Upcoming Vote in Senate on GI Bill

The new GI Bill passed the House yesterday, YEA! They were just a few votes short of a veto-proof vote…BOO! What's somewhat strange about the whole thing is that MANY Republicans chose to vote "present" which denied the passage of the war funds spending. Hmmm... I had been personally hoping that the Democrats would do that purposefully for many years, as a way of letting the president know that this occupation should end immediately! However, I suspect that it was a measure that would begin bringing troops home 30 days after the passage of the bill that the Republicans were actually protesting.

There was some more good news this week too though: McLame's alternative to the GI Bill, FAILED. It was a total sham anyway, he and Graham had stuck their lame proposal for vet education onto a completely unrelated bill for giving public safety workers the right to unionize. Yep, that's "straight talk" in action for you. This rejection by the Senate is a far better suited scenario for the use of the phrase "cock-block" if you ask me!

So now that the House passed it, it goes onto the Senate nonetheless, and now is the time to contact your Senators about their upcoming vote scheduled for NEXT WEEK. At the moment, the Senate is a mere 3 votes short of it being veto-proof, so lets do all we can to ensure that Bush will not deny our returning troops what they need and deserve any longer!

Because I found it rather difficult to find a list of the Senators that have yet to put their name on this most important bill (sponsor lists can be found everywhere!), I thought it would be helpful to make one. And I have marked the ones that I think are extra important, those that are probably more likely to hear you right now because they are looking for your vote this November.
***Up for reelection this year!!!

Of course I've listed everybody along with their contact info, and here’s a tip: They all receive thousands of emails almost daily, so a call is better, and a letter by snail mail actually holds the most weight. It’s true, most congressional offices consider handwritten letters to be the best gage because of the trouble it takes to send them, compared to emailing. They literally count them as more than one response because of it too.

GET CREATIVE!!!! I just found an opportunity to tell one of the Senators that have yet to support this bill what you think: Senator Enzi posted a blog on The Hill about his support for making higher education more affordable, and here was my response:

Senator Enzi, you seem to have a comprehensive understanding of the challenges Americans face when seeking a higher education. YET, you apparently don't think that this sort of aid should be provided for our returning vets? True that our economy could benefit from making education more affordable, but how about the Americans that truly deserve this help, and may need this sort of help the most? Why won't you support the new GI Bill?

NOT SUPPORTING the GI Bill:

1. ***Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN) (202) 224-4944
455 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

2. (retiring) Allard, Wayne- (R - CO) (202) 224-5941
521 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

3. *** Barrasso, John- (R - WY) (202) 224-6441
307 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

4. Bennett, Robert F.- (R - UT) (202) 224-5444
431 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

5. Brownback, Sam- (R - KS) (202) 224-6521
303 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

6. Bunning, Jim- (R - KY) (202) 224-4343
316 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

7. Burr, Richard- (R - NC) (202) 224-3154
217 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

8. Carper, Thomas R.- (D - DE) (202) 224-2441
513 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

9. *** Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA) (202) 224-3521
416 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

10. Coburn, Tom- (R - OK) (202) 224-5754
172 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

11. *** Cochran, Thad- (R - MS) (202) 224-5054
113 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

12. Conrad, Kent- (D - ND) (202) 224-2043
530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

13. Corker, Bob- (R - TN) (202) 224-3344
185 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

14. *** Cornyn, John- (R - TX) (202) 224-2934
517 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

15. (retiring) Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID) (202) 224-2752
520 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

16. Crapo, Mike- (R - ID) (202) 224-6142
239 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

17. *** Dole, Elizabeth- (R - NC) (202) 224-6342
555 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

18. DeMint, Jim- (R - SC) (202) 224-6121
340 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

19. Ensign, John- (R - NV) (202) 224-6244
119 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

20. *** Enzi, Michael B.- (R - WY) (202) 224-3424
379A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

21. Feingold, Russell D.- (D - WI) (202) 224-5323
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form
It's odd for Feingold not to support this bill, but I did see it noted on DailyKos that his office had replied that his issue with the bill is that it had not been “pay-as-you-go” resolved.

22. *** Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC) (202) 224-5972
290 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

23. Grassley, Chuck- (R - IA) (202) 224-3744
135 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

24. Gregg, Judd- (R - NH) (202) 224-3324
393 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

25. Hatch, Orrin G.- (R - UT) (202) 224-5251
104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

26. Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R - TX) (202) 224-5922
284 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

27. *** Sen Inhofe, James M. (R-OK) (202) 224-4721
453 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form
2/29/2008 sponsored – BUT his support was withdrawn on 4/29/2008

28. Isakson, Johnny- (R - GA) (202) 224-3643
120 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

29. Kyl, Jon- (R - AZ) (202) 224-4521
730 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

30. Martinez, Mel- (R - FL) (202) 224-3041
356 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

31. McCain, John- (R - AZ) (202) 224-2235 – OR- (703) 418-2008
241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Campaign Contact form
Tell him that his continued disregard for the needs of our returning troops makes him completely unfit for the presidency!!! And here is his Contact page for the Senate

32. *** McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY) (202) 224-2541
361-A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

33. Nelson, E. Benjamin- (D - NE) (202) 224-6551
720 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

34. ***Roberts, Pat- (R - KS) (202) 224-4774
109 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

35. ***Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL) (202) 224-4124
335 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

36. Shelby, Richard C.- (R - AL) (202) 224-5744
110 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
E-mail: senator@shelby.senate.gov

37. ***Stevens, Ted- (R - AK) (202) 224-3004
522 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

38. ***Sununu, John E.- (R - NH) (202) 224-2841
111 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

39. Thune, John- (R - SD) (202) 224-2321
493 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

40. Vitter, David- (R - LA) (202) 224-4623
516 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

41. Voinovich, George V.- (R - OH) (202) 224-3353
524 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

42. *** Wicker, Roger F.- (R - MS) (202) 224-6253
487 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
Web Form

43. STAY TUNNED...one of these buggers managed to escape this list...

A little more emphasis…
Do you know anybody that lives in these states listed below?

These are the states to focus on, because the Senators in these 13 states have yet to sign on and are running for reelection this year - giving constituents extra leverage! The states listed below are ALL Republican incumbents too – surprise, surprise, right? They are extra scared this election cycle because there are 18 of their seats up for grabs in the Senate, and it’s no secret that things aren’t looking good for them. This list shows that there are 15 of the 18 Republicans running this year that have not signed on to sponsor this GI Bill too. Go get ‘em!!!

These key states are:

Alaska – Ted Stevens
Alabama – Jeff Sessions
Georgia – Saxby Chambliss
Kansas – Pat Roberts
Kentucky – Mitch McConnell
Mississippi – Thad Cochran AND Roger Wiker
New Hampshire – John Sununu
Oklahoma – Jim Inhofe
South Carolina – Lindsey Graham
North Carolina – Elizabeth Dole
Tennessee – Lamar Alexandar
Texas – John Cornyn
Wyoming – Michael Enzi AND John Barrasso

With the vote in the Senate scheduled for next week, clearly any energy you exert on this issue should be focused on those that have yet to commit. We really need this to be veto proof!!! However, it is always a good idea to thank your representatives too, and letting them know that you think they did the right thing by you in representing you will probably go a lot further than you’d imagine! And again, I think that paying extra attention to those that are running for reelection is a great way to go. Let these people know that their support of this very important bill is what keeps them in your favor when walking into the voting booth to reelect them this fall! A little thanks really does go a long ways in this case.
* All running for reelection.

With 43 Democrats, 12 Republicans and both Independents sponsoring this bill, it’s pretty safe to say that it has bipartisan support. What’s interesting about the Republicans (to me anyway) is that two of them are retiring this year; so what’s in it for them, except to do the right thing?

I have posted this list as it is on the Senate’s website, with the date they climbed onboard. I thought it would be interesting to leave that on the list because I think it shows who was sincerely in support – as opposed to perhaps just recently joining in because they’re “feeling the heat.” This bill was after all, introduced over a year ago!

IN SUPPORT (57 sponsors):

1. Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [D-HI] - 4/10/2008
2. * Sen Baucus, Max [D-MT] - 6/12/2007
3. Sen Bayh, Evan [D-IN] - 12/4/2007
4. * Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [D-DE] - 12/3/2007
5. Sen Bingaman, Jeff [D-NM] - 2/26/2007
6. Sen Bond, Christopher S. [R-MO] - 4/7/2008
7. Sen Boxer, Barbara [D-CA] - 2/26/2007
8. Sen Brown, Sherrod [D-OH] - 5/9/2007
9. Sen Byrd, Robert C. [D-WV] - 3/10/2008
10. Sen Cantwell, Maria [D-WA] - 4/17/2008
11. Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD] - 3/6/2008
12. Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA] - 5/10/2007
13. Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [D-NY] - 5/14/2007
14. * Sen Coleman, Norm [R-MN] - 3/11/2008
15. * Sen Collins, Susan M. [R-ME] - 9/24/2007
16. Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [D-CT] - 3/11/2008
17. Sen Domenici, Pete V. (retiring) [R-NM] - 2/29/2008
18. Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [D-ND] - 12/3/2007
19. * Sen Durbin, Richard [D-IL] - 3/13/2007
20. Sen Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] - 11/15/2007
21. Sen Hagel, Chuck (retiring) [R-NE] - 10/24/2007
22. * Sen Harkin, Tom [D-IA] - 6/12/2007
23. Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [D-HI] - 9/11/2007
24. * Sen Johnson, Tim [D-SD] - 12/18/2007
25. Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [D-MA] - 2/28/2008
26. * Sen Kerry, John F. [D-MA] - 3/1/2007
27. Sen Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN] - 3/6/2008
28. Sen Kohl, Herb [D-WI] - 3/13/2008
29. * Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [D-LA] - 5/23/2007
30. * Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [D-NJ] - 6/13/2007
31. Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] - 3/3/2008
32. * Sen Levin, Carl [D-MI] - 4/17/2008
33. Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [ID-CT] - 4/3/2008
34. Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. [D-AR] - 1/29/2008
35. Sen Lugar, Richard G. [R-IN] - 2/28/2008
36. Sen McCaskill, Claire [D-MO] - 2/26/2007
37. Sen Menendez, Robert [D-NJ] - 6/27/2007
38. Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [D-MD] - 2/16/2007
39. Sen Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK] - 4/14/2008
40. Sen Murray, Patty [D-WA] - 3/5/2008
41. Sen Nelson, Bill [D-FL] - 3/5/2008
42. Sen Obama, Barack [D-IL] - 11/14/2007
43. * Sen Pryor, Mark L. [D-AR] - 1/22/2008
44. * Sen Reed, Jack [D-RI] - 4/28/2008
45. Sen Reid, Harry [D-NV] - 10/22/2007
46. * Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [R-WV] - 2/25/2008
47. Sen Salazar, Ken [D-CO] - 2/28/2008
48. Sen Sanders, Bernard [I-VT] - 2/16/2007
49. Sen Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] - 2/28/2008
50. * Sen Smith, Gordon H. [R-OR] - 3/5/2008
51. Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [R-ME] - 9/12/2007
52. Sen Specter, Arlen [R-PA] - 5/12/2008
53. Sen Stabenow, Debbie [D-MI] - 4/16/2007
54. Sen Tester, Jon [D-MT] - 3/22/2007
55. Sen Warner, John [R-VA] - 2/29/2008
56. Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI] - 6/27/2007
57. Sen Wyden, Ron [D-OR] - 3/19/2007

Tell the Senate you want them to Support the Fair Elections Now Act TODAY

The Fair Elections Now Act is making progress in Congress in a Senate hearing scheduled for - TODAY - Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. EST – the first congressional hearing in more than a decade on publicly funded elections.

Ordinary voters are being drowned out by corporate and wealthy special interests that co-opt our elected officials and raid the treasury for earmarks and tax breaks. The result is policy for Big Pharma, Big Oil and Wall Street. We can change all that.

The Fair Elections Now Act would:

* Break the nexus between big money and our elected officials that drains taxpayer money from the Treasury.
* Level the playing field - allowing good candidates of modest means to run to serve in the Senate.
* Make it possible for candidates to run and win on the quality of their ideas, instead of the size of their campaign war chests.
* Free candidates from the money chase so that they can focus on talking with and working for voters, not dialing for dollars or cocktails with lobbyists.

It is important that your senators hear from you. If one of your senators sits on the Senate Rules Committee, be sure to send a strong message of support now:

Dianne Feinstein (Chair)------------------- California
Robert Byrd---------------------------------- West Virginia
Daniel Inouye-------------------------------– Hawaii
Christopher J. Dodd ---------------------– Connecticut
Charles Schumer--------------------------- New York
Richard Durbin (Co-sponsor)--------------– Illinois
Ben Nelson-----------------------------------– Nebraska
Harry Reid-------------------------------------– Nevada
Patty Murray-------------------------------– Washington
Mark Pryor-----------------------------------– Arkansas
Robert Bennett (Ranking Minority) -------– Utah
Ted Stevens------------------------------------- Alaska
Mitch McConnell -------------------------------– Kentucky
Thad Cochran -------------------------------– Mississippi
Trent Lott ------------------------------------– Mississippi
Saxby Chambliss ---------------------------– Georgia
Kay Bailey Hutchison -------------------------– Texas
Chuck Hagel -------------------------------– Nebraska
Lamar Alexander ----------------------------- Tennessee

Please take a minute to contact your senators using the form below.
CleanUpWashington.org
You could call them too.
Tell them you think public funding of elections is a bargain for American taxpayers. Tell them you’d rather have a few of your tax dollars support clean and fair elections than continuing to pay almost $500 a year to wealthy special interests in earmarks and tax breaks.

If you have not done so yet, become a citizen co-sponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act, and be sure to tell your friends about this landmark opportunity to transform our elections and return our government to the people.

You can also watch the hearing on the Fair Elections Now Act live on Wednesday, June 20 at 10:00 a.m. - Link at CleanUpWashington.org, where you can also learn more about how Fair Elections works.

Last Week's Edition, Published Here

Due to a publishing glitch, last week's article wasn't posted, so I'm posting it here. The current edition will be published on Monday as usual, and the subject of it is FEAR. But take heart...because, in part...

The Jig is UP!
June 2, 2007

There have been some truly incredible developments in the US Attorney purge scandal, and if you haven’t been keeping up you can read all about it in my last two most recent articles:
Gonzo-Wolf Gate; A Neocon Nightmare
There is also more information in last weeks article:
Patriots and Pragmatists

Again I ask; what was the purpose of the scandal? Voter disenfranchisement - that’s it, plain and simple. Remember all the missing emails that the Judiciary Committee had sequestered? Of what was received, much of it was redacted, and much was suspected of missing because one of the emails coming from Rove appeared to have come from an external server (external to the White House, and from the RNC server to be exact). Anyway, the RNC claimed that they were "mistakenly" erased. Then they admitted that in order to be in keeping with the Presidential Records Act, they disabled the ability to erase emails. Rove however, had found a way around that, and he had to be given a talking to about it. Hmmm...what kind of nefarious things do you suppose he was up to? Well, you don't have to guess, because now we KNOW.

Like I'd mentioned it was all about voter disenfranchisement, and more specifically, the "caging lists" that were used to do so. Palast has an article all about caging, so I will save my breath explaining it. This isn't what's NEW though, he has been on this case for several years now...

What's new is that there has finally been some notice taken of the situation by the House Judiciary Committee! Chairman Conyers met with Palast on Thursday night and he turned over all the emails that he had intercepted straight over to Conyers. Most humorous was that these caging lists were accidentally sent to a friends of Palast's that host a site called "GeorgeWBush.org" (the official is .com), so they sent out their evil plan to deny tens of thousands of Democratic voters their right to vote.

Best of all, there was an immediate reaction to that meeting that points to certain guilt. One of the US Attorneys (Tim Griffin) was put in office to replace one of those that wouldn't comply with the evil plan, and had been fingered in Goodling's testimony last week. Griffin resigned the very next day after Palast met with Conyers. Better than that, Griffin was one of Rove's protégés and I expect we will soon hear him squealing like a little piggy before we know it!!! Let's just hope that this new and incredibly consistent Republican-policy of resigning before being successfully prosecuted before the public, doesn't deny us a proper investigation into why we really need to repeal the provision in the latest version of the Patriot Act that allowed Griffin to be seated without congressional approval in the first place. I’m also quite excited about the prospects of resolving these fraudulent election practices with plenty of time to spare (if they move on it NOW) before the 2008 elections!

There was also some nefarious behavior (or MORE I should say) on behalf of Cheney last week too. Apparently Cheney is anticipating the need to cover his ass, as he asked for his records to be destroyed. But just in case that doesn’t do the trick, he also has his lawyer arguing that revealing Plame's identity is included in his immunity as an official. Really? Do officials get immunity from treason too? Anybody want to place bets on a date for Cheney’s resignation?

There was another interesting resignation turned in on Friday as well, that of Bush’s longest serving personal aides. Dan Bartlett has been with Bush since his gubernatorial race in Texas, and had even worked for Rove before that. Bartlett merely announced his departure, but isn’t planning to leave until next month. There was no reason really given as to why he has decided to leave. He’s only 36; yet he vows not to write any books, take another government job, nor even back a candidate for the 2008 election.

Speaking of presidential candidates, there was an interesting development last week as well. Without really examining why there was a need to do it, Edwards retracted his statement that he had read the NIE before voting to authorize the war. Then Clinton Hillary did exactly the same thing. I’m assuming it’s because now that the public has now been able to take a look at those NIEs that were released the week before, that it doesn’t look right to Americans. If you actually read them it’s hard to believe that anybody in their right mind would vote in favor of that! Just as the NIEs were released at the end of the day on the Friday leading into the Memorial Day weekend, so were these statements made. Why did they wait a week? So as not to attract attention to the connection between the reports and their decision? To bury this correction in yet another weekend report, when most Americans aren’t paying attention? Yes, and yes. They were both on the Intelligence Committee, so they both had access to those reports – which means the rhetoric about how “If I knew then what I know now…”-crap doesn’t hold water. What I really think this retraction or “correction” was about actually goes much further than the media would lead you to believe. You see, there is one Democratic presidential candidate that has dealt with exactly the same scenario but had gone an entirely different direction…

Senator Mike Gravel is famous for reading the Pentagon papers in 1971' aloud on the floor of Congress, so they would be entered into the record and revealed to the public. That led Nixon to take Gravel all the way to the Supreme Court; but Gravel won his case, and therefore, the right to have done so. So what excuse does Hillary and Edwards have since Gravel had set precedent 30 years prior, for not telling the public that they knew the administration was lying to America? NONE. Senator Gravel is right, any presidential candidate that had voted for the war isn’t fit to be president – but especially those that had access to this kind of information beforehand!

What kind of reaction can we expect from Bush in such trying times? Well, if his last press conference in the Rose Garden is any indication, then I say we shouldn’t expect the fear-mongering to stop. We could also expect him to continue to lie to Americans since he went on to say that we were in Iraq “at the invitation of their government officials”; who incidentally, have already voted that we should set timetables to LEAVE, and as soon as possible! Bush added that if Iraqis had requested we leave, we would – but that’s a blatant lie. I’d say that continued crony loyalist practices are a given (even if his pals are proving to be the criminals many of us have suspected them to be), considering he is still determined to express his “total confidence” in Gonzales. Although, what I see coming down the pike as his buddies are resigning left and right is a total breakdown and there has been evidence of it happening. Two times within the last month, Bush has lashed out in idiocy at two different people that were questioning his handling of the occupation of Iraq. The most recent was a fabulous display that could only be compared to a spoiled brat that isn’t getting his way. While meeting with friends in Texas, a wild-eyed Bush thumped his chest and repeated over and over, “I am the president!” So now the Texans (and everybody) that took offense to the Dixie Chics saying they were ashamed of Bush being from Texas (their home state) should own up to feeling the same way about him being president, or get on the megaphone to try and defend that! Don’t attempt to tell me that’s something we shouldn’t be ashamed of.

Lastly, a word about Cindy Sheehan quitting the peace movement: Honestly, I don’t think she will ever completely stop, it just isn’t in here nature. I think she meant exactly what she said, that she realized that once she held the Democrats up to the same standards as the Republicans in regards to Iraq, she received the same sort of slander from the left. As a growing percentage of Americans are, she is disenchanted with the system – and frankly worn out. I know that thousands of her supporters are sad about http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/05/sheehan_steps_o.html”>her announcement, but truth be told, she has done more than her fair share. I had the excellent fortune as to have crossed paths with her several times, and I can honestly say that her heart is squarely in the right place. The first thought I ever had about her upon discovering what she was doing was that no matter what comes of it, she has set an excellent example for us all. She had proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that one person CAN make a difference. For that reason alone, I have to disagree with Cindy on one thing; her son did not die for nothing because she empowered thousands of Americans to stand up against the war and occupation of Iraq. It’s a painful price to pay in order to mobilize the nation, but I have to say that I can’t thank her enough for everything that she and her son had done for us all. She is exactly right to say that it’s up to us now…but then, it always has been. The war is over, and the jig is up – if you want it to be.

How Much Further Can They Stretch it?

OK, the tuberculosis-guy story is REALLY getting old! The very first night this "story" broke (just after I posted last time), I had seen on the news that he wasn't even contagious. Since then I have heard it ALL: What kind of selfish... His new father in-law is one of the US' top tuberculosis experts... They're not actually married... WHO CARES? Obviously far too many people care to even be believed, and I think this is also exhibiting the public's increasing lemming-nature to consume whatever our media sources deem to be "news."

Meanwhile, the real news escapes the the attention of the vast majority of the public again. Which is why I ask; how long do they really expect to stretch this story to cover-up the real news? Well, as we know, there is always more FLUFF where that came from!!! Don't try to tell me that the media doesn't bury the things that are of real importance either - just look at how they released two NIEs from January 2003 that read like pure premonition as far as what would happen upon and prior to invading Iraq, released on the Friday that started off the Memorial Day weekend. What? Didn't hear about that because you were busy driving out of town or preparing for your BBQ? Hmmm...what a shocker!

The REAL News:
There have been some truly incredible developments in the US Attorney purge scandal, and if you don't know what I'm talking about you can see one of my recent articles:
Gonzo-Wolf Gate; A Neocon Nightmare
There is also more information in last weeks article:
Patriots and Pragmatists

I plan to continue with this topic in my next edition (posted this Monday), even though it's not normal practice to cover the same topic week after week. There is just too much going on to do that, but in this case there has been some thing so BIG happening that I just can't wait to write about Gonzo-Gate again! You see, there's one thing about the purge scandal that is actually the very purpose of the entire operation - yet has gone almost completely unnoticed by the public...until NOW. What was the purpose of the scandal? Voter disenfranchisement, plain and simple. Something that was talked about amongst those that have been ever diligent (noticing that many of the problems surrounded the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department, and that almost ALL of the attorneys replaced were in states considered tight election races), or perhaps they were aware just because fans of the investigative journalist, Greg Palast.

As of Friday it was known far and wide within these circles that something really meaningful has finally hnappened, and that there may be some justice had in this fiasco after all. Remember all the missing emails that the Judiciary Committee had sequestered? Of what was received, much of it was redacted, and much was suspected of missing because one of the emails coming from Rove appeared to have come from an external server (external to the White House - the RNC server to be exact). Anyway, the RNC claimed that they were "mistakenly" erased. Then they admitted that in order to be in keeping with the Presidential Records Act, they disabled the ability to erase emails - but Rove had found a way around that, and he had to be given a talking to abou it. Hmmm...what kind of nafarious things do you suppose he was up to? Well, you don't have to guess, because now we KNOW.

Like I'd mentioned it was all about voter disenfranchisement, and more specifically, the "caging lists" that were used to do so. Palast has an article all about caging, so I will save my breath explaining it. This isn't what's NEW though, he has been on this case for several years now...

What's new is that there has finally been some notice taken of the cituation by the House Judiciary Committee! Chairman Conyers met with Palast on Thursday night and he turned over all the emails that he had intercepted straight over to Conyers. Most humorous about the story is that these caging lists were accidentally sent to a friends of Palast's that hosts a site called "GeorgeWBush.org" - the orginal is .com - so they sent out their evil plan to disallow tens of thousands of Democratic voters to the wrong person.

The best news of all is that there has been a sign of knowing guilt that should say it all. One of the US Attorneys (Tim Griffin) that were put in office to replace those that wouldn't comply with the evil plan, and had been fingered in Goodling's testimony last week, and he resigned the day after Palast met with Conyers. Better than that, Griffin was one of Rove's protoges and I expect we will soon hear him sqealing like a little piggy before we know it!!! Let's just hope that this new and incredibly consistent policy of resigning before being successfully prosecuted doesn't deny us a proper investigation into why we really need to repeal the provision in the Patriot Act that allowed Griffin to be seated without congressional approval.

I don't think the tuberculosis scare is going to be cover enough for what is about to happen. Any calls on what the next fluff-spotlight will be?