And 'What job shall I take?' "

Schmidt's goal is not inconsiderable: By 2012, he wants Google to be able to tell all of us what we want. This technology, what Google co-founder Larry Page calls the "perfect search engine," might not only replace our shrinks but also all those marketing professionals whose livelihoods are based on predicting — or guessing — consumer desires.

Schmidt acknowledges that Google is still far from this goal. As he told the London journalists: "We cannot even answer the most basic questions because we don't know enough about you. That is the most important aspect of Google's expansion."

So where is Google expanding? How is it planning to know more about us? Many — if not most — users don't read the user agreement and thus aren't aware that Google already stores every query we type in.

The next stage is a personalized Web service called iGoogle. Schmidt, who perhaps not coincidentally sits on the board of Apple, regards its success as the key to knowing us better than we know ourselves.

iGoogle is growing into a tightly-knit suite of services — personalized homepage, search engine, blog, e-mail system, mini-program gadgets, Web-browsing history, etc. — that together will create the world's most intimate information database. On iGoogle, we all get to aggregate our lives, consciously or not, so artificially intelligent software can sort out our desires. It will piece together our recent blog posts, where we've been online, our e-commerce history and cultural interests. It will amass so much information about each of us that eventually it will be able to logically determine what we want to do tomorrow and what job we want.

The real question, of course, is whether what Google wants is what we want too. Do we really want Google digesting so much intimate data about us? Could iGoogle actually be a remix of "1984's" Room 101 — that Orwellian dystopia in which our most secret desires and most repressed fears are revealed?

Any comparison with 20th century, top-down totalitarianism is, perhaps, a little fanciful. After all, nobody can force us to use iGoogle. And — in contrast to Yahoo and Microsoft (which have no limits on how long they hang on to our personal data) — Google has committed to retaining data for only 18 months.

Still, if iGoogle turns out to be half as wise about each of us as Schmidt predicts, then this artificial intelligence will challenge traditional privacy rights as well as provide us with an excuse to deny responsibility for our own actions. What happens, for example, when the government demands access to our iGoogle records? And will we be able to sue iGoogle if it advises us to make an unwise career decision?

Schmidt, I suspect, would like us to imagine Google as a public service, thereby affirming the company's "do no evil" credo. But Google is not our friend. Schmidt's iGoogle vision of the future is not altruistic, and his company is not a nonprofit group dedicated to the realization of human self-understanding.

Worth more than $150 billion on the public market, Google is by far the dominant Internet advertising outlet — according to Nielsen ratings, it reaches about 70% of the global Internet audience. Just in the first quarter of 2007, Google's revenue from its online properties was up 76% from the previous year. Personal data are Google's most valuable currency, its crown jewels. The more Google knows our desires, the more targeted advertising it can serve up to us and the more revenue it can extract from these advertisers.

What does Google really want? Google wants to dominate. Its proposed $3.1-billion acquisition of DoubleClick threatens to make the company utterly dominant in the online advertising business. The $1.65-billion acquisition of YouTube last year made it by far the dominant player in the online video market. And, with a personalized service like iGoogle, the company is seeking to become the algorithmic monopolist of our online behavior.

So when Eric Schmidt says Google wants to know us better than we know ourselves, he is talking to his shareholders rather than us. As a Silicon Valley old-timer, trust me on this one. I know Google better than it knows itself.


Ive been appointed treasurer of a small organization that holds fundraisers to donate to charities and inducts new members each year. The board of officers consist of all brand new members. The binders of papers we were given from the old board hold no official documentation of ANYTHING. We were told we were nonprofit. All I got was old bank statements and a checkbook. I was switched over to sign on the organizations bank account. Now I need an IRS ruling of tax exemption letter so I got our TIN from the bank and found out the IRS had record of us (but incomplete records) so they couldn't send me anything yet. They said they would research it and get back to me in 30 days. Now Im wondering how "official" we actuaIly are so I went to the court house and also searched for our Articles of Incorporation in the the secretary of state records and have found NO record of our organization. Is it possible to be a nonprof org without being incorporated. Does anyone hold record of us besides IRS?
I'm completely new at this and have been unable to contact any old officers who know anything besides that we are non-profit. Thanks in advance for any help!


Spin this one liberals.cnn.com

Bill and Hillary Clinton liquidated the contents of their blind trust upon learning it contained investments of $5 million to $25 million that could pose conflicts of interest or prove to be embarrassing to her presidential campaign.

The blind trust and a bank account valued in the same range place the Clintons' total wealth at between $10 million and $50 million.

The Clintons looked at the contents of the blind trust in April under instructions from the Office of Government Ethics and sold the assets in May, according to a disclosure form filed Friday. The Clintons had the blind trust since former President Clinton was governor of Arkansas in 1983 and had no control over its transactions.

Once they peered inside it, they discovered it included investments in oil and drug companies, military contractors and Wal-Mart, campaign spokesman Phil Singer said.

The report, filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission and the Office of Government Ethics, provides the most detailed look at the Clintons' holdings as their wealth has expanded since the former president left the White House in 2001.

The new report also shows that the former president made $16 million in speaking fees between January 2006 and Wednesday. So far this year, Bill Clinton has given 34 paid speeches for a total of $5.9 million. (Full story)

Trust included oil, drug companies
The blind trust held stock in pharmaceutical companies, including $250,000-$500,000 in Biogen Idec and Johnson & Johnson and $100,000-$250,000 in Amgen, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline. It also invested in General Electric and Raytheon, two leading defense contractors. The trust had a varied portfolio, with investments in numerous other companies, including Exxon Mobil, BP Amoco, Walt Disney and eBay.

The report said all the proceeds of the sales are being placed in a cash account. The massive unloading of stock means the Clintons face large capital gains taxes.

Though all the blind trust transactions were handled over the years by a trustee without the Clintons' knowledge, some of the holdings could have been awkward for Hillary Clinton as she pursues the Democratic presidential nomination.

The blind trust held stock worth $100,000-$250,000 in NewsCorp, the parent company of Fox News, which many Democrats have denounced as biased against them. The trust also held stock in Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart de Mexico.

The senator served on the Wal-Mart board from 1986 to 1992, and was close with the Walton family that created the nation's largest retailer. But she has recently called on the company to provide better worker benefits and last year her Senate campaign returned $5,000 to Wal-Mart's political action committee. At the time, Clinton campaign spokeswoman Ann Lewis said the money was returned "because of serious differences with current company practices."

Friday's report comes on the heels of Hillary Clinton's Senate disclosure report, made public Thursday, which only covered activity in 2006 and did not reflect this year's liquidation of the blind trust.

Clinton and other presidential candidates were required to file financial disclosure documents with the Office of Government Ethics by May 15. But Clinton and Republican candidates Mitt Romney and John McCain asked for 45-day extensions because they all had blind trusts that the ethics office demanded be opened.

Campaign: Reporting goes 'above and beyond' requirements
"As a presidential candidate, Sen. Clinton was required to make her assets public," campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said. "As a result, she had to dissolve her blind trust. Upon its dissolution, she and the president chose to go above and beyond what was required of them and liquidate their assets in order to avoid even the hint of a conflict of interest."

When it comes to family affluence, the reports show that the New York senator is the wealthiest of all members of Congress seeking the presidency. Among all presidential candidates, however, Republican Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, stands alone with assets of between $190 million and $250 million. Republican Rudy Giuliani and Democrat John Edwards have each reported assets of about $30 million.

Last year and this year, Bill Clinton earned fees from $100,000 to $450,000 speaking to such corporations as IBM, General Motors, and Cisco Systems, finance giants such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers, and trade groups such as the National Association of Realtors and the Mortgage Bankers Association. He also has been paid to speak to nonprofit or charity groups, including the TJ Martell Foundation, which finances leukemia research, Nelson Mandela's Children's Fund and, last March, to the Boys and Girls Club of Los Angeles.
Thanks to all that answered the question. Here's another point, yes it was a blind trust, and I own mutual funds also but I know exactley what kinds of companies I am invested with, with the kind of money the Clintos have and had invested in these funds, it would be foolish to think they didn't know how, who and where there money was invested. Just food for thought


This question is actually for a friend of mine. She is serving in the Coast Guard and has been sexually assaulted by another military person at her base. She reported it and been transferred to another base in another state. She was required to meet with the Coast Guard's psychologist who found her "unfit to remain in the military due to developing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a direct result of being raped. She met with a civilian psychologist who confirmed that she has PTSD however she is making progress and getting well.
She been temporary assigned to the new base for 6+ months until they finally gotten all the paperwork to officially assign her to that base. Since she joined the coast guard and met the time requirement to make rank she made numerous requests to go to "A-school" to become a petty officer but each time was denied. The first time, prior to the rape she was denied because she has not gotten fully qualified. For instance first they told her to become watch qualified and that she would have her name put on an A-school list. She because watch qualified and requested again to be put on the A-school list and was denied and said that this time she must become boat crew qualified so she did and after being boat crew qualified she was again denied saying she must be engineer qualified (even though she is a seaman) but a few weeks later she was sent to her current unit.
After reporting the rape she asked her new command if she can go to A-school and was denied because there was an investigation going on. After the investigation was over she asked again and they denied her because there is a medical board going on to discharge her because she has PTSD.
Her old command wrote up "page 7's" which is negative statements that would be on your permanent record. One page 7 stated that she "has an inappropriate relationship that resulted into her choosing to be rape and a captain mass against her for inappropriate relationship is recommended" she never did have the captain mass because her current command thought that was complete bullshit that her old command is faxing over papers like that to headquarters and her current command. Her old command also would constantly contact her new command when her new command would do something positive (like give her good grades) to fight it and would bring up personal medical things (for instance they would say that one day she forgotten to take her medication and she took it at lunch instead of before breakfast and went against her doctors instruction so therefore you cannot give her a good grade in her following orders) oh yes and when I am talking about her old command I am talking about the guy who is the highest ranked there. Her old base has less than 25 people so it's not unusual for the highest person there to know what is going on with everyone at the base. Her new base has over 200 people. According to the medical department at her new base her old unit went against medical privacy laws.

She wrote up her rebuttal statement and included everything that her command did and when the statement from the coast guard psychologist, civilian psychologist and her statement trying to defend herself did it normal rounds on the base they realized that this girl has a valid reason to have developed PTSD so they now telling her that they want to discharge because she is found to be unable to adjust to the military lifestyle. Those who work directly with her on a daily basis disagree and think that she is doing just fine, if not amazingly well. Those who are in higher rank that she rarely or never see reads the things her old command is writing about her and want to discharge her.
She spoken to a Coast Guard lawyer to stopped answering her emails or returning her phone calls when she submitted evidence that she was raped in the form of the guy writing her a letter apologizing for what he did. In case you are wondering they dropped the investigation because they found "nothing" even though there is a letter written by him that clearly states his apology for the sexual assault.
I been friends with this girl since we were kids and it saddens me to see her go through so much stress. I never met anyone who is smarter, more motivated or a harder worker than she is. She is in the process of getting her master degree, she was vice president of her university, founded 3 successful businesses and 1 nonprofit and all she wanted in her life was to serve her country and to make a career out of it.
Any suggestions on what she can do? I am telling her that she should sue her old command for 1. Forbidding her to advance even though she met all the requirements that were put out by the commandant. 2. for spreading personal health information about her without her permission. 3. for discharging her for the sole reason of developing a curable problem which a doctor confirmed that she is healing.
She does not want to make things worse than they already are. Any advice is highly appreciated. Thank you.
To namsaev

1. Her military goal is to become a Chief which is an enlisted rank. The rate she wanted to get into was an enlisted only rate. She rather do the job she wants and get paid less as an enlisted member than to do something she doesnt like much and be an officer. In the Coast Guard enlisted members do more of the physical "dirty work" while officers sit on a desk. She is a more physical type person and wants to be out doing things.
2. She is 25 years old, enlisted when she was 23.

3. I meant vice president of student government. I did not thought I had to state the obvious.

4. I knew this girl since we were in grade school. I know what she is telling me is the truth. She has/had many symptons of someone who been raped. I also read the letter in which her shipmate wrote and apologized to her about the rape.

to everyone else:
thanks for your help.


This question is actually for a friend of mine. She is serving in the Coast Guard and has been sexually assaulted by another military person at her base. She reported it and been transferred to another base in another state. She was required to meet with the Coast Guard's psychologist who found her "unfit to remain in the military due to developing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a direct result of being raped. She met with a civilian psychologist who confirmed that she has PTSD however she is making progress and getting well.
She been temporary assigned to the new base for 6+ months until they finally gotten all the paperwork to officially assign her to that base. Since she joined the coast guard and met the time requirement to make rank she made numerous requests to go to "A-school" to become a petty officer but each time was denied. The first time, prior to the rape she was denied because she has not gotten fully qualified. For instance first they told her to become watch qualified and that she would have her name put on an A-school list. She because watch qualified and requested again to be put on the A-school list and was denied and said that this time she must become boat crew qualified so she did and after being boat crew qualified she was again denied saying she must be engineer qualified (even though she is a seaman) but a few weeks later she was sent to her current unit.
After reporting the rape she asked her new command if she can go to A-school and was denied because there was an investigation going on. After the investigation was over she asked again and they denied her because there is a medical board going on to discharge her because she has PTSD.
Her old command wrote up "page 7's" which is negative statements that would be on your permanent record. One page 7 stated that she "has an inappropriate relationship that resulted into her choosing to be rape and a captain mass against her for inappropriate relationship is recommended" she never did have the captain mass because her current command thought that was complete bullshit that her old command is faxing over papers like that to headquarters and her current command. Her old command also would constantly contact her new command when her new command would do something positive (like give her good grades) to fight it and would bring up personal medical things (for instance they would say that one day she forgotten to take her medication and she took it at lunch instead of before breakfast and went against her doctors instruction so therefore you cannot give her a good grade in her following orders) oh yes and when I am talking about her old command I am talking about the guy who is the highest ranked there. Her old base has less than 25 people so it's not unusual for the highest person there to know what is going on with everyone at the base. Her new base has over 200 people. According to the medical department at her new base her old unit went against medical privacy laws.

She wrote up her rebuttal statement and included everything that her command did and when the statement from the coast guard psychologist, civilian psychologist and her statement trying to defend herself did it normal rounds on the base they realized that this girl has a valid reason to have developed PTSD so they now telling her that they want to discharge because she is found to be unable to adjust to the military lifestyle. Those who work directly with her on a daily basis disagree and think that she is doing just fine, if not amazingly well. Those who are in higher rank that she rarely or never see reads the things her old command is writing about her and want to discharge her.
She spoken to a Coast Guard lawyer to stopped answering her emails or returning her phone calls when she submitted evidence that she was raped in the form of the guy writing her a letter apologizing for what he did. In case you are wondering they dropped the investigation because they found "nothing" even though there is a letter written by him that clearly states his apology for the sexual assault.
I been friends with this girl since we were kids and it saddens me to see her go through so much stress. I never met anyone who is smarter, more motivated or a harder worker than she is. She is in the process of getting her master degree, she was vice president of her university, founded 3 successful businesses and 1 nonprofit and all she wanted in her life was to serve her country and to make a career out of it.
Any suggestions on what she can do? I am telling her that she should sue her old command for 1. Forbidding her to advance even though she met all the requirements that were put out by the commandant. 2. for spreading personal health information about her without her permission. 3. for discharging her for the sole reason of developing a curable problem which a doctor confirmed that she is healing.
She does not want to make things worse than they already are. Any advice is highly appreciated. Thank you.


I am on the board for a nonprofit organization. I would like to see the list of donors from our last fundraiser to thank those donors whom we know gave on our behalf. Is the list of donors a privacy protected list or is it public information? The organization does publish a list in its quarterly newsletters which go out to about 1600 people and businesses.

Even though the organization has already sent a thank you to all donors, we feel that people who know us and have given on our behalf deserve a more personal thank you. The CEO does not want to allow us to have access to the list for privacy reasons.

I would like to know the process as it should be followed and to know how other organizations handle such cases.