Cost of recount in NH - $55,600 - deadline tomorrow

Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
385
The ChipIn needs $20K more TONIGHT, or all is for nought.

From DailyPaul.com:

Cost of recount in NH - $55,600 - deadline tomorrow
Posted January 14th, 2008 by Jane Aitken
in * GOP * NH * recount

According to the official letter that Albert Howard signed, the cost is $55,600 for the recount of approximately 240,000 ballots.
The Secretary of State must receive the money in the form of a certified check by 3 PM tomorrow January the 15th.

Go to http://grannywarrior.chipin.com/recount to donate. We need a major effort of all to raise this money by the deadline.

Spread the word, blog about it, send e-mails , get on the phone, do everything you can to make this happen.

When we have come this far, don't leave us hanging...

I trust you do your best.

Albert Howard
 
Didn't Alex Jones have some major funders? Are they going to work together?

I just donated again...shouldn't be too tough to get this if we need it..just need some word spreaders..
 
Last edited:
Did anyone call Alex Jones?

Call Bev Harris of Blackboxvoting.org and have her call Alex Jones
 
Last edited:
Wait..is that just the Republican recount?

Or is that both parties?

If both parties, we split with Dennis.
 
No offense, but it seems odd that this thread was started by a person speaking of Albert Howard in the 3rd person and then signs it Albert Howard. Just an observation. I tend to be cautious in these instances when someone asks for money and they can't clearly identify themselves or at least do so in a way that isn't contradicting. It raises a red flag. I say if you really want to raise the money and awareness at the same time that people organize and march on the NH State House. If 55,600 show up and demand that their tax dollars go towards a recount it just might happen. At worst, it would only cost a buck a piece and you would have to take a couple of hours off from work.

Robert Lemieux

It starts with us.
 
its a copy and paste from The Daily Paul.

Albert Howard signed the letter that was submitted to The Daily Paul
 
No offense, but it seems odd that this thread was started by a person speaking of Albert Howard in the 3rd person and then signs it Albert Howard. Just an observation. I tend to be cautious in these instances when someone asks for money and they can't clearly identify themselves or at least do so in a way that isn't contradicting. It raises a red flag. I say if you really want to raise the money and awareness at the same time that people organize and march on the NH State House. If 55,600 show up and demand that their tax dollars go towards a recount it just might happen. At worst, it would only cost a buck a piece and you would have to take a couple of hours off from work.

Robert Lemieux

It starts with us.

I donated 50 dollars. What happens to that money if we do not raise the whole amount? I should have asked that question before I donated, oh well :rolleyes:
 
Urgent ! Urgent ! Urgent ! Urgent !

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SORRY GUYS ... JUST RAN ACROSS THIS !!! FUCKING GEEDUBYA IS AT IT AGAIN!!

MUST READ !!!



Bush Shakes Up ‘08 Iraq Debate
By: Nicole Belle on Sunday, January 13th, 2008 at 7:00 AM - PST Apparently, Bush has a plan to take away the Democratic frontrunners’ plans to use Iraq as a campaign issue.

Of course, the Republican candidates are entirely unaffected–seeing as they want to stay away from Iraq as much as possible–but Bush’s actions are non-political, make no mistake about that.

(A)s Bush rallied U.S. troops at the base here on Saturday with a “Hoo-ah” and conferred with his Iraq dream team, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, he indicated that he was setting in motion policies that could dramatically affect the presidential race–and any decisions the next president makes in 2009.

In remarks to the traveling press, delivered from the Third Army operation command center here, Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries. Crocker, who flew in from Baghdad with Petraeus to meet with the president, elaborated: “We’re putting our team together now, making preparations in Washington,” he told reporters. “The Iraqis are doing the same. And in the few weeks ahead, we would expect to get together to start this negotiating process.” The target date for concluding the agreement is July, says Gen. Doug Lute, Bush’s Iraq coordinator in the White House–in other words, just in time for the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval. The president said nothing about that on Saturday, but Lute said last fall that the Iraqi agreement would not likely rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate ratification. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact.

As far as the number of U.S. troops that would remain in Iraq under such a pact, the administration is considering changes that could also pre-empt anything the Democrats have in mind.[..] In fact, one Pentagon contractor who is working on the long-term U.S. plans for Iraq says that the administration is considering new configurations of forces that could reduce troop levels to well under 100,000, perhaps to as few as 60,000, by the time the next president takes office.

The upshot is that the next president, Democrat or Republican, is likely to be handed a fait accompli that could well render moot his or her own elaborate withdrawal plans, especially the ones being considered by the two leading Democratic contenders.

It’s not bad enough the damage he’s done in the eight years he’s occupied the White House, he needs to continue the damage beyond his term
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SORRY GUYS ... JUST RAN ACROSS THIS !!! FUCKING GEEDUBYA IS AT IT AGAIN!!

MUST READ !!!



Bush Shakes Up ‘08 Iraq Debate
By: Nicole Belle on Sunday, January 13th, 2008 at 7:00 AM - PST Apparently, Bush has a plan to take away the Democratic frontrunners’ plans to use Iraq as a campaign issue.

Of course, the Republican candidates are entirely unaffected–seeing as they want to stay away from Iraq as much as possible–but Bush’s actions are non-political, make no mistake about that.

(A)s Bush rallied U.S. troops at the base here on Saturday with a “Hoo-ah” and conferred with his Iraq dream team, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, he indicated that he was setting in motion policies that could dramatically affect the presidential race–and any decisions the next president makes in 2009.

In remarks to the traveling press, delivered from the Third Army operation command center here, Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries. Crocker, who flew in from Baghdad with Petraeus to meet with the president, elaborated: “We’re putting our team together now, making preparations in Washington,” he told reporters. “The Iraqis are doing the same. And in the few weeks ahead, we would expect to get together to start this negotiating process.” The target date for concluding the agreement is July, says Gen. Doug Lute, Bush’s Iraq coordinator in the White House–in other words, just in time for the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval. The president said nothing about that on Saturday, but Lute said last fall that the Iraqi agreement would not likely rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate ratification. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact.

As far as the number of U.S. troops that would remain in Iraq under such a pact, the administration is considering changes that could also pre-empt anything the Democrats have in mind.[..] In fact, one Pentagon contractor who is working on the long-term U.S. plans for Iraq says that the administration is considering new configurations of forces that could reduce troop levels to well under 100,000, perhaps to as few as 60,000, by the time the next president takes office.

The upshot is that the next president, Democrat or Republican, is likely to be handed a fait accompli that could well render moot his or her own elaborate withdrawal plans, especially the ones being considered by the two leading Democratic contenders.

It’s not bad enough the damage he’s done in the eight years he’s occupied the White House, he needs to continue the damage beyond his term

Bush is making a last ditch effort to expand US control over the middle east. 30 billion to Israel, 10 billion to Pakistan and only God knows how much money we are borrowing to give to other countries around the world to support our empire. There is one small problem that Bush seems to be over looking, and that is: The US is broke. We are in a recession now and if we continue borrowing and spending money that we cannot afford we will end up in a major depression. The US economy cannot withstand very much more debt before it crumbles. It is only a matter of time so be ready.
 
The ChipIn needs $20K more TONIGHT, or all is for nought.

From DailyPaul.com:

Cost of recount in NH - $55,600 - deadline tomorrow
Posted January 14th, 2008 by Jane Aitken
in * GOP * NH * recount

According to the official letter that Albert Howard signed, the cost is $55,600 for the recount of approximately 240,000 ballots.
The Secretary of State must receive the money in the form of a certified check by 3 PM tomorrow January the 15th.

Go to http://grannywarrior.chipin.com/recount to donate. We need a major effort of all to raise this money by the deadline.

Spread the word, blog about it, send e-mails , get on the phone, do everything you can to make this happen.

When we have come this far, don't leave us hanging...

I trust you do your best.

Albert Howard

Bump
 
I have read that Kucinich and some othe republican that I nvr even heard of has already paid for the recount and it is set to happen on wednesday. Is that incorrect ?

well the republican paid 2000 to file. Now they are saying it will cost 55,000 and we are running a chip in on this thread.

That's all I know.

You can read about it on the earlier posts here.

But they are saying they need it by tomorrow.
 
Bush has stolen two elections and completely bankrupted our country and screwed us over. Shouldn't that be a crime or something?
 
Back
Top