Disabled African-American man was tasered to death by the Fort Worth Police Department

Saturday, May 18, 2013

 

RE: Fort Worth man dies after being shocked by police Taser

Commentary by Eddie G. Griffin

 

 

A disabled African-American man was tasered to death by the Fort Worth Police Department. Jermaine Darden, age 34, a 300-pound asthmatic on a breathing machine, was wrestled to the floor and tased, after police kicked in his unlocked front door on a “no-knock” warrant. Officers claimed he was resisting arrest when he would not comply with their order to roll over on his stomach. But family members claimed the man was having breathing problems, which were especially aggravated when he tries to lie on his stomach.

 

Darden’s mother, Donna Randle describes what happen: “When they came in, they had their weapons drawn like we were members of a drug cartel. There were six people who told the police the man had health problems, yet they continued to do what they did.”

 

She is now asking why the police had to “use such excessive force.”

 

The incident took place in the same neighborhood where Michael Jacobs, Jr., a 24-year old mentally challenged African-American, was tasered to death by police in April, 2009. The City of Fort Worth eventually had to pay a $2 million settlement to the family.

 

Darden would be the seventh taser related death in the city’s history.

 

There have been several attempts by the community to reconcile with the FWPD over racially charged excessive force issues. The problem with taser related deaths should have been settled when Chief of Police Jeff Halstead negotiated with TASER International, the maker of the stun guns, to modify the design of their taser product, which would allow an automatic shut off after a 5-second burst. But change the weapon’s shut-off system does not change police abusive practices in its deployment. Tasers still kill, with or without a 5-second shutoff. And Darden is the second taser related death since Michael Jacobs, Jr.

 

It should be evident here of a violation of police policy. According the WFAA 8 Jim Douglas report, the weapon was deployed multiple times. What is not clear is whether one officer used the override on the 5-second cutoff or whether several tasers were deployed at once. The incident is still under investigation.

 

Besides FWPD policy, whether officers complied with it or not, there are serious human rights and constitutional questions about the right of the accused, and the nature of the heavy-handed gang buster tactics.

 

Human Rights advocates have always contended tasers to be torture in violation of the Eight Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment. A victim being stunned by 50,000 volts of electricity is equivalent to being electrocuted by high voltage utility wires, or comparable to the electric chair.

 

More importantly, however, is that a person has the right to life. No one should be summarily executed by electrocution at the whims of a law enforcement officer. This violates the First Amendment Right to life, and the Sixth Amendment Right to Due Process.

 

It would be fruitless, however, to argue constitutional rights issues with the same agency guilty of the violations. If the agency cannot enforce its own policy and the City unable to protect the public, then monetary retribution should be exacted as heavily as possible. Corrections can and will be made, if liabilities for abuses of authority began to cost more than the City can willingly afford.

 

Of course, little defense can be offer for Derrick Anthony Birdow who was tasered to death while in the act of killing a preacher. Some might rationalize his death as justifiable in the heat of the moment. But the point still stands: Tasers kill. And multiple jolts of 50,000 volts of electricity will kill with surety, something every FWPD officer should know. Thus, the killing of Darden should not have come as a complete surprise to the deploying officer or officers.

 

Someone needs to be held accountable. First, there is the officer or officers who deployed the weapon or weapons. Was he or she or they criminally negligent? If they had full knowledge of the Michael Jacobs tragedy, then they cannot claim ignorance.

 

Then there is the FWPD itself. Do loopholes in its policy allow for and exonerate such on-the-spot street summary execution of suspects, contrary to the constitutional rights of the suspect? The officer who tased Michael Jacobs to death claimed she did not know that holding the taser trigger down continued to shoot electricity into his body. Nobody ever told her, and TASER International never educated officers about the risks. What excuse can they offer now to exonerate them of their legal and criminal culpability?

 

The third party is the City of Fort Worth, who are obligated to back the police action and cover their liabilities in cases where excessive force is employed. Shouldn’t they have learned something from the Jacobs’s case? Didn’t they assure the community that this would never happen again where an innocent person would be tasered to death?

 

Fourth, there is TASER International who falsely advertises tasers are non-lethal weapons. They are the guiltiest insofar as they leave cities, like Fort Worth, to pick up the pieces, pay off the wrongful death suits, while they continue marketing their product as if it does no harm.

 

There is a memorial south of Fort Worth filled with crosses for those killed by tasers, named the Michael C. Jacobs, Jr. Memorial. The official death count now stands at 779, with a cross for Jermaine Darden to be added. Here is a list of those who died by tasers in Fort Worth:

 

·       November 2, 2004: Robert Guerrero, 21, Fort Worth, Texas

·       April 3, 2005: Eric Hammock, 43, Fort Worth, Texas

·       June 24, 2005: Carolyn Daniels, 25, Fort Worth, Texas

·       August 23, 2006: Noah Lopez, 25, Fort Worth, Texas

·       April 18, 2009: Michael Jacobs Jr., 24, Fort Worth, Texas

·       October 29, 2012: Derrick Birdow, 33, Fort Worth, Texas

·       May 17, 2013: Jermaine Darden, 34, Fort Worth, Texas

 

As for the investigation by the FWPD’s major-case unit and the Department’s heavy-handed “no knock” tactic that allowed the police to kick open a family’s “unlocked door”, under the pretext of a big drug raid that eventually cost this disabled man his life, let’s see what they were after and what they netted for their effort:

 

Five people who were arrested:

•         [Suspect No. 1], age 25, suspected of possessing 1 to 4 grams of a controlled substance and 2 to 4 ounces of marijuana.

•         [Suspect No. 2], age 22, suspected of possessing less than 2 ounces of marijuana. Police also found that [Suspect No. 2] was wanted on two warrants from other jurisdictions.

•         [Suspect No. 4], age 27, accused of evading arrest and detention. [Suspect No. 4] also had a warrant.

•         [Suspect No. 5], age 29, and [Suspect No. 6], age 29, both with class C warrants from Fort Worth. [Suspect No. 6], who identified herself as Darden’s cousin, said she has an unpaid ticket for talking on a cellphone while driving in a school zone.

 

In a police report, Officer N.B. Danford was the one who drafted the probable-cause warrant to search for cocaine at the house. The “no-knock” warrant was signed by Tarrant County Magistrate Cheyenne Minick at 3:35 p.m. Thursday, according to the report.

 

The investigation should not begin with the suspects, because there was never any really “big fish” in this expedition, only a few misdemeanor guppies at worst. So they kick down an unlocked door and kill a man for the above probable-causes.



No, the investigation should begin at the determination level of probable cause and a criminal justice system that allows a magistrate who signed off on a “no-knock” (kick-the-door-down) raid to bag a few petty misdemeanor offenders.

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

202-456-1111

Attn: President Barack Obama

 

president@whitehouse.gov

vice_president@whitehouse.gov

comments@whitehouse.gov

 

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

 

RE: Texans Petition to Secede

United We Stand: Divided We Fall

 

 

Dear Mr. President:

 

There have been recent published reports about some Texans desiring to secede from the Union. The most recent includes today’s Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s editorial. At last count per this writing, there are now 116,070 signatures on a petition for such purpose.

 

Though this number hardly represents the majority of Texans, we recognize that all citizens are entitled by the First Amendment of the Constitution the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances.

 

Seeing that you have obligated yourself to a response on a petition with more than 25,000 signatures, I would like to weigh in on your deliberation on this issue, and advise you not to make the same mistake made by President Abraham Lincoln. Instead, you should learn from history, because this secessionist movement in Texas is not unprecedented.

 

When Texas seceded from the Union in 1861, only one-in-four Texans owned slaves. This minority usurped the authority of Governor Sam Houston, the revered father of Texas, who opposed the secessionist movement. Lincoln even offered Houston military help to suppress this uprising. But, for the sake of peace within the state, the governor acquiesced to the rebellious minority who subsequently evicted him from office by force on March 16, 1861. He was replaced by Lieutenant Governor Edward Clark.

 

It is no wonder that this portion of Texas history hardly appears in the history books. Otherwise, it would reveal the illegitimacy of the Confederate government in Texas. The Ordinance of Secession was never put before the majority of the citizens of the state, lest they would have opposed it like the governor.

 

A little known fact is that Texas held large pockets of abolitionists, prior to and during the Civil War. And though that state was separated from the Union, it was divided against itself within. There were pro-Union Texans actively fighting against the Confederacy throughout the war.

 

In the end, African-Americans survived, with the help of their abolitionist allies, and not necessarily by the grace of Abraham Lincoln. Likewise, we believe Texans of abolitionist heritage will survive this secession movement also, despite economic cuts and scale backs by the state to our community.

 

We wish no part in these hostilities, nor do we concur with this petition for secession. When we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and ourselves to be One Nation, under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All, we express our true patriotic colors. Those who pledge allegiance and wave their flags at every public event, and then turn against the United States, are hypocrites, because you cannot cling to two masters: Old Glory and the Confederate southern tradition.

 

I do not believe most Texans hold the same sentiments of Peter Morrison, treasurer of the Hardin County, who says, “Why should Vermont and Texas live under the same government? Let each go her own way.” What is at issue is this: If the rest of the United States cannot concur with Texas, then the rest of the states can go their merry out. Texas is big enough to take care of itself. So says the petition:

 

Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union.

 

Please note also that the petition requests “peaceful” separation. Otherwise, suggesting the violent overthrow of the U.S. would be as seditious and criminal as an Al Qaeda plot. Therefore, so far, the petitioners are within their rights. But the minority does not have right over majority rule as the usurpation of power in 1861. Whereas the Texas Ordinance of Secession was never put before the citizens of the state, no such petition to secede should ever be enacted with the concurrence of the will of the majority living in the state.

 

Therefore, Mr. President, my advisement would be to let Texas vote its way out of the Union. If there are counties that still cleave to the Union, they should be allowed to. El Paso and Houston are already drafting petitions to secede from the state of Texas. So also is Austin.

 

The mistake made by President Lincoln was trying to forcefully hold the Union together. Texas is already separated from the Union by continued resistance to federal authority and policies. The basis of the petitioners’ grievance is this: The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government's neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending.

 

But when a Texan, George W. Bush, was in the White House, turning a surplus economy into a deficit, there was not a peep in Texas about secession. The petitioners’ desires to separate themselves from continuing economic “difficulties” ignores the true origin of our economic woes.

 

How can these petitioners gripe about economic conditions, on the one hand, and boast about the state’s economic solvency, on the other. If Texas is doing so good economically as they boast in their petition, then on whose behalf are they complaining? Do they assume guardianship of the rest of the United States to speak on their behalf? And how can 116,070 petitioners speak for the entire state of Texas and the entire American people?

 

If Texas truly wants to secede, then let it be by democratic referendum. If passed, the state of Texas should then be regarded as a foreign government. Abolitionists should not be forced to pledge allegiance thereto, nor have their freedoms by armed forces or treats of lynching, as in the past. Instead, pro-Unionists living in the state should be treated as patriots abroad.

 

We would support the federal government closing its facilities and moving to other states. Federal contracts to the defense industries should be cancelled. Federal construction should cease. And, federal grants and aid should be cut off or doled out on an as-needs basis, as to a foreign government.

 

It is not necessary to be overly concerned about pro-Union citizens in the state, as Abe Lincoln did in 1861. We will survive, though divided we fall.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Eddie Griffin

Obama Wins: Texas Talk Secession

By Eddie Griffin
Tuesday, November 13, 2012

 

We can understand some angry temperament after the election of President Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. But all this ranting about Texas seceding from the union is nonsensical. It is akin to a spoiled child who, when he cannot get his way, pitches a temper tantrum. Such a child, we recognize, needs a time-out to cool off and come to their senses.

 

Texas needs some time for self-reflection and soul-searching, lest we make ourselves a bigger laughing stock than our governor has made us. We, Texans, are more than just a crop of 25,000 signatures on a petition to secede from the union. This minority of dissenters cannot usurp the voice of the majority unless we let it. This is what happened with the writing of Ordinance of Secession in 1861 and the annulment of the Texas allegiance to the Union. The change in the state’s constitution was never being put before the populous for approval.

 

At the time secession, only one-fourth of the property holders in Texas owed slaves. This minority of pro-slavery advocates usurped state power and forcefully evicted Governor Sam Houston from office for his refusal to take an oath to the Confederacy.

 

Thus, Texas became a Confederate state through secession, not by popular consent, but by minority usurpation. Lest history repeats itself, someone must speak for the majority and set the records straight.

 

The United States of America came to the rescue of Texas during the Republic’s War for independence against Mexico. The nation absorbed the state’s $10 million debt and made it a part of the Union in 1845. And, even after Texas broke away to join the ill-fated Confederacy, the state was allowed to return to the Union fold on March 30, 1870, on nothing more than a promise to preserve the Union and write a new constitution that recognized the rights of African-American freedmen.

 

When we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, we proclaim that we are One Nation, under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All. But there are some who would send a mixed message to our children after losing an election for the presidency in 2012:

 

“Why should Vermont and Texas live under the same government? Let each go her own way,” says Peter Morrison, treasurer of the Hardin County Republican Party.

 

Even more, a judge from Lubbock predicted over the summer that the president's reelection could even lead to a civil war. The Cincinnati Tea Party proclaimed the nation dead after the election.

 

Were these not the same sentiments of the slave states when Abraham Lincoln won the election of 1860?

 

The irony in all this is the fact that Governor Sam Houston opposed secession, wherein Governor Rick Perry talks out of both sides of his mouth. He was the first to raise the specter of secession. Now he is opposed to it… maybe. Nobody knows what Perry will do. If he opts for peace and reconciliation, then he has must realize that he has already kindled a fire in 20 states which will be hard to quench by only a few peacemakers.

 

What will become of all the defense industry contractors in the state of Texas? What will become of all the federal employees in the state? What will become of the federal highways passing through the state? What will become of all the federal dollars to colleges and universities in the state for research? What will become of federal Title 1 funds to public schools? If Texas expulsed everything associated with the United State of America, it will become another Mexico, begging for trade and commerce from the other 49 states.

 

Unemployment Dips to 7.8%: Sour Grapes for GOP

What to say when the doomsday scenario doesn’t pan out: UPDATE "This is not what a real recovery looks like," Romney said.

 

Like a flip-flopping, fast talking used car salesman, Mitt Romney may have outscored Barack Obama in verbiage in the recent debate. But his doomsday scenario about the economy is becoming unraveled. For the longest, his campaign tagline has been: Unemployment has been above 8% since President Obama took office. The economy is getting worse, not better.

 

However, today’s report shows that the economy added 114,000 jobs in September, sending the unemployment rate down to 7.8%. What will Mitt Romney say now? Will he continue to say the economy is failing, when “the economy has now added jobs for 24 straight months”?

 

What will the prophets of doom, like Rush Limbaugh, say? As we all recall, from the time Limbaugh professed that he “hopes Obama fails”, there has been of chorus of audio suggestions of the president’s failing. Like sorcery and witchcraft that repeatedly suggest to a healthy man that he is sick, some people were convinced that our economy is dying. What now? A new false prophecy?

 

The usual recourse to the evident improvement has been this “sour grapes” assertion: But fewer people are looking for jobs because millions are dropping out of the job market. So the employment numbers do not tell the whole story. People are hurting.

 

This is what we can expect to hear from the partisan naysayers who prefer to paint a dismal economic picture, in order to recapture the White House. Bad news is good news to them, because it enhances their cry for change. But if it ain’t broke, why fix it?

 

That the economy is improving, despite every attempt by Republicans to make Obama a one-term president, they conveniently forget from whence we come, though Romney himself acknowledges the bad situation the president inherited. But, according to him, “things have gotten no better”. Proof: Above 8% unemployment.

 

By now, we all know that a falling economy does not reverse course just because of a new presidency. Economic laws dictate that an economy must bottom out first. And, by the time Obama took office, the economy was still in free fall.

 

Maybe with a little more cooperation from the Republicans in Congress, the bleeding might have been abated before unemployment soared above 10%. Enough said: This administration helped break the fall by implementing a stimulus program that included a government bailout of the auto industry and Wall Street. Workers went back to work. The world financial markets were stabilized.

 

For the sake of peace between parties, the administration forewent taking punitive criminal action against those who caused the crisis. And, Wall Street took a reprieve to resume doing business as usual, using government money to pay high salaries and bonuses. This, no doubt, will cease, if Obama is given a second term.

 

On the other hand, the GOP wants to go back to business as usual, back to old policies and strategies that caused the previous collapse, mainly by giving tax breaks to the rich, in the hopes to induce more investment in the private sector and create new jobs.

 

This prescription was once called “Trickle Down Economics”. The misdiagnosis comes in when Finance Capital seeks profit wherever it may be found in the global market. It does not necessarily go out create jobs for a patriotic reason. The slogan Made in America was created to boost domestic productivity, and hence induce Capital to stay inside the United States.

 

The Obama administration removed the financial incentives for shipping jobs overseas by raising taxes on those who export jobs. This goes contrary to Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital approach. If Bain were patriotic to the U.S. in job creation motive, it would not have offices in London, Luxembourg, Munich, Mumbai, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tokyo.

 

Keeping jobs at home has been a priority of the Obama administration. And, through federal support for education, the administration is trying to enhance the domestic jobs market with more skilled workers, in higher payer fields, rather than having to recruit from overseas. And, through innovations, it has opened up new markets and new employment opportunities.

 

Now that the unemployment rate has dipped below Romney’s baseline benchmark, the only thing the prophets of doom can say is: “Sour grapes”.

 Eddie G. Griffin

 

 

 

Addressing Rape Kit Backlog

 

“A good idea is a good idea”, says the Star-Telegram. Especially when it comes to the health and well-being of women, some good ideas are better. To this end, almost everybody agrees, almost.

 

Creating a Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Registry that will help eliminate the horrible backlog of 400,000 untested rape kits is a good idea, because it would expedite bringing sexual predators to justice.

 

Justice delayed is justice denied for victims of sex crimes. The delay means having to live with a nightmare every day of their lives, fearing their assailant is still on the prowl.

 

Texas State Senator Wendy Davis came to the rescue of these victims when she championed SB 1636, which imposes a time limit on processing these rape kits, some of which date back 20 years or more.

 

Women want Justice. Victims need closure.

 

U.S. Senator John Cornyn agreed and drafted a similar bill in the Congress. And amid great fanfare over the bill’s passage out the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Davis joined hands with Cornyn in celebration. A Democrat one hand and a Republican on the other, some issues are greater than both.

 

The vast backlog of unprocessed rape kits in Texas is currently being slowly aided along by federal grants, because most localities cannot afford the $1000 processing cost. This means, however, that as the backlog grows, sexual predators will be walking the streets.

 

Davis drafted SB1636 in order to force law enforcement agencies to give account of these unsolved rape cases and the backlog of DNA evidence. But some critics complained that it created an “unfunded mandate” upon local governments. Therefore, instead of forcing these agencies to bear a cost beyond their means, Davis softened the bill with the insertion “as funding became available”. As a result, SB1636 passed unanimously.

 

Where Davis’ SB 1636 leaves off, John Cornyn’s SAFER Act (S.3250) in the U.S. Congress picks up. It amends the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 and goes beyond the Debbie Smith grants to expedite auditing sexual assault evidence backlogs and to establish a Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Registry.

 

NOTE: Society should spare no expense when it comes to Public Safety. And, though the wheels of Justice grind slowly, this state and federal legislation would help bring some closure to an old wound of unresolved cold cases.

 

Everybody believes this is good idea, right? Wrong.

 

State Representative Dr. Mark Shelton, R-Fort Worth, voted against SB 1636. Considering all opposition removed, why would he, of all people, vote against it? Doesn’t he care about the health and well-being of women? After all, he is a pediatrician. Surely, he must have treated child rape victims.

 

Or, was it personal politics, a vindictive vote against Sen. Wendy Davis, who has become a champion of women’s causes in the state legislature, and whose senate seat he covets? If so, it appears that women’s health and well-being have taken a back seat to Shelton’s political aspiration. And, it would be a fair speculation to assume that he never laid eyes on the bill, nor seriously considered its discussion. So, how much more could he care for rape victims?

 

Texas Loses another Round in Redistrict Gerrymandering Case

As soon as we captured Senate District 10 in 2008 with the candidacy of Wendy Davis, the Republican-dominated legislature set a course to cut out the minority precincts which supported and boosted Davis, a Democrat, into office. The Texas legislature’s redistricting plan redrew the boundaries for Congress and the state House and Senate districts, at our exclusion and without our input, and in contradiction to the Voting Rights Act.

 

Wendy Davis took Texas to court over Senate District 10, while at the same time Marc Veasey took the state to court over defining the boundaries of the new Congressional District 33. The case was heard first in the federal court in the Western District of Texas.

 

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott defended the redistricting plan, and also put forth the same plan before a three-judge panel in Washington, D.C., in order to gain “preclearance” approval.

 

As it turned out, the federal court in Texas threw out the Texas legislature’s redistricting map, and drew up a new map. Attorney General Abbott and Governor Rick Perry immediately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But the High Court refused to endorse Texas' plan, but claimed that the lower court had overstepped its bounds. The case was sent back to the federal court in Texas, where the redistricting map boundaries would again undergo the slow process of being redrawn.

 

In the process, and as the Republican primary season in Texas lingered unsettled pending litigation, a compromise between parties was reached. Wendy Davis was awarded her original senate district back, and Congressional District 33 would be drawn as a minority-majority district.

 

NOW, the verdict is in on the other case, where Texas’s attempted and end-run around the Obama Justice Department to gain preclearance through the D.C. court.

 

[Excerpts from “Texas loses gamble on redistricting”]

 

The gamble by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Republican lawmakers to bypass the Obama Justice Department with redistricting maps backfired big time when a federal court on Tuesday rejected all the plans, even one that U.S. officials hadn't found objectionable.

 

The three-judge panel, which held a trial in January, concluded that the Republican-dominated Legislature's redrawing of districts for Congress and the state House and Senate did not comply with the federal Voting Rights Act.

 

What's more, the court said lawmakers acted with discriminatory intent in crafting boundaries for congressional districts and Fort Worth's Senate District 10, represented by Democrat Wendy Davis.

 

Even though the Justice Department had not objected to the Texas Senate map, the court was persuaded by arguments from Davis and others that SD 10 was improperly reconfigured in a way that "cracked" African-American and Hispanic voters who had coalesced to elect her in 2008.

 

“That Texas did not, and now fails to respond sufficiently to the parties' evidence of discriminatory intent, compels us to conclude that the Senate Plan was enacted with discriminatory purpose as to SD 10,” wrote Judge Thomas Griffith, U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.

 

The court cited several factors pointing to discriminatory purpose in developing the congressional map: The Legislature “removed the economic guts” from the three districts represented by African Americans, while “no such surgery was performed on the districts of Anglo incumbents”.

 

FOOTNOTE:

Abbott tweeted that he would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and he issued a statement saying the appellate judges' decision "extends the Voting Rights Act beyond the limits intended by Congress and beyond the boundaries imposed by the Constitution."

 

COMMENTARY:

This is the question that Texas wants to present before the High Court: The Constitutionality of the Voting Rights Acts, as currently administered and enforced. In its fight for state’s rights sovereignty, Texas does not want to be compelled to pre-clear electoral changes through the federal Department of Justice.

 

In the previous Supreme Court’s ruling in (Governor Rick) Perry v. (State Senator Wendy) Davis, some members of the Court hinted at taking on the 1965 Voting Rights Act, as if sections of the old Civil Rights law may have outlived its purpose, because the era of racial discrimination is over.

 

It might be noted that other states are also taking aim at the Act on the same grounds, and the Republican Party itself is advocating the law's complete abolition. But the gerrymandering of SD 10 is proof, in and of itself, of the need for continued federal Civil Rights protection for minority voting districts.

 

Without such protection, it would be legal for a Texas GOP-dominated legislature to remove “the economic guts from the three districts represented by African Americans, while no such surgery (would be) performed on the districts of Anglo incumbents”, as stated by the U.S. Appeal Court.

 

 

 

Election Results: The Called and Chosen Protégés

Many are called, but few are chosen-

In the July 31 runoff election, we elected Marc Veasey for Democrat U.S. Congress District 33, and Nicole Collier, Democrat, for Veasey’s vacated Texas House District 95 seat. In the wings await incumbent Texas Senator Wendy Davis, District 10.

These are our chosen, from the ranks of the Democratic Party, trained and mentored, to go out and do battle against the Republican opposition. The stars are aligned, from here (DFW) to Congress and to the White House.

While people are complaining about things which have no immediate solution, and vie for debate, we, on our end, are training up the next generation of leadership who has the courage and smarts to tackle the problems.

Marc Veasey, Wendy Davis, and Nicole Collier have each been thoroughly mentored by Eddie Griffin, international human rights advocate.

These are not isolated individuals. They are part of a team on a mission. And, it will take a kick-butt attitude to get it done. Eddie Griffin, once a leader in the 1960s revolution, is now a human rights advocate, with a dialectic perspective on government.

I believe that we have the power to solve our own problems with new and bold leadership. It is better to change government from within, rather than keep banging on the outside door. A power alignment intensifies the power of a few against the many.

God gives leaders wisdom and guidance by His Word. We, the people, give them power.

Congratulation again- Marc Veasey and Nicole Collier

 

Eddie Griffin (BASG)