Sikhs-for-Clinton Fund-Raiser Scuttled for 'Security Reasons'

Sikhs-for-Clinton Fund-Raiser Scuttled for 'Security Reasons' - November 16, 2007 - The New York Sun


Sikhs-for-Clinton Fund-Raiser Scuttled for 'Security Reasons'

By JOSH GERSTEIN

Staff Reporter of the Sun
November 16, 2007 updated 11/17/07 12:23 am EST
A $1-million fund-raiser Sikhs were planning to hold in Bakersfield, Calif. on Sunday morning for Senator Clinton's presidential campaign has been abruptly canceled, or at least postponed, people familiar with the event said today.
The invitations said both Mrs. Clinton and President Clinton were to attend, a rare occurrence that signals the large sums that were expected and the political pull of the organizers.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/general-discussion/18091-sikhs-clinton-fund-raiser-scuttled-security.html
"It was canceled for security reasons," a person behind the $1000-a-plate breakfast, Sharnjit Dhaliwal, told The New York Sun today. She initially would not elaborate on the problem, but said they were hoping to stage the event later.

A Democratic Party official in Kern County, Calif. said the fund-raiser ran into trouble because the Secret Service would not "clear" one of the organizers of the gathering. "One of the promoters had recently been to India. His hometown is on the Pakistani border and he crossed into Pakistan," the Kern County Democratic Chair, Candi Easter, said.
A spokesman for the Secret Service, James Mackin, said today that the agency's policy is not to comment on scheduling issues involving protectees. The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The vetting of people who chair major fund-raising events is primarily done by the campaign, not the Secret Service. One source who asked not to be named said the decision to scuttle the event was made before the Secret Service became involved.


In a follow-up interview, Ms. Dhaliwal said the hang-up did not involve the person whose travels were of concern. "It was a couple of the organizers. I do know they wouldn't clear them ... It has to do with the way someone got their citizenship," she said.
"Something happened. I'm a little disappointed," another organizer, Randeep Dhillon, said. "We are good friends of Hillary."
Mr. Dhillon said half a million dollars had already been raised and there were hopes for another half million by Sunday. The funds already gathered will be refunded, he said.
"It was something the [Clinton Campaign] committee decided for security reasons," he said.
Mr. Dhillon said the Clintons were also passing up a chance to appear in front of as many as 75,000 Sikhs who were expected to gather in Bakersfield on Sunday to celebrate a religious festival.
There is no public evidence at this point of any impropriety involving the fund-raising for the event. However, it's possible that Mrs. Clinton feared another round of negative press similar to the stir created after her campaign raised large donations in New York's Chinatown from cooks, dishwashers, and others who appeared to be of modest means. Some of those donations have been refunded.
The Clintons have deep ties to the Indian community and have made an aggressive effort to win the group's financial support.
Canceling, or postponing, the event days before it was to happen could upset some Sikhs. Mrs. Clinton's challenge will be to convince the community that no snub was intended and that whatever security issue arose was so grave that it merited her pulling out of the event altogether.

Do you agree or disagree with the writer above? Why not share your immediate thoughts with us! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views... Gurfateh!

__________________

sikhs are better off supporting RON PAUL rather than billary.

Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=18091
but unfortunately a politician with some credentials is what americans do not like.

you're missing one key issue... immigration. since the vast majority of sikhs in the US are immigrants or the children of immigrants, they obviously won't vote for someone as anti-immigration as Ron Paul.

i think Ron Paul is brilliant, but his immigration policy basically sucks.

you're missing one key issue... immigration. since the vast majority of sikhs in the US are immigrants or the children of immigrants, they obviously won't vote for someone as anti-immigration as Ron Paul.
---kelly

thats very true...majority of sikhs are immigrants. But Ron Paul is tough on Illegal immigration which wont effect sikhs (unless they are illegal)

YouTube - Ron Paul on Immigration
YouTube - Ron Paul on Immigration - at USC 091207
YouTube - Ron Paul - immigration

I find his immigration policy one the best...extreme clarity and vision!

what american sikhs should care about more is ending this irresponsible and illegal war.
and fiscal government responsibility, so that america isn't bankrupt in 4 more years.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=18091


ron paul on immigration:
-anti amnesty
time to understand that illegal immigration is just that --- ILLEGAL

It is unfair to the thousands of immigrants and professional sikhs that come here properly on a point based system or through a lawful process.

why should a person who has crossed the border illegally be given the same citizen priviledges as citizens or a landed immigrant?

america is so corrupt and budgets are so bureaucratically bloated that there isnt a doubt in my mind that this system is going to implode in the near time future.


bottom line:
most politicians are so "bought out" by the end of campaign by special interest groups the first 4 years is spent spending the treasury and printing money to satisfy there "base".
and thats not just a ron paul bias I support Dennis Kucinich on many issues as well. Its always the low profile candidates that are the most honest and actually speak the truth.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=18091

America needs to cut spending...quicktime

unfortunately, the low profile candidates will not WIN. which means we need to not split our votes and loose like we did with the green party in the 2000 election. i can't take another bush. i'd rather have a mainstream democrat than 99% of republicans any day, thanks.

American economy is not built on savings

if they start saving...it will be a global recession

rather see a natural gloabal recession rather than a Global depression.

hello,

I dont think so...i think the Ron Paul campaign is gaining some momentum he posted some extremely good fundraising numbers. 7 million in just the last quarter (His fundraising is through people not special interest groups).

anyways...he has my support...people should not vote for the candidate they think "will win" but rather for the candidate they admire most and whos policies make the most sense. Voting record is a good display of candidate credentials and Dr. Ron Pauls is spotless and clean.

please watch:
YouTube - Ron Paul : Stop Dreaming

cheers

i used to think this too... until Ralph Nader caused the vote split which allowed the 2000 election to be contested and handed to Bush. i firmly believe we would have had Gore as president if Nader had not recieved so many votes from well meaning liberals.

that means no iraq, no afghanistan, heck, maybe no 9/11. the world would be a better place today if Gore had recieved all of the liberal vote that day.

jaded? perhaps... but i think living under two Bush's (not to mention Reagan) gives me that right.