Ah, Fall is in the air. The leaves are falling, the temperature is (supposed to be) dropping, and the quarterly campaign finance reports are in at the Missouri Ethics Commission.
David Pearce (r-plastic smile and party rubber stamp), current representative in the 121st House District, is a declared candidate for the senate seat in the 31st District (currently held by Chris Koster and previously held for 28 years by Harold Caskey).
Well, David Pearce’s third quarter report, filed on 10/15/07, shows that Pearce 08 raised $35,408.29 ($29,960.00 cash, $3000.00 in a loan, and $2,448.29 in kind) with a cash on hand balance of $50,190.40.
Pearce’s expenditures included $2,500 to the McKellar Group in Kansas City for “fundraising” and $369.00 for postage.
Now comes the fun part – contributions (look at all those PACs!):
AIM Political Action Comm. P.O. Box 1709 Jefferson City MO 65102 09/11/2007
$200.00
AT&T MO Employee PAC One AT&T Center St. Louis MO 63101 09/01/2007
$325.00
Bank of America MO PAC800 Market St St. Louis MO 63101 08/17/2007
$300.00
Citizens for Bryan T. Pratt 1123 SE Eastridge Dr Blue Springs MO 64014 08/17/2007
$650.00
Citizens to elect Doug Ervin 19800 NE 128 Kearney MO 64060 08/20/2007
$325.00
Credit Union Political Action Comm. 2055 Craigshire Dr St. Louis MO 63146 09/11/2007
$200.00
District 7 MHCA PAC 236 Metro Dr Jefferson City MO 65109 09/11/2007
$650.00
Embarq Employee PAC 319 Madison St Jefferson City MO 64101 09/20/2007
$250.00
Home Building Industry PAC 10104 Old Olive St Rd St. Louis MO 63141 09/07/2007
$325.00
HSBC North America H-PAC MO 2700 Sanders Rd Prospect Heights IL 60070 09/11/2007
$325.00
Anheuser-Busch Inc. P.O. Box 1708 Jefferson City MO 65102 09/11/2007
$650.00
KCP&L Power PAC P.O. Box 418679 K.C. MO 64141 08/27/2007
$650.00
MAPAC MO Ass. Of Insurance Agents P.O. Box 1785 Jefferson City MO 65102 09/11/2007
$300.00
MEDA PAC 326 E Capitol Ave Jefferson City MO 65101 09/30/2007
$650.00
MHA HealthPAC P.O. Box 60 Jefferson City MO 65102 $400.00
MO Chamber PAC P.O. Box 149 Jefferson City MO 65102 09/11/2007
$650.00
MO Council of School Administrators PAC – PRIMARY 398 Dix Rd STE 201 Jefferson City MO 65109 09/11/2007
$250.00
MO CPA PAC P.O. Box 419042 St. Louis MO 63141 09/06/2007
$325.00
MO Dental PAC 3340 American Ave Jefferson City MO 65109 09/11/2007
$400.00
MO Independent Bankers Assoc. 5 Victory Ln STE 201 Liberty MO 64068 08/27/2007
$650.00
MO Professionals Mutual 287 Lindbergh Blvd Saint Louis MO 63141 07/02/2007
$300.00
Realtors PAC P.O. Box 30635 Columbia MO 65205 09/11/2007
$650.00
UST Public Affairs Inc. 100 W Putnam Ave Greenwich CT 6830 08/15/2007
$300.00
Then again, $50,000 is not particularly stellar fundraising for an open senate seat.
For a minute there I was getting worried that the bankers had run out of money. It certainly looks like David Pearce has organized labor really locked in.
So far there is no declared Democratic candidate for the seat.
In an effort to end run desegregation, Independence residents will be asked to vote to absorb seven schools currently in the Kansas City School District. The move would involve around 2,220 students and a large tax base that currently belongs to the KC district. On paper the move would seem innocuous enough; some parents want their children to be associated with another school district. However, the problem is in the motivation and the results.
The people hoping to claim seven Kansas City district schools for the Independence district talk about improving the schools and giving economically strapped communities a chance to revive. They talk about escaping the troubled history of the Kansas City School District. One thing they’re not talking about: race
“Race has nothing to do with it,” said Missouri Sen. Victor Callahan, a leader in the effort to shift the seven schools in western Independence and Sugar Creek from the Kansas City district. Kansas City.Com
Forgive me for being a little skeptical, but with the Supreme Court in full retreat on Brown I have to question any moves that will result in further segregating a school district that is already 86% minority enrollment. Using the coded language that is synonymous with the new segregation, the Senator would have us believe that race is not a consideration in the move, but a closer look shows something a little different.
The move would remove 2,000 white students from a district that is strapped for white students; it would upset the balance of Van Horn High School, which happens to be one of the most racially diverse schools in the area. It would discontinue bussing minority students to Independence and also affect the tax base. Having witnessed the troubles of bussing when it was implemented in Kansas City and watching it become irrelevant as more and more whites took flight, Van Horn was an oasis in the growing desert of segregation in Kansas City. A segregation that few are willing to discuss, it appears to be the dirty little secret that no one wants to talk about. It is this attitude of separate, but equal that caused me to spend almost 30 years away from Kansas City.
There is no majority in Van Horn. Black, white and Hispanic students exist in nearly equal measure, unlike any other school in the area. The enrollment is 38 percent white, 30 percent Hispanic and 28 percent black.
Van Horn, without the Kansas City students, would lose more than half its enrollment and become another white-majority high school in Independence. It would be 62 percent white, 19 percent Hispanic and 15 percent black. Kansas City.Com
It seems that once again Kansas City and the surrounding areas that make their livings from Kansas City want to choose segregation over diversity. Rather than helping to make the school district a diverse learning environment, racial separation is the order of the day. It’s ok to come to Kansas City and make your money, but don’t let those inner-city kids come to our schools. We don’t want our kids going to their schools either. So we have the new separate, but equal mentality. The problem is that separate, but equal is inherently unequal; it was not equal in the past and it cannot be equal today.
As the gap grows wider between educational achievements between the races we have an opportunity to elevate everyone or we can continue to ignore the problem with the false hope that it will go away. How long are we going to keep disregarding the problems that we face? Race in Kansas City has always been quietly ignored, as if it were impolite to talk about it. As a result we have disparities today in economics, education, and health care that probably surpass any from the ones we had in the past.
No Senator, it is about race and saying it isn’t doesn’t make it so. How long Kansas City are we going to continue to subsidize the wealthy at the expense of the poor? We can spend billions of dollars in renovations for downtown and have nothing to elevate the schools and the other neighborhoods. I don’t blame any parent for not wanting their child to be in a failing school, but for some parents there isn’t any other option. Must they and their children be subject to inferior educations and economic opportunities forever?
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic – John F. Kennedy
§1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
I seem to remember a recent Attorney General saying that certain norms of behavior were “quaint.” That seems to be standard operating procedure with this administration.
….In October 2007, the ACLU received documents from the Department of Defense that reveal that DoD has secretly issued hundreds of NSLs to obtain private and sensitive records of people within the United States without court approval. A comprehensive analysis of 455 NSLs issued after 9/11 shows that the Defense Department seems to have collaborated with the FBI to circumvent the law, may have overstepped its legal authority to obtain financial and credit records, provided misleading information to Congress, and silenced NSL recipients from speaking out about the records requests….
There’s been a little erosion of Posse comitatus since 1878 but, “…it remains a deterrent to prevent the unauthorized deployment of troops at the local level in response to what is purely a civilian law enforcement matter…”
….The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters — one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people — are extending the bureau’s reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans.
Issued by FBI field supervisors, national security letters do not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or Congress. The executive branch maintains only statistics, which are incomplete and confined to classified reports. The Bush administration defeated legislation and a lawsuit to require a public accounting, and has offered no example in which the use of a national security letter helped disrupt a terrorist plot.
The burgeoning use of national security letters coincides with an unannounced decision to deposit all the information they yield into government data banks — and to share those private records widely, in the federal government and beyond. In late 2003, the Bush administration reversed a long-standing policy requiring agents to destroy their files on innocent American citizens, companies and residents when investigations closed. Late last month, President Bush signed Executive Order 13388, expanding access to those files for “state, local and tribal” governments and for “appropriate private sector entities,” which are not defined….
…A March 2007 report from the Justice Department’s Inspector General (IG) estimated that the FBI issued over 143,000 NSLs between 2003 and 2005, an astronomical increase from previous years….
There’s a math thing going on here.
Okay, so let’s take a look at some of those Freedom of Information Act documents obtained by the ACLU:
I am a supervisory official designated by the General Counsel of the Department of the Navy to make the certification necessary under 15 U.S.C. § 1681v to compel disclosure of requested information and provide your agency with safe harbor.
In accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 1681v, I hereby certify that the information requested is necessary for an investigation of and/or analysis related to international terrorism.
Therefore, pursuant to Executive Order 12333 and Title 15 U.S.C. § 1681v of the Fair Credit Reporting Act you are directed to provide the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) with a consumer report and all other information you possess in your files for the below listed consumer:
Consumer Name: [redacted]
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Social Security Number: [redacted]
Please be advised that 15 U.S.C. § 1681v prohibits [original underlined] any consumer reporting agency or officer, employee or agent of such agency from disclosing to any person that the NCIS has sought or obtained access to information or records under these provisions. Furthermore, any consumer reporting agency, or officer, employee or agent of such agency, is prohibited [original underlined] from including in any consumer report any information that would indicate or disclose that the NCIS has sought or obtained such information.
As a result of the sensitive nature of this request, please contact NCIS Special Agent [redacted] telephone [redacted] to make arrangements to provide the records. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.
§ 1681v. Disclosures to governmental agencies for counterterrorism purposes
(a) Disclosure
Notwithstanding section 1681b of this title or any other provision of this subchapter, a consumer reporting agency shall furnish a consumer report of a consumer and all other information in a consumer’s file to a government agency authorized to conduct investigations of, or intelligence or counterintelligence activities or analysis related to, international terrorism when presented with a written certification by such government agency that such information is necessary for the agency’s conduct or such investigation, activity or analysis.
(b) Form of certification
The certification described in subsection (a) of this section shall be signed by a supervisory official designated by the head of a Federal agency or an officer of a Federal agency whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(c) Confidentiality
No consumer reporting agency, or officer, employee, or agent of such consumer reporting agency, shall disclose to any person, or specify in any consumer report, that a government agency has sought or obtained access to information under subsection (a) of this section.
(d) Rule of construction
Nothing in section 1681u of this title shall be construed to limit the authority of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under this section.
(e) Safe harbor
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, any consumer reporting agency or agent or employee thereof making disclosure of consumer reports or other information pursuant to this section in good-faith reliance upon a certification of a government agency pursuant to the provisions of this section shall not be liable to any person for such disclosure under this subchapter, the constitution of any State, or any law or regulation of any State or any political subdivision of any State.
….Documents show the Defense Department may be flouting the law and, by simply asking the FBI to issue the NSLs on their behalf, accessing documents it is not entitled to receive. There is no evidence that the FBI has ever turned down such a request….
The Defense Department told Congress that it seeks NSL assistance from the FBI only in joint investigations, but an internal program review shows that the military asks the FBI to issue NSLs in strictly Defense Department investigations….
….Although compliance with Defense Department-issued NSLs is voluntary, the coercive language found in these letters would lead a reader to believe compliance was mandatory. For example, one NSL was stamped multiple times with the words “subpoena” and “non-disclosure obligation” to intimidate its recipients with authority the Defense Department does not have. According to Navy records, no credit agency has ever refused to comply with the military’s requests, and only two financial institutions have refused to comply….
….The Defense Department appears to “gag” all NSL recipients as a matter of course, and, despite recent changes to the law, the NSLs issued by the Defense Department do not inform recipients of their new right to challenge the request and gag order in court…
UPDATE March 15, 2007:: Scientists and doctors have used DCA for decades to treat children with inborn errors of metabolism due to mitochondrial diseases. Mitochondria, the energy producing units in cells, have been connected with cancer since the 1930s, when researchers first noticed that these organelles dysfunction when cancer is present.
Until recently, researchers believed that cancer-affected mitochondria are permanently damaged and that this damage is the result, not the cause, of the cancer. But Michelakis, a cardiologist, questioned this belief and began testing DCA, which activates a critical mitochondrial enzyme, as a way to “revive” cancer-affected mitochondria.
The results astounded him.
Michelakis and his colleagues found that DCA normalized the mitochondrial function in many cancers, showing that their function was actively suppressed by the cancer but was not permanently damaged by it.
More importantly, they found that the normalization of mitochondrial function resulted in a significant decrease in tumor growth both in test tubes and in animal models. Also, they noted that DCA, unlike most currently used chemotherapies, did not have any effects on normal, non-cancerous tissues.
“I think DCA can be selective for cancer because it attacks a fundamental process in cancer development that is unique to cancer cells,” Michelakis said. “One of the really exciting things about this compound is that it might be able to treat many different forms of cancer”.
………………………………………… ORIGINAL STORY:
Since the story of a cheap safe cancer cure first broke on Jan 23 in NewScientistdotCom, virtually NO US mainstream media has picked up on and reported the story.
Google news searchs on “dichloroacetate” now produce only 9 hits this morning (compared to 59 hits in February). Contrast that to 15,433 news search hits this morning on “al-qaeda”, for a bit of perspective. Cancer is a killer disease affecting millions of people every year, so the ignoring of this story cannot be due to any “lack of interest”.
It sounds almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers by switching off their “immortality”. The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe.
It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs.
Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and his colleagues tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body and found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells.
Where are the priorities? A short, pointed piece from TopCancerNewsdotCom, that even Google no longer picks up in those 9 news search hits, explains it in no uncertain terms:
One of the fundamental premises of cancer biology is that mitochondria — the energy producing units of cells — are permanently damaged by cancer. What DCA does is revive the mitochondrial function, encouraging the death of cancer cells.
The overwhelming hope is that DCA will move right to human testing. But the overwhelming fear is that it will not — because of economic reasons. There is no longer a patent on DCA so it is not owned by any one company. With little chance of one group making a large profit, there may be no incentive for pharmaceutical companies to invest in research.
Sadly, this drug — that appears to work remarkably well — may never benefit cancer patients. All because no one stands to make billions of dollars from it.
AxisOfLogic takes the explanation a step further towards the real truth behind this, in a February 02/07 editorial “The Real Cancer”:
A promising drug for fighting cancer is found. It has already been proven relatively safe. Laboratory and animal tests have shown it kills cancer cells and shrinks tumors.
You would think the drug companies would fall all over themselves to do the clinical trials necessary for the drug to be prescribed to cancer patients. Right?
Wrong.
This may be the biggest scandal to hit the medical world in years. Yet so far, all the commercial U.S. media have stayed away from reporting on it.
…
DCA is not a new drug. It has been used for years to treat michondrial disease. It is cheap and has limited side effects. Scientists decided to try it on cancer cells because it affects the metabolism of cells, the way they use energy. This is a different approach than the chemotherapy drugs now in use, which are toxic and kill off both cancerous and normal cells.
What has scientists especially excited is that DCA has the potential of working against all types of cancers, including secondary cancers caused when cells break off and migrate to other parts of the body.
So what's the hitch?
…
The problem with the whole medical industry is that it's not an industry to promote health, it's an industry to promote profits. In fact, the more sick people there are, the more money there is to be made. Pharmaceuticals make up one of the most profitable industries in this country, raking in hundreds of billions every year.
In the U.S., where the medical industry is the most advanced technologically, it's also the most expensive and the least efficient when the cost is measured against the general health of the people. That's why 47 million people here have no health coverage.
…
But issues like cancer and the messed-up environment, which can affect anyone, should make it clearer than ever that all humanity will benefit mightily when the parasitic billionaire class that currently stifles true progress is toppled from its seat of power.
This story should give us a pretty clear indication of what kinds of results to expect in the fight against another looming killer, Global Climate Change.
It's apparent that as a society we would rather be lied to and spun into spending hundreds of billions of dollars on chasing fantasies of ghosts and boogeymen, even at the cost of watching ourselves and our families and our children be systematically poisoned by pollution that threatens to upset the planetary environment, and at the cost of watching them die in agony from one of the most horrible diseases known.
The US has a Drug Lobby Second to None. No other industry has spent more money to sway public policy than the pharmaceutical industry: “Its lobbying operation, on which it reports spending more than $675 million, is the biggest in the nation.”
As a species we certainly have some serious issues….. inside us. One of which is that we are incredibly willing to allow ourselves to be spun. Another is our unbelievable willingness to sit back and just take it, over and over and over, even when we know it is being done.
If we are willing to treat ourselves and our families this way, what kind of response should we expect from the rest of the world when America pre-emptively invades and kills them to bring them the wonders of western civilization?
…………………………………………
Updated: Originally posted at Talkleft & Edgeing February 2007
….”There’s only one person capable of uniting the Republicans, and that’s Hillary,” said longtime Democratic operative Jim Bergfalk. Unlike the others working their worry beads in the party, he was willing to be quoted by name in this article….
So, what’s the motivation for this public display of angst?
Dave Helling goes on in the same Kansas City Stararticle:
….But polls suggest Clinton’s margin for error here isn’t large. A recent Survey USA poll, conducted for KCTV in Kansas City, showed Clinton losing Missouri to Rudy Giuliani by three points – the only Democratic front-runner to lose the state to any Republican candidate….
Yes, Dave, let’s talk about Rudy Giuliani in Missouri – as I wrote on MyDD:
And still, we have consultants who talk to reporters who then report what the consultants say (sometimes “anonymously”, sometimes not). A consultocracy as it where.
If you’re really in the know you shouldn’t be telling all to the media, should you? Unless you’ve got an agenda.
Today at an announcement event in Dover, New Hampshire, John Edwards won the endorsement of Friends of the Earth Action, one of the leading environmental groups in the country.
Friends of the Earth Action (FOE Action), one of the longest-standing, national environmental organizations in the country, today announced its endorsement of Senator John Edwards for President, citing his leadership on real solutions to combat global warming and his unequivocal position against dangerous and expensive nuclear power.
snip
“John Edwards will bring dramatic, positive change and improvement to our nation’s environmental policies. Most importantly, he will bring leadership in the preeminent environmental issue of our time — the global warming crisis. John Edwards has set the pace among presidential candidates on global warming, and among the leading Democratic candidates, he has the best, most comprehensive global warming program.”
Friends of the Earth Action was founded in 1969 and has long led efforts to create a more healthy and just world. Friends of the Earth Action and its sister organization, Friends of the Earth, have over 100,000 members and supporters in the United States.
“Friends of the Earth Action enthusiastically endorses John Edwards for President,” said Brent Blackwelder, president of FOE Action. “We believe he is the candidate most committed, and best prepared, to halt global warming and promote a healthy, livable planet for our families and our future. Among the frontrunners, he is also the only candidate to flatly oppose nuclear power. After 7 years of the most destructive environmental president in modern history, we feel strongly that John Edwards is the candidate most likely to stand up to the powerful, corporate polluters and their lobbyists. For these reasons, we believe John Edwards is the best candidate for president.”
Similarly, months ago, the the League of Conservation Voters, which has not yet endorsed a candidate for president, described John Edwards’ plan as the “most comprehensive global warming plan of any presidential candidate to date.”
“Senator Edwards’ plan demonstrates that he understands the magnitude of the challenge before us and the need for bold leadership to meet it,” LCV President Gene Karpinski said.
More from Brent Blackwelder. President, Friends of the Earth Action
In fact, from the very beginning of his campaign, John Edwards has built his candidacy on three big issues — ending war, ending poverty and ending global warming. No other candidate has made that commitment — or made protecting the earth so central to the heart of their candidacy.
Among the leading candidates, John Edwards has also distinguished himself by firmly rejecting the idea of reviving and expanding nuclear power. Building a nuclear power plant in Seabrook, New Hampshire was a bad idea 30 years ago — and it is a bad idea today.
While other leading presidential candidates have refused to rule out nuclear power — John Edwards has courageously and unambiguously said no. He has said what we all know to be true — that nuclear power is too costly, too dangerous and a terrifying target for terrorist attack.
In our view, you cannot tell New Hampshire citizens who live in the shadow of the Seabrook Station that you are “agnostic” about or favor “exploring” nuclear power. You simply cannot equivocate when the safety of our children and our nation is at stake.
John Edwards has also had the courage to take a stand against the corporate lobbyists and special interests that have so driven environmental policies in the Bush Administration. When you refuse to take money from the lobbyists for big oil and big coal, you can pursue the kind of policies that protect our water, our air and our land.
In an Edwards White House, the Vice-President won’t be holding secret meetings with corporate oil, mining, and utility executives and lobbyists so they can rewrite scientific documents and lie about the facts. In an Edwards White House, environmentally concerned citizens will have a voice — and big campaign cash will not drive environmental policy.
On building new nuclear plants, John Edwards stands alone among the top three candidates in rejecting any new plants until the waste issue is resolved.
John Edwards on nuclear:
RUSSERT: Would you be in favor of developing more nuclear power here in the United States?
FOE Action plans to put people on the ground to help John Edwards in New Hampshire:
In this campaign we intend to mobilize our members, like-minded environmentalists and voters for the election of John Edwards as President. We intend to be especially active here in New Hampshire, establishing an independent campaign and organization to carry the message about John Edwards’ global warming plan and his vision for a healthy environment.
Early in this presidential campaign, John Edwards said, “Our generation must be the one that says, ‘we must halt global warming.’ It won’t be easy, but it is time to ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war.”
Ending global warming won’t be easy, but the effort is critical to our survival. We at Friends of the Earth Action believe the patriot to lead us in the effort is John Edwards.
Added to the state SEIU endorsement(s)expected Monday (Edwards Gets Iowa SEIU Endorsment ), a real blue/green coalition is growing around John Edwards.
Rex Sinquefield believes that the free market should reign and has contempt for urban public schools that fail their students. And he plans to do something about his beliefs.
Before the campaign finance limits were reinstated by the Supreme Court, he spread the long green liberally among both Republicans and Democrats:
The biggest single chunk – $100,000 – went to Republican Gov. Matt Blunt. Then came $40,000 each to Republican Sens. Jason Crowell of Cape Girardeau and Luann Ridgeway of Smithville and Democratic Rep. Talibdin El-Amin of St. Louis.
Next came $30,000 for Democratic Rep. Rodney Hubbard’s campaign for the Senate. That was followed by $25,000 for Republican House Speaker Rod Jetton’s Leadership Committee, which acts as a bankroll that Jetton can spend on behalf of favored House members.
Rounding out the five-figure recipients were Rep. Jonas Hughes, a Kansas City Democrat, with $20,000; Rep. Ted Hoskins, a St. Louis County Democrat, with $10,000; and House Majority Leader Tom Dempsey, a St. Charles Republican, with $10,000 for his campaign for Senate.
But that’s old news. Most of that money will likely have to be returned, and Sinqufield has moved on, setting up a system for contributing all the moolah he wants–legally. As I’ve mentioned before, no limit exists to the number of political PACs that may be formed in this state. In late September, SINQUEFIELD FORMED 100 OF THEM. EXACTLY 100. In other words, he can give 100 times the limit. So, let’s see, if the legal limit for a contribution to a state senate campaign is $650, Sinquefield can, as of now, give any senate candidate $65,000.
The treasurer of all 100 PACs is Robert W. Schnur, who formerly worked for Carl Bearden (R-St. Charles). And indeed, Bearden is right in the middle of Sinquefield’s bid to buy elections and harm public schools in Missouri, since his firm is helping Sinquefield lobby and offering him political expertise.
As you can see by examining the list of the PACs below, some will focus on economics rather than on the voucher issue. Sinquefield’s Show-Me Institute has advocated for a lower tax structure in Missouri.
Notice also that 28 of the PACs are called “My Job My Wage Ward ___” and each has a different number from 1 to 28. The city of St. Louis has 28 wards, and Sinquefield has shown an interest in having the city earnings tax repealed. (That tax provides about a third of the city government’s revenue.)
Last, but not least unsettling, is that Sinquefield has said he wants to form a farm team of future political candidates–people who will run for state rep or senate on whatever platform he supports.
Missouri is up for sale, and Sinquefield may have enough money to buy it.
Somewhat overshadowed this past week by the FISA discussion, the vetoed SCHIP bill will be subjected to an override vote by Congress on Thursday, the 18th. Whether or not the Presidential Veto will be sustained remains unclear.
But what is very clear is that there are a lot of twitchy Republicans in the press and on national TV valiantly arguing their talking point in the earnest hope that they can bamboozle their constituents one more time. They don’t mind getting down and dirty either. You may recall the case of 12-year-old Graeme Frost, the brain injured child who delivered the Democratic response to one of the Decider’s weekly radio addresses. Frost and his sister, who were injured in a car accident, still need physical therapy. Both are covered by SCHIP in Maryland. The right wing thought they had glimpsed Nirvana, both kids in private schools (scholarships) and a home in a newly gentrified neighborhood. Led by principled stalwarts, Malkin and Limbaugh, Mitch McConnell’s office took up the cry, only to have to back off as the case fell apart. Turned out that the parents have combined incomes of $45,000 per annum. Prior to the accident they might have purchased insurance for $14,500 a year, after the accident no insurance would cover them. And then in Maryland, SCHIP covers kids from families with incomes under 200% of poverty, $55,220, so the Frosts definitely qualify.
Republicans are also cheesed off at the Decider’s lack of interest in consultation when the compromise bill was being written. It was perceived that he had already made up his mind and had no interest in further exploration. Now he offers to compromise without offering anything concrete to describe a compromise position that he would endorse. In the words of Nancy Pelosi this AM on ABC, “Mr. Bush sincerely believes that the meaning of the word compromise means do it his way”.
According to a NYT editorial piece, the Republican response to the bill is being driven by The Decider’s Assertion that to expand SCHIP is a step toward “government run health insurance”. Speaking of double standards and utter hypocrisy, do they not know that they are covered by government run health insurance”, that their children are covered by “government run health insurance”? And adding insult to injury, their premiums are paid for by tax dollars from the very families for whom they would deny SCHIP benefits. Deliver me!
Even more distasteful, if that is possible, the Christus Medicus Foundation, a catholic right wing organization focusing on “sanctity of life issues” is worried that SCHIP dollars are going into family planning, contraception and sterilization programs. They conclude:
Teenage females can be signed up for a CHIP program by schools family planning organizations and social services organizations and be give contraception, abortions and in some cases even be sterilized without parent’s knowledge or consent. State and federal tax dollars are violating Health Care Right Of Conscience by forcing Americans to subsidize the undermining of the parent/child relationship.
Well! Health care for near poor children has suddenly become a reproductive issue. I am curious as to just how many people worship in their tent of disinformation.
The AFL-CIO, Move-On.org and Americans United for Change are but a few of the organizations stepping up to champion SCHIP. The DNCC has targeted eight vulnerable Republican veto supporters in their home districts with radio ads opposing their positions. Our Sam Graves is one of them. Democrats are adamant regarding a compromise with the Decider. They say that they have already compromised, having chosen the less expansive Senate version of the bill as a model for the compromise bill vetoed by the Decider.
Nancy Pelosi is reported as “cautiously optimistic” that she will peel off an additional 15-20 votes to support a veto.
Our mission in MO, should we choose to accept it, is to discourage the following MO members of the US House from voting to sustain the Presidential Veto. They are Sam Graves, Roy Blunt, Todd Akin, and Kenny Hulsof. Tell them that the Democrats will gain politically if the veto is blocked. Tell them that you’ll “remember in November” (08) when we liberals don’t have poor George to kick around anymore. Tell them to just do the right thing!
So here’s the key. The domestic spying has always been justified by saying it was a necessary response to 9/11. But clearly there’s damned good reason to believe these programs were conceived and initiated well before the September 11th attacks.
That would mean — gasp! — that your “government” is full of it.
But it’s not just that. If Qwest’s competitors were already abetting this bloodless(?) coup before 9/11, then the “administration’s” domestic spying not only has little if anything to do with response to terrorism, but it also objectively failed to prevent 9/11.
Are you listening, Senator McCaskill?
UPDATE: There’s another option that Kagro X didn’t consider – an allegation that I’m sure right-wing apologists for the administration will be making shortly: Qwest’s refusal to allow warrantless wiretapping caused 9/11.
I am wondering if Senator Bond’s letter to the editor in today’s Post-Dispatch, which attempts to justify preserving the laughably named Protect America Act, has anything to do with the volume of calls and letters he is getting about FISA? I immediately fired off a necessarily brief response in the form of a letter to the editor which may or may not be printed. I hope those of you who read the letter and have the same negative response will do the same. I plan to write to Bond himself later today.
Bond pretends that the legislation does not target Americans, but only foreigners. He ignores the fact that it is quite possible under this legislation for American citizens to be caught up in the spy dragnet it permits, and that there is no oversight mechanism to protect their privacy rights when this occurs–in fact, there is no real oversight mechanism at all.
We should certainly not let Bond get away with the vague “trust me–we will all be killed unless we permit the government unlimited, unsupervised spying” type of justification that he offers for this pernicious legislation. Clark’s excellent diary below (FISA back on the table) gives lots of great links to analyses of the FISA legislation as it stands and to proposals currently in play–I particularly recommend the ACLU site. I hope you all will make use of them to gather your facts before you rip into our esteemed Senator Bond.
UPDATE: This editorial from the New York Times rips into the Bush administration and its Republican supporters in the Congress for giving us just the type of tripe Bond spews in his letter to the Post-Dispatch (which was really probably prompted by their recent editorial dissing the Protect America Act). I guess Bond got his marching orders and has followed them like the good little Republican soldier he usually is (although he deserves thanks for his SCHIP vote).
Rex Sinquefield believes that the free market should reign and has contempt for urban public schools that fail their students. And he plans to do something about his beliefs.