Previously:

President Obama speaks in Kansas City July 30, 2014 (July 30, 2014)

President Obama will be in KC on Wednesday… (July 29, 2014)

President Obama spoke to a large crowd at the Uptown Theater in Kansas City on Wednesday morning. Jerry Schmidt, as always, took stellar still images:

President Obama speaking at the Uptown Theater in Kansas City – July 30, 2014. Photo: Jerry Schmidt.

“…And that’s what’s at stake right now — making sure our economy works for every American.  See, I’m glad that GDP is growing, and I’m glad that corporate profits are high, and I’m glad that the stock market is booming.  But what really I want to see is a guy working nine to five, and then working some overtime, I want that guy making more than the minimum wage…”

There were protesters outside the Uptown Theater:

Protesters outside the Uptown Theater. Photo: Jerry Schmidt.

Just guessing, but they don’t appear to be in the top one tenth of one percent in income.

“…And what I really want is somebody who has worked for 20, 30 years being able to retire with some dignity and some respect.  [applause]  What I really want is a family that they have the capacity to save so that when their child is ready to go to college, they know they can help and that it’s affordable, and that that child is not going to be burdened down with debt.  That’s the measure of whether the economy is working; not just how well it’s doing overall, but is it doing well for ordinary folks who are working hard every single day and aren’t always getting a fair shot.  That’s what we’re fighting for.  That’s why I ran for President.  That’s what I’m focused on every day…”

Protesters outside the Uptown Theater. Photo: Jerry Schmidt.

Spelling and graphic design skills may need some upgrading.

“…Rather than investing in education, they actually voted to give another massive tax cut to the wealthiest Americans…”

For the republicans in Congress that’s a feature, not a bug.

“…And these actions, they come with a cost.  When you block policies that would help millions of Americans right now, not only are those families hurt, but the whole economy is hurt.  So that’s why this year, my administration, what we’ve said was we want to work with Congress, we want to work with Republicans and Democrats to get things going, but we can’t wait.  So if they’re not going to do anything, we’ll do what we can on our own.  And we’ve taken more than 40 actions aimed at helping hardworking families like yours. [applause]  That’s when we act — when your Congress won’t…”

Photo: Jerry Schmidt.

“…by the way, here’s something interesting:  The states that have increased their minimum wages this year, they’ve seen higher job growth than the states that didn’t increase their minimum wage.  [applause]  So remember, you give them a little bit more money, businesses have more customers.  They got more customers, they make more profit.  They make more profit, what do they do?  They hire more workers.  America deserves a raise, and it’s good for everybody…”

Photo: Jerry Schmidt.

“…I mean, everybody recognizes this is a political stunt, but it’s worse than that, because every vote they’re taking like that means a vote they’re not taking to actually help you.  When they have taken 50 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, that was time that could have been spent working constructively to help you on some things.  [applause]  And, by the way, you know who is paying for this suit they’re going to file?  You….”

Photo: Jerry Schmidt.

“…Don’t double down on top-down economics.  Let’s really fight to make sure that everybody gets a chance and, by the way, that everybody plays by the same rules.  [applause]  We could do so much more if we got that kind of economic patriotism that says we rise or fall as one nation and as one people…”

Photo: Jerry Schmidt.

“…I do not believe in a cynical America; I believe in an optimistic America that is making progress.  [applause]  And I believe despite unyielding opposition, there are workers right now who have jobs who didn’t have them before because of what we’ve done; and folks who got health care who didn’t have it because of the work that we’ve done; and students who are going to college who couldn’t afford it before; and troops who’ve come home after tour after tour of duty because of what we’ve done. [applause] …”

Spotted today on a vehicle in west central Missouri:

“Change Back” and “Spay & Neuter Liberals, Partnership for a Liberal Free America”.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the issue of the bumper sticker on the left determined by the 2012 presidential election? I’m curious, though, does anyone know anyone who wants us to go back to the bad old days of dubya from 2001 to 2009? Judging from the condition of the vehicle I suppose that the owner isn’t even close to being part of the 1%. That is a guess. I’m also guessing, based on the bumper sticker on the right, that this individual isn’t necessarily a fan of the Humane Society.

Yesterday, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C141362 07/30/2014 PROTECT THE HARVEST PAC – MISSOURI Protect the Harvest P.O. Box 1131 Davenport IA 52802 7/29/2014 $200,000.00

[emphasis added]

Iowa?

The PAC was established in June:

C141362: Protect The Harvest Pac – Missouri

Po Box 602 Committee Type: Political Action

Pacific Mo 63069

[….] Established Date: 06/05/2014

[emphasis added]

They cycled that through pretty quickly (from a required 24 hour campaign finance report):

MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION

EXPENDITURES AND CONTRIBUTIONS MADE

PROTECT THE HARVEST PAC – MISSOURI [pdf] 7/30/2014

Victory Enterprises 5200 SW 30th St. Davenport IA 52802 7/29/2014 Advertising $199,900.00

[emphasis added]

Heh. Apparently it’s a one stop shop.

Iowa, again.

Who are these people?:

BEST PUBLIC RELATIONS THAT MONEY CAN BUY:

A GUIDE TO FOOD INDUSTRY FRONT GROUPS [pdf]

CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY

May 2013

….IN RESPONSE TO HEIGHTENED CRITICISM over the past few years, the food industry has stepped up its public relations efforts to reassure the media, the public, and policymakers that our food system is healthy and safe. One increasingly common way industry attempts to shape the public discourse is by forming a group that appears to benefit the public. Often these groups claim to represent farmers or consumers or some other sympathetic constituency when in fact they are funded by powerful industry players. Some long-standing front groups have a broad agenda, such as pushing industry-friendly science. Others form just to lobby or conduct public relations on a specific policy for a limited time and then disappear….

[….]

PROTECT THE HARVEST http://www.protecttheharvest.com

MISSION? Its sole purpose to attack Humane Society of United States, as stated on its home page: “to fight back and defend American families, farmers, hunters and animal owners from the growing threat posed by the radical animal rights movement.” [….]

WHO’S FUNDING IT? Appears to be a project of the billionaire Forrest Lucas of Lucas Oil and Lucas Cattle Company. [….]

From the group’s web site:

….Protect the Harvest, an education and advocacy group founded by Forrest Lucas of Lucas Oil in 2010….

Ah.

But wait, there was even more money coming in on behalf of Amendment 1, as reported to the Missouri Ethics Commission yesterday:

C101457 07/30/2014 MISSOURI FARMERS CARE MFA Inc. 201 Ray Young Dr Columbia MO 65201 7/29/2014 $25,000.00

C101457 07/30/2014 MISSOURI FARMERS CARE Missouri Farm Bureau Federation PO Box 658 Jefferson City MO 65102 7/29/2014 $20,000.00

C101457 07/30/2014 MISSOURI FARMERS CARE Missouri Corn Growers Association 3118 Emerald Lane Jefferson City MO 65109 7/30/2014 $18,000.00

C101457 07/30/2014 MISSOURI FARMERS CARE Missouri Pork Association 6235 W Cunningham Dr Columbia MO 65202 7/29/2014 $100,000.00

C101457 07/30/2014 MISSOURI FARMERS CARE Grow Missouri 308 E High St Jefferson City MO 65101 7/29/2014 $15,000.00

[emphasis added]

What, Rex Sinquefield has an interest in this, too? Say it ain’t so…

Previously:

Campaign Finance: $110,000.00 for something they really care about (January 3, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Food fight! (May 28, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Because, across Missouri, family farms are being supplanted by… (June 24, 2014)

Campaign Finance: as if yard signs were actually a cash crop for actual farmers… (June 28, 2014)

Utilizing the First Amendment to challenge our oppressive corporate overlords… (July 2, 2014)

Joe Maxwell – “No” on Amendment No. 1 (July 8, 2014)

Campaign Finance: egg money (July 9, 2014)

Campaign Finance: opposing useless law (July 25, 2014)

Right to farm: read the small print and between the lines (July 25, 2014)

Pinch me, I must be dreaming – Cynthia Davis gets it right on Amendment 1 (July 30, 2014)

Early morning in the foothills of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Coronado National Forest, Southern Arizona.

On a recent trip to Southern Arizona I had a conversation about immigration with a long time friend of Hispanic descent. Toward the end of our conversation on the subject she related that recently, “People have told me, ‘Go back to Mexico’. I was born here. I was raised here. I went to school here. I’ve lived here my entire life…”

Welcome to post-racial America.

I took a look at the Turner Report today in order to find out what’s going on down in Joplin and thereabouts. Guess what I found. A copy of a press release from none other than the  über-conservative dreamgirl, Cynthia Davis, erstwhile GOP legislative pain in the you-know-what and more recently, Missouri Constitution Party doyenne, on the reasons she opposes – yes, you read it right, opposes – the right to farm Amendment 1. Her reason:

Normally, the conservative position is to side with less regulation. However, there is a real threat that the Chinese could buy up our farmland. In that scenario, having fewer regulations could allow us to end up with massive problems like squallier [sic], filth and stench.

Figures that the argument that got to her had to with thwarting those dammed foreigners, but she still gets the main issue right. Corporate farms stand to benefit, not necessarily small farms (she does express a bit of worry about protecting the already amply protected Missouri family farmer). Is this what the Missouri political world would look like if we could cure rightwing delusions and GOP politicians carefully weighed issues based on real, verifiable facts, not hot air, conspiracy theories, and/or which campaign donor stands to benefit the most?

Davis should get some credit for this – the Turner Report post directly below her statement on the issue was that of Missouri House Speaker and money-man Tim Jones, who, predictably asserts that Amendment 1 has been “designed to protect the family farming traditions that are such an important part of our state’s history, and such a vital component of our state’s economy.” Of course, Davis isn’t in elective office anymore – actually, she isn’t even a Republican any more – so she doesn’t have to line up with the GOPers in Jefferson City who have their hands out waiting for Big Ag benefactors to drop some of that green manna from heaven into their grubby paws.

Addenda: Okay. Perhaps I’m giving her too much credit. She doesn’t seem to realize that homegrown, American agricultural corporations are just as likely to create “massive problems like squallier [sic], filth and stench” as the Chinese variety.  

Barack Obama speaks at the Uptown in Kansas City.  Video by Jerry Schmidt.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) illustrates the current relevance of the House of Representatives, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

HASC committee just passed a resolution I supported condemning the president for releasing the 5 Taliban leaders w/o consulting Congress. 2:54 PM – 29 Jul 2014

A reply from a constituent:

Bob Yates ‏@OldDrum

@RepHartzler Why isn’t this an impeachable offense? Wait … wasn’t an American soldier held as a POW released? Was that condemned too? 10:53 PM – 29 Jul 2014

Good questions.  

In 2012 GOP Rep. David Hinson ran unopposed for his 119th district seat in the Missouri House. just as he did in the general election for his first term in 2010. He’s since shown himself to be one of those Republicans who’s got the 21st century GOP looney tunes down chapter and verse. Name almost any one of the divisive, radical, right-wing issues that have come up in the Missouri House, tax cuts for rich folks, lame-brained, faux-constitutional gun legislation, stopping the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, or any of the reams of anti-women, anti-choice legislation to hit the lege, Hinson’s likely been a sure vote for it. This summer he’s been keeping busy stumping for Amendment 7, the regressive sales tax that he and his colleagues are pushing to pay for transportation infrastructure – after they deigned and delivered a hefty income tax-cut for businesses and wealthy Missourians. Send enough like Hinson to Jefferson City and Missouri will soon be in the same sad shape as Kansas.

Poor 119th you may be saying, and, by extension, poor Missouri. However, unlike in the past, folks in the 119th will have a real choice this year. An active cadre of local Democrats got together to try to identify and draft good, progressive candidates and managed to persuade one of their number, local activist Susan Cunningham, along with some other great progressives, to step up.

At this point I need to let you know that Cunningham, who is running for Hinson’s state rep seat, has in the past posted on the front page here at SMP – remember Sarah Jo? If you are worried about bias, though, let me remind you that we at SMP make no secret about our preference for progressive politicians and so it shouldn’t be a surprise that I support Cunningham’s candidacy and am eager to share what I have learned about it during a recent phone conversation with her.

When asked why she’s running, Cunningham honed in on the damage being done by the brand of politics espoused by her opponent – although she was far more polite and considered than such a statement implies. She cited changes in the Republican Party to explain her personal journey from the politics of the old-time, pragmatic “business” Republicans she once embraced to her current home in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. She described her growing awareness of the economic and social wreckage that has resulted as the Republican party she once knew morphed into the radical entity that has been slowly evolving since the time of Ronald Reagan, a process which she characterized as “culminating in a dangerous flirtation with anarchy.”

According to Cunningham, the most important issue facing Missouri as well as the nation in general is that of growing economic inequality, an inequality that is fed by proponents of free-market rhetoric employed as a tool of corporate interests. However, she does not approach greater inequality and the corresponding decline of the middle class as an intellectual abstraction. She is disturbed by the deterioration she sees in the quality of life for real people in Missouri. It is the failure of rigid conservative ideology to deal with the actual problems that face the people of her district that motivates her candidacy. She points out that in her relatively poor, semi-rural district, 13-15% of the population lacks health insurance. Nevertheless, David Hinson has gone along with the relentless GOP efforts to derail the law in Missouri while offering no alternatives to help the uninsured. She also points to the outsize influence of ALEC in Missouri GOP politics as one of the obstacles to resolving the problems of growing inequality (see some of her past writing on ALEC here, here and here).

Cunningham points out that while the free-market theology espoused by so many current Missouri Republicans frequently serves corporate interests, it has actually had a negative effect on overall economic growth and prosperity. She returned to the example offered by the ideologically motivated opposition of almost all Missouri Republican lawmakers to the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, which, she points out, would utilize federal funds to create jobs as an offshoot of offering healthcare to uninsured Missourians, jobs that the state will forfeit if the legislature persists in its obstinacy.

What Cunningham proposes to take the place of government by “corporate water carriers” is one which relies on “citizens having a fair shot at the kind of success that builds a strong economic foundation.” This, she claims, is what patriotism should be all about. She offers as an example that it is not patriotic to evade taxes. She cites the failure of tax-cuts to create prosperity in states such as Kansas and the need for revenue to restore Missouri’s diminishing quality of life. Real patriotism, she says, is exemplified by all citizens paying their fair share, to which end she proclaims that she is a “proud, patriotic, American taxpayer.”

Cunningham understands that the Missouri legislature is likely to remain in GOP hands. Consequently, should she take the 119th seat from Hinson, she would see one of her main tasks to be shedding a little light on what our government is actually doing. She noted that she would not be shy about calling press conferences when necessary. She believes that her background as an educator will permit her to effectively explain the consequences of bad policy and make it clear “why 99% of voters do their own families a disservice when they choose Republican candidates.”  

Even if Cunningham does not win in November, she believes her campaign will have justified itself by helping educate the citizens of her district about issues that have up to now been presented to them mostly from a one-sided, right-wing perspective. But she is, nevertheless, optimistic about her chances in what many view as a heavily red district. She points out that the Democratic performance index, or D.P.I., defined as the “percentage of the vote an average Dem can expect in an average election based on voting history,” is 43-47% for the 119th district. What these numbers imply is that the election could come down to issues of party turn-out, which means that Cunningham has lots of work to do.

Fortunately, Cunningham won’t have to do it alone. She reports that in a departure from elections in the recent past, the state Democratic party apparatus has offered guidance and continues to assist her – guess I wasn’t too wrong when I speculated earlier that Roy Temple might make a difference when it comes to rebuilding the Missouri Democratic party. But that’s not all. Cunningham’s also garnered a respectable set of significant endorsements:

–American Federation of Teachers

–Franklin County Democratic Club

–Franklin County Labor Club

–Molli’s List

–National Women’s Political Caucus

–Planned Parenthood

–Sierra Club

If you want to learn more about Susan Cunningham, take a look at her campaign homepage where you can find links to campaign information, her blog and campaign newsletters. Here is the link to her campaign Facebook page; it’ll give you a good idea about what Cunningham’s all about. If you’re so inclined after reading this post, you can go directly to her ActBlue page and leave a donation to make sure that everyone in the 119th district learns that they really have a chance to chose something other than the radical Republican candidate come November.  

At the White House petition site:

We petition the Obama Administration to:

Tax Churches

Churches are currently exempt from taxes since they’re listed as non-profit organizations, in spite of separation of church and state.

However, most if not all churches influence the way American citizens vote. Also, a megachurch profits(on average) about $6.5 million per year. An estimated $71 billion per year is lost in US tax revenue because of religious tax exemption. If taxed, the national debt would be paid off.

Church institutions are politically affiliated, as well as businesses. They should not be tax exempt.

Created: Jul 23, 2014

Issues: Budget and Taxes

Signatures needed by August 22, 2014 to reach goal of 100,000 94,727

Total signatures on this petition 5,273

[emphasis added]

Among the forest of petitions started on the site this one is actually generating more interest than most.