Dan Riehl takes Repub tradition of dumping sick wives to the "death panel" level

by: Celtic Diva

Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 10:59:52 AM AKST

Remember the quivering pile of slime who went completely mental in his false-attacks and claims regarding our own Gryphen? Riehl is perhaps a perfect example of the insanity that accompanies denying one's true nature, as his closet lust-affair/obsession with Gryph's "muscled" body was obvious to everyone but Dan.  

Anyway, Riehl is at it again...this time, he wants to lead his own "death panel" on the elderly and Harry Reid's 69-year-old wife will be the first to get the thumbs-down:

Isn't It Time To Euthanize Reid's Wife?


I'm not sure I quite understand this, given that cost is so important as a burden to taxpayers when it comes to health care. If Democrats want so badly to abort babies because of it, why are we bothering with someone who has a broken neck and back at 69? It sounds to me like she's pretty well used up and has probably been living off the taxpayers for plenty of years to begin with. Aren't we at least going to get a vote on it?

Sen. Reid's daughter Lana Reid Barringer, 48, who was driving the mini-van, and his wife, Landra G. Reid, 69, a passenger, were both injured. Landra suffered a broken back and a broken neck in the crash; Barringer suffered minor injuries, Sen. Reid's office said Thursday.

I realize her crook of a husband and his pals in Congress have excluded themselves from the mess they're going to compel everyone else to join, but we're still paying the bills, are we not? I don't see that she's worth it at this point, frankly. I can't recall her ever doing anything for me.

Come on, Harry - do your civic duty. The nation's broke and counting on you guy. Pull the plug and get back to work. And don't bill us for a full day today, either. This is no time to be sloughing off. Air freight her home, you can bury her during recess on your own time and dime. Or are you going to bill us for that, too?

Reid has stayed at his wife's bedside throughout the day Friday and returned to the Capitol in the late afternoon.

It's understandable that someone as lonely as Dan would want to spread unhappiness and death, especially among loving Democratic couples.  Perhaps he sees a better health care solution from bastions of "Conservative Family Values" like Newt Gingrich, who simply dumps wives while they are undergoing treatment for cancer; or Senator John McCain who came home from Vietnam to discover his beautiful wife had been disfigured by a horrible traffic accident:

When McCain - his hair turned prematurely white and his body reduced to little more than a skeleton - was released in March 1973, he told reporters he was overjoyed to see Carol again.

But friends say privately he was 'appalled' by the change in her appearance. At first, though, he was kind, assuring her: 'I don't look so good myself. It's fine.'...

In 1979 - while still married to Carol - he met Cindy at a cocktail party in Hawaii. Over the next six months he pursued her, flying around the country to see her. Then he began to push to end his marriage.

Carol and her children were devastated. 'It was a complete surprise,' says Nancy Reynolds, a former Reagan aide....

Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans' rights, said: 'I have been following John McCain's career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is - deceit.

'When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it.

'Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.

Now Dan's post make sense...Conservative men have been practicing their own version of "purging the health care rolls" for years...on their own wives!  They simply kick-off the sick, infirmed or imperfect.  Dan's suggestion just takes it to the next level, giving the term "kicking-off" a more permanent meaning.    

Don't you just love those "family values" at work?

Political Carnival also blogs about it HERE.

My shaving at St. Baldrick's Day

by: Celtic Diva

Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 13:14:26 PM AKST

I don't know what I expected when I walked into the McGinley's Pub for the St. Baldrick's Day event.  I didn't expect such a warm reception from the Foundation volunteers who were working tirelessly on the silent auction, signing in "shavees" like me, signing up new volunteer shavees from the crowd (folks would then donate for the volunteer to get shaved) and pairing volunteer barbers with the shavees.  (I had a wonderful woman who was a cancer survivor.)

The nice volunteers braided my hair and then asked Morrigan if she wanted to cut the braids off for "Locks of Love."  Hair can be donated that is cut by anyone if it is at least 10 inches long and if they follow the guidelines HERE on their website.

I also didn't expect to get emotional.

I saw kids being kids...running around with wonderfully painted faces, hair bald or thinning from cancer treatment.  I had daughters, sons, parents, siblings of cancer patients who survived and who didn't make it give me a hug and whisper words of support in choked voices.  I had a beautiful man lean over to me, put an artificial voicebox up to his throat and tell me "You don't know who I am, but I know who you are.  You have no idea how much it means to me for you to be here."  

I was speechless and I was afraid I would burst into tears the minute I sat down in the chair.  

I saw the young man before me...Gene Pool, the top fundraiser...getting his head shaved and a thin bald woman with a hat telling him how much she loved him.  I saw the tears in his eyes and his big smile fighting them back.  I did the same thing when I got up there.  I didn't want ANYONE to think the tears were because I was sad at losing my hair...it's just hair.  The tears wanted to come thinking about the people I care about suffering with cancer.  My buddy, Vietnam Veteran Mo Bailey, fighting Leukemia like the warrior he is; My sister-in-law, Teresa, fighting metastasized breast cancer with her husband and children by her side; My donors, most of whom I now, who donated in honor of lost family members, A friend who lost her mom several years ago and another whose mom is terminal now.

My hair after the braids were removed and before they started using the clippers

The volunteers braided my hair for "Locks of Love" and, with the help of my daughter and her friend Isabella, got the braids in a bag. The first thing I noticed when they started shaving was how sensitive my scalp was to every breeze as someone walked by.  (Hats for warmth are very important now.)  They gave me a hand mirror when I looked at myself in the mirror, I had a vanity moment:  I was relieved that I didn't have some bizarre deformity of the skull.

A lovely lady cancer survivor did the initial shaving after the braids were cut.

A professional takes over and cleans up the stray hairs

That was when incredibly kind people started telling me how beautiful I was.  Looking at my reflection reminded me of "Aphrodite's Mirror" in mythology...it always reflected back the true nature of the gazer as it can only show what is actually there.  In that moment...with all of that support around me...I felt beautiful.

When I got home, took off my make-up, put on a t-shirt and looked in the mirror, I felt more like Uncle Fester.  

I guess I'll be wearing make-up a lot more!

The finished product!

The best news of all...the final tally of donations was $590.00! I thank all of you who gave money and honor those in whose memory you made the donation.  Now, I get to check out how people handle a bald woman.  I've already noticed a few of the looks I've been getting so I know this will continue to be an education until my hair grows back.

Sullygate: If there is a contractual agreement, Mayor Sullivan, show us the contract

by: yksin

Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:51:14 AM AKST

by Mel Green

The original of this post can be found at Henkimaa.com.

Damn, I hate when I want to do my own writing, but along comes some political situation poking its thumb in my eye so hard I have no choice but to remove it.  Well, nothing for it but to roll up my sleeves & go at it.

It's a long story.  But it is kind of interesting.  Please read on.

At issue is a putative insurance payout of $193,000 from the Anchorage municipal treasury to a trust -- the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust -- led by George M. Sullivan's son, Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan, which was approved by the Anchorage Assembly by a 9-1 vote on February 16.  The thing is fishy enough that over the past two it's been the subject of a story apiece in the Anchorage Daily Planet [Ref #1] & the Anchorage Press [Ref #2] & no less than three stories in the Anchorage Daily News (two by Sean Cockerham [Ref #3, 4], one from the Associated Press [Ref #5]).  There's also been commentary in the blogs Progressive Alaska [Ref #6], The Mudflats [Ref #7], & Immoral Minority [Ref #8].  I'm sure we'll see more -- the one I'm writing right now, f'r instance.  Haven't read 'em? -- there's a complete list of references with links at the bottom of this post.  As is my habit when writing posts like these.

The most comprehensive reporting on the putative insurance payout comes from Sean Cockerham, who in my book continues to rank at the top of the Anchorage Daily News' dwindling reporting staff -- at the top statewide, for that matter.  As mentioned, he wrote two stories on the putative insurance payout, a brief one called "Benefits for a former official" [Ref #3] and a longer, more comprehensive one called "City life insurance payout for former mayor raises questions -- $193,000: Assembly honors '82 deal that puts city money into George Sullivan's trust" [Ref #4].  The latter is especially essential reading if you're at all interested in this matter.

I'll use some of its opening paragraphs to set the stage:

The Anchorage Assembly has agreed to pay $193,000 to meet the obligation for a one-of-a-kind life insurance deal the city made 28 years ago after Mayor George Sullivan left office.

Sullivan died last year at the age of 87. The assembly voted Feb. 16 to pay the money to his life insurance trust. The trustee is Sullivan's son, Dan Sullivan, the current mayor of Anchorage.

He told The Anchorage Daily News it's an odd coincidence he's dealing with this both as mayor and trustee. He's not saying who will get the money as beneficiary of the trust.

In 1982, the assembly agreed the city would continue life insurance to George Sullivan for the rest of his life at the same rate he had been paying as mayor. Until his death, George Sullivan had paid the city $19,663 in premiums, which were deposited into a city account.

The current Sullivan administration recommended to the assembly that the insurance be paid, with City Attorney Dennis Wheeler describing it in a Feb. 2 memo as a contractual obligation.

Several Assembly members said they felt they had no choice but to pay it.

"I don't believe it was an appropriate thing to do when it was done ... But what do you do? You've got to honor your commitments," said Assemblyman Dan Coffey.

The one Assembly member to vote against it, Harriet Drummond, said the payment, and the arrangement that led to it, made no sense. "The municipality is not an insurance company," she said. "This whole situation is incredibly bizarre to me." [Ref #4]

No kidding.

Now, three times so far I've called this a putative insurance payout.  That's because, like Harriet Drummond, I don't buy that the Municipality of Anchorage is an insurance company.  And as I've read through the over 230 comments left at the ADN website on that story, I've gotten pretty weary of those repeating the meme that Dan Coffey used in that passage above: the $193,000 payout honors a "commitment".  Or an "obligation."  Or, as Mayor Sullivan himself told Sean Cockerham, repeating City Attorney Dennis Wheeler's claim,

It was simply honoring a contractual agreement. [Ref #4]

Really?  Then show us the contract.

But they can't. Because, as Cockerham reported,

there's no evidence a written contract was ever drawn up spelling out the terms of the arrangement. [Ref #4]

Now here's where I get geeky.  The Anchorage Daily News was kind enough to provide PDFs of Muni documents that are pretty darn helpful in understanding this story.  But for some reason they didn't put them in chronological order, or give them a table of contents, or anything.  And, well, I find chronological order & tables of contents to be kinda helpful.  So, being the publication speicalisty geek that I am, I spent some time this evening downloading the PDFs & rearranging them. And adding bookmarks as tables of contents so they're easier to navigate.  I'll be referring to them frequently from here on out, so here they are:

• Ref #9: Sullygate 1: 1982 Municipality of Anchorage documents relating to former Mayor George M. Sullivan's life insurance
  
• Ref #10: Sullygate 2: 2002 Wuerch administration emails relating to former Mayor George M. Sullivan's life insurance
  
• Ref #11: Sullygate 3: 2010 Assembly Resolution & memorandum relating to a payout of $193,000 to a trust in the name of former Mayor George M. Sullivan
  

Let's start at the beginning.  Mayor George Sullivan ended his last term in 1981.  Assembly Resolution AR-30, dated January 19, 1982, resolved

That the Commission on Salaries and Emoluments be requested to consider directing that life insurance coverage be provided to former Mayor George M. Sullivan for the remainder of his life at the same rate and with the same coverage as in existence on January 1, 1982. [Ref #9, page 1]

But what was the same rate and the same coverage? In a memorandum dated February 18, 1982, Susan Lindemuth, Manager of Records and Benefits, wrote in a memo,

When he left office, Mr. Sullivan's life was insured for $193,000. The figures I am quoting are based on a continuation of that level of insurance.

If the Municipality continues Mr. Sullivan's coverage as a member of the group, it will cost the Municipality $86.85 per month or $1,042.20 per year…. This premium could be paid either by the Municipality or Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Sullivan is eligible to convert his insurance to an individual policy.  At his age, continued coverage would cost Mr. Sullivan $961.00 per month…. [Ref #9, page 2]

But big question: would the insurance company go with the plan? Minutes for the February 24, 1982 meeting of the Commission on Salaries & Emoluments state,

There was still concern by the Commission whether the insurance company would allow someone who was no longer employed by the Municipality to remain part of the group plan and pay the month premiums out-of-pocket. [Ref #9, page 6 (page 2 of minutes)]

After a short recess, Susan Lindemuth, Manager of Records and Benefits, responded to those concerns:

In response to questions by Mr. Lounsbury, Ms. Lindemuth stated there is no problem as far as the insurance company is concerned in continuing George Sullivan in the insurance program after his completion of service with the Municipality and has drawn his last paycheck.  She further stated that the Municipality would just add an amendment to the policy saying George Sullivan is eligible to continue participation. [Ref #9, page 6 (page 2 of minutes)]

The Commission ultimately passed its Resolution 82-1, which provided life insurance coverage to Sullivan at the the same rate -- presumably the "$86.85 per month or $1,042.20 per year" cited in Susan Lindemuth's February 18 memo -- and the same coverage as on January 1, 1982 ($193,000). Sullivan would bear the full cost of providing the insurance coverage -- i.e., he'd pay the premiums. [Ref #9, page 9)

Several months later, on November 10, 1982, minutes of the Salary & Emoluments Commission show that there were already problems with the resolution as passed:

Chairman Millsap stated that attached to the Agenda was a status report on the life insurance coverage for Mr. Sullivan. [included in Ref #9 on page 14]  He stated the letter was very self-explanatory and that everything had been taken care of.

Ms. [sic] Lounsbury stated he was questioning the last sentence -- "to the extent that the premium amount exceeds that paid by Mr. Sullivan, the mayor's office benefits account will be charged for the difference."

Ms. Gotham stated that is not what this commission said.

Mr. Lounsbury continued by saying that Mr. Sullivan is to pay what the premium is.  The commission didn't set any certain amount, they just said you pay the premium.

Chairman Millsap requested the Recording Secretary obtain clarification from Susan Lindemuth. [Ref #9, page 12; emphasis in original]

Susan Lindemuth replied with a memorandum on November 17, 1982:

Judy Flitter has asked that I clarify the last sentence in paragraph two of my November 10 memo.

When planning for the implementation of Resolution 82-1, the meaning of "at the rate in effect as of January 1, 1982" was questioned.  Municipal Attorney Jerry Wertzbaugher interpreted it to mean that Mr. Sullivan would not be required to pay for increases in life insurance premium payments subsequent to January 1, 1982.  To the extent that those rates will increase… the Municipality will have to pick up the difference. [Ref $9, page 15]

This, of course, went contrary to Section 2 of Resolution 82-1, which established that Sullivan would bear the full cost of the premiums -- as Judy Flitter, who provided staff support to the Commission, subsequently pointed out in a memorandum on November 22, 1982 --

The decision from the Salary and Emoluments Commission was to allow former Mayor George Sullivan to retain the policy but to pay any premiums himself.  They did not intent [sic] for any monies to be taken from the current Mayor's budget.  The statement from the commission is: The bill is to be sent to Mr. Sullivan for the difference per thousand per month.  [Ref #9, page 16]

So problem solved: in spite of the "at the same rate" provision of Section 1 of the resolution, Sullivan had to pay the full premiums himself.

But turns out that wasn't the biggest problem with resolution.  In fact, it appears that Susan Lindemuth's reassurances to the Commission on February 24 that "there is no problem as far as the insurance company is concerned in continuing George Sullivan in the insurance program after his completion of service with the Municipality" was incorrect. Though nothing in the record we have so far tells us exactly when this problem was discovered.

But wait, you might ask. Didn't Sean Cockerham's ADN story tell us when it was discovered?  Here's the relevant passage:

Twenty years later, in 2002, Deputy Employee Relations director Karen Moore was baffled when Dan Sullivan, who was on the Assembly at the time, came to the city to make that year's premium payment, according to e-mails from the time. She asked the city's insurance carrier about a policy for Sullivan. The company didn't know about it either. The premiums paid by Sullivan and his family had been deposited into a city account, not given to Aetna.

Top officials in the administration of George Wuerch, who was mayor in 2002, spent months trying to figure out the history of the deal and what to do about it, according to the e-mails, released to the Daily News this week.

The city's life insurance carrier, Aetna, told the city in 2002 that it had no policy on Sullivan and wouldn't cover him anyway because its agreement was only for active city employees, according to the e-mails. Aetna made clear it wasn't liable for Sullivan, who was 78 years old by that time. The insurance company's legal department recommended the city just return the premiums to the Sullivan family. [Ref #4]

But here's the thing: the real point of discovery that Aetna wouldn't cover Sullivan wasn't 2002, when the Wuerth administration came up against the problem.  The real point of discovery was sometime between 1982 and 2002.  Someone -- we don't yet know who -- made a decision to place the premiums in a city account, presumably because the insurance company would not take them, because Sullivan was not on their rolls.

As of January 30, 2002, Susan Lindemuth was apparently under the impression that Sullivan was still covered by Aetna under the Municipality's group plan, or at least so she said. In an email to Karen Moore, she wrote,

He was covered as part of the MOA group and therefore, part of that "risk". There was no separate policy with Aetna or any other insurance carrier for him…and no separate "premium" was paid to any outside party .[Ref #10, page 4]

As the life insurance rates changed over the years, he was informed and paid the appropriate premium amount…or the kids paid on his behalf.

We had a split funded agreement with Aetna…so we paid the "retention" monthly and funded the life insurance claims when incurred. His coverage amount ($93,000 [sic]) was included in the volume reported to Aetna. [Ref #10, page 4]

But Lynda Gable of Aetna -- identified in one email by Karen Moore as "long time account executive for Aetna's MOA coverage" [Ref #10, p. 9] -- who received a copy of Susan Lindemuth's email, informed Karen Moore --

This means Muni kept those dollars on hand in the claims funds. I don't know if intent was to have them handle a death claim directly, but Aetna never received any premiums. The insurance fund was the reserves that Muni held and those funds were never submitted to Aetna nor included in any of our premiums from a risk standpoint to the best of my knowledge. How much insurance is he supposed to have??? [Ref #10, page 4]

Later that day (January 30), Karen Moore told David Otto --

Lynda [Gable] tells me they [Aetna] would have denied payment when it became evident that he [George Sullivan] was not an active employee. Susan [Lindemuth] indicated that premiums received from Mayor Sullivan were deposited into the insurance fund. I suspect she intended to have the MOA pay any death claim from the 603 account, rather than have Aetna pay the claim and then reimbursing Aetna. [Ref #10, p. 9]

-- implying that she believed Susan Lindemuth knew Sullivan wasn't covered by Aetna & that someone, perhaps Lindemuth, had already decided on an alternate way to pay Sullivan's eventual death claim: from MOA funds.

Here's the thing: no one had authority to find alternative methods to provide Sullivan with life insurance except the Assembly and and Salaries & Emoluments Commission. As soon as anyone learned -- Susan Lindemuth? somebody else? -- that Aetna wouldn't cover him, that person should have informed the Commission & the Assembly so that they could decide what to do, because they were the only people who were legally empowered.

Remember: it was an Assembly decision to ask the Commission if it would provide Sullivan with life insurance in the first place; & it was the Commission's decision to actually provide it. But the Commission based its decision on the understanding that Sullivan could be included in the group insurance plan. It did not contemplate having the Municipality itself act as an insurance provider.  It did not contemplate having the the Municipality itself pay a death claim. Whoever decided between 1982 and 2002 during the Knowles, Fink, or Mystrom administrations to take that route -- without apparently telling passing the word along to the relevant people in the Wuerch adminstration  -- took upon themselves authority that did not belong to them -- that belonged only to the Assembly & the Commission. It was not legal.

At least, that's my best guess. I'd like to know what an attorney independent of the Mayor's office would say.

If I'm right, the Wuerch administration, by formalizing the "MOA is now an insurance company" arrangement -- assuming one could call the flurry of emails in early 2002 "formal" -- also took upon itself authority that it did not have: it did not inform the Assembly. It did not inform the Commission. It was not legal.

At least that's my best guess, once again.

But guess I'm right. By February 4, 2002, several high-level people in Wuerch's administration were coming to an agreement that an option Karen Moore had presented -- to set up a sub-fund for the premiums and pay out the difference upon Sullivan's death "and with Assembly approval" [Ref #4, page 9] -- was the best option. One member of that group, Kate Giard, the city finance director, wrote to the others:

Folks,

We had better get together on this issue. We just can't make payments of this nature from the self insurance or any fund without assembly approval. Mr. Sullivan had an insurance policy, apparently, for the last several years for which he paid premiums. The policy in effect was an illegal commitment unless the Assembly approves it…. [Ref #9, page 12; emphasis added]

An illegal commitment unless the Assembly approves it. But the Assembly in 2002 did not approve it. Sean Cockerham:

It didn't go to the 2002 Assembly for approval, and there's no evidence a written contract was ever drawn up spelling out the terms of the arrangement. [Ref #4]

To the best of my knowledge, based upon the record that has been disclosed so far, the Assembly was not even made aware that there was an issue.

But there was at least one Assembly member who had to have known there was a problem: the former mayor's son, Dan Sullivan -- who was the guy, after all, who brought the whole deal to the Wuerch administration's attention in the first place when he came in to pay the life insurance premium in January 2002. [Ref #4]

Now, I'm not supposing that Dan Sullivan was privy to all the emails going on back & forth between the various members of the Wuerch administration about the situation, but I find it difficult to believe that he, an Assembly member, was entirely ignorant of what was going on next door in the executive branch on an issue that was of vital interest to him & his politically connected father. Surely Karen Moore didn't keep him in the blind that they were trying to work out a problem regarding the insurance, or about what their solution was. At the very latest, he would have learned in 2009, when he became mayor, & his father died shortly thereafter. At that point he & his administration had access to all the relevant documents -- & would certainly have been looking at them after his father's death. He had to have known that the solution Wuerch staffers had come up 8 years before wasn't -- y'know -- a legal commitment. At least not yet.

Okay, so jump ahead to just a couple of weeks ago, February 16, 2010: the Assembly approved it. Making it, finally at last -- eight years after Kate Giard wrote that bolded sentence -- a legal commitment.

But recall why they did so:

Assembly Chairman Patrick Flynn said he believes the Sullivan estate could have sued the city for breach of contract if it did not pay, although Flynn said he doesn't think that anyone on the Assembly requested a legal analysis before appropriating the money. [Ref #4]

Why would they think there was a contract when there wasn't one?

Perhaps it could be because of the memorandum of February 2, 2010 prepared by the MOA Department of Law, approved by Municipal Attorney Dennis Wheeler, and submitted by Mayor Dan Sullivan to accompany the resolution asking for the payout:

This resolution requests appropriation of One Hundred Ninety Three Thousand Dollars ($193,000.00) from the Areawide General Fund (Fund 101) to the Employee Relations Department 2009 Operating Budget Fund (Fund 101) for disbursement under a life insurance contract to the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust. [Ref #11, page 1; emphasis added]

Again: what contract? As I think I've clearly established by now, there wasn't one. Not only was there not a contract, but the entire deal was, as Kate Giard wrote in 2002, an illegal commitment unless the Assembly approved it.

The strategy was, clearly, mislead the Assembly into believing there was a contract in order to push them towards voting in favor of the disbursement.  By voting yes, they made the commitment legal.  And simultaneously -- conveniently for the Mayor-Slash-Trustee -- authorizing the payout.  Had they known the full story, they may well have voted differently.

Or maybe they wouldn't have. But they should have been told.

There's some other misdirection in the memorandum, too. For example,

In March 2002, Aetna informed the Municipality that Mayor George M. Sullivan was not eligible for group life insurance plan because he was no longer an employee…. [Ref #11, page 1]

Technically true: early 2002 was when the Wuerch administration was "informed" by Aetna. But the phrasing is ambigous, making it easy for readers (that is, the Assembly) to believe that up until then, Aetna had him covered.  Or that Aetna wasn't completely flabbergasted when they were asked about him.

Besides, as I think I've established, there are clear signs that someone at the Muni knew before 2002 that Aetna wouldn't cover George Sullivan; and the 2002 email correspondents knew it. Remember what Lynda Gable of Aetna wrote to Karen Moore --

The insurance fund was the reserves that Muni held and those funds were never submitted to Aetna… [Ref #10, page 4]

Remember what Karen Moore wrote to David Otto --

Lynda [Gable] tells me they [Aetna] would have denied payment when it became evident that he [George Sullivan] was not an active employee. Susan [Lindemuth] indicated that premiums received from Mayor Sullivan were deposited into the insurance fund. I suspect she intended to have the MOA pay any death claim from the 603 account, rather than have Aetna pay the claim and then reimbursing Aetna. [Ref #10, p. 9]

Then remember that Dennis Wheeler and the Department of Law had access to this email record when they wrote the memorandum. In fact, they had to have it, because it was the email record that instructed them what the Wuerch administration had decided about how to handle the death payment after George Sullivan's death.

So why were they so cagey in making it sound as if Aetna simply changed its coverage in March 2002?  Well, one would hardly want to bring the truth to the Assembly's attention, because otherwise its members might question this --

To meet the directive from the Salaries & Emoluments Commission, the Municipality added Mayor George M. Sullivan to the MOA group life insurance plan with Aetna. The amount of insurance purchased by Mayor George M. Sullivan was $193,000; the annual premium has varied, from a high of $1,042.20 in 1982 to $555.84 since November 1995. [Ref #10, p. 9]

But since Aetna didn't cover Sullivan since some unknown date prior to 2002 -- who set those premiums? And why were those premiums so much lower than what they were in 1982? Remember that the Salaries & Emoluments Commission originally charged that Sullivan's coverage would be at the same rate and the same coverage as it was on January 1, 1982; and that Susan Lindemuth had informed the Commission that the rate was "$86.85 per month or $1,042.20 per year". Who decided in November 1995 (that would be during the Mystrom administration) to "vary" the annual premium by subtracting $486.36 from the 1982 rate? I can guarantee you it wasn't Aetna.

A total of $19,662.84 in premiums was received by the Municipality and deposited into Fund 603 prior to 2002, and then into the 735 Fund thereafter. [Ref #10, p. 9]

One wonders how much higher that total would have been had someone-who-is-not-Aetna not "varied" the annual premium to such a low amount.

Clearly something rather shady was going on for quite awhile with this life insurance policy, spanning the administrations of three Anchorage mayors -- Tony Knowles, Tom Fink, Rick Mystrom -- even before it got to Wuerch's.

This was done by somebody. It'd would be nice to know by whom. But it's easy to know for whom. As recorded in the minutes of the Commission on Salaries & Emoluments on February 24, 1982,

Ms. Gotham said she felt this was not a benefit to George Sullivan but was rather a benefit to the Sullivan family upon his death. She did not feel this was a responsibility of the Municipality. Therefore she was opposed. [Ref #9, p. 3]

Cheers for Ms. Gotham.

And cheers for Harriet Drummond, who, alone among the 10 Assembly members voting on the putative insurance payout on February 16, voted no.

"If there were enough (Assembly members) who realized this was stupidity and voted no, then Anchorage's taxpayers would still have $200,000 in the bank," Drummond said later. "And the Sullivan estate could have gotten the $20,000 in premiums back. Maybe that was the appropriate thing to do. But it was certainly not appropriate for the city to be acting as an insurance company, which it is not." [Ref #4]

References

1. 3/2/2010. "City to pay life insurance claim for former mayor" by Kirsten Adams (Anchorage Daily Planet).
2. 3/3/2010. "An insurance anomaly" by Brendan Joel Kelley (Anchorage Press).
3. 3/3/2010. "Benefits for a former official" by Sean Cockerham (Anchorage Daily News).
4. 3/3/2010. "City life insurance payout for former mayor raises questions -- $193,000: Assembly honors '82 deal that puts city money into George Sullivan's trust" by Sean Cockerham (Anchorage Daily News).
5. 3/4/2010. "Anchorage pays $193,000 for late mayor's insurance" by the Associated Press (Anchorage Daily News).
6. 3/4/2010. "Two Banally Retentive Grifters Again Make the News" by Phil Munger (Progressive Alaska).
7. 3/4/2010. "Payday for Mayor/Trustee Hybrid Dan Sullivan" by AK Muckraker (The Mudflats).
8. 3/4/2010. "Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan learned much from his idol Sarah Palin" by Gryphen (Immoral Minority).
9. Sullygate 1: 1982 Municipality of Anchorage documents relating to former Mayor George M. Sullivan's life insurance. Contains the same documents provided in a PDF by the Anchorage Daily News, except that I've placed them in chronological order & provided bookmarks (table of contents).
10. Sullygate 2: 2002 Wuerch administration emails relating to former Mayor George M. Sullivan's life insurance. Contains the same documents provided in a PDF by the Anchorage Daily News, except that I've placed them in chronological order (as best I could) & provided bookmarks (table of contents).
11. Sullygate 3: 2010 Assembly Resolution & memorandum relating to a payout of $193,000 to a trust in the name of former Mayor George M. Sullivan. Contains the same documents provided in a PDF by the Anchorage Daily News, except slightly reordered & provided with bookmarks (table of contents).

So much stuff, so little time to post

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:09:28 AM AKST

I posted about this at Facebook:

St. Baldrick's Day--Linda Kellen Biegel is shaving her head for a cure!

Date: Saturday, March 6, 2010
Time: 10:00am - 3:00pm
Location: 645 G Street, Suite 101 , Anchorage, AK  

Saturday morning, I will be losing ALL of my hair (yes, the Celtic red grey locks will be gone just in time for St. Patrick's Day) to help bring attention (and donations) to find a cure for children's cancer and in turn, all cancers.

I jumped into this (and started advertising it) very late, so I only have a few days to raise about $500.00 worth of donations, which go straight to the St. Baldrick's Day Foundation at this website:

http://www.stbaldricks.org/participants/LKB

Please donate to St. Baldrick's Foundation if you can!

Coincidentally enough (and not something I knew before I agreed to do this) the event is being held at McGinley's Pub, of which our darling, possibly newly-flush Mayor Sullivan is part owner.  

Newly flush, you ask?  That story ran in the ADN today courtesy of Sean Cockerham (It was previously broken by Harriet Drummond and Shannyn Moore on her show):

With no questions and little discussion, the Assembly voted 9-1 on Feb. 16 to pay the money to the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust.

Sullivan, who served 14 years as mayor before leaving office in 1982, died Sept. 23 last year at age 87.

In interviews in recent days, Assembly members called the $193,000 payment a questionable use of public money, especially at a time when the city has cut millions of dollars in spending for services and personnel to balance its books.

Interesting to note:  in the article, everyone affiliated with Sullivan claims that the identities of the beneficiaries of the trust the Insurance payout went into are top secret.  However, I verified with Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) today that Mayor Sullivan is subject to the same financial disclosure laws as all public officials.  This means he will be required to list the trusts of which he is a beneficiary at the end of the year on the disclosure form.  So if he's a beneficiary...not so top secret.

Perhaps he could toss some of that into the pot for finding a cancer cure for the kids on Saturday?

(**holding breath now...**)

I actually plan to ask him if he's there!

Katy, the newest member of the Biegel Household!

by: Celtic Diva

Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 20:14:09 PM AKST

This is Katy, our 10-month-old 100% Shetland Sheepdog puppy! For those of you who think she looks like a "mini-collie":

The ancestors of the Shetland sheepdog were the herding dogs of Scotland that also provided the rootstock for the collie and border collie. Some of these dogs were quite small, measuring only about 18 inches in height. The Shetland sheepdog almost certainly is derived from these early collie type dogs, which then were further developed on the Shetland Islands.

So the Sheltie came first AND came from Scotland like my ancestors.  Yes, I have a Celtic dog.

Who refuses to walk through the snow...note the taut leash:

Anyway, we start obedience training March 25th.  It won't come soon enough for me.  But yes, we are completely in love!

The President's Health Care Proposal

by: Jeanette

Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 22:29:59 PM AKST

http://www.whitehouse.gov/heal...

If one scrolls down the page a bit, one can download a PDF summary of the President's proposal.  

Of particular interests to me, the President proposes:

Improving insurance protections for consumers and creating a new Health Insurance Rate Authority to provide Federal assistance and oversight to States in conducting reviews of unreasonable rate increases and other unfair practices of insurance plans.

This proposal along with the regulatory reforms outlined in the current House Health Care Reform Bill H.R. 3962, will do much to reform the current way health insurers do business.  

For more discussion and information, I am also providing this link:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/heal...

If one has the free time and inclination, I recommend another trip to www.thomas.gov.  Very interesting legislative efforts afoot in D.C.

Democratic Caucus: We Must. We Shall.

by: Jeanette

Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 13:00:32 PM AKST

The Democratic Party has scheduled a Caucus on Saturday March 20th, 2010 at the Lucy Cuddy Center, UAA campus at 9:00 a.m.
(Building # 6 on map: http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/map/...

Bravo.  Give me some more vitamins.  Raucus Caucus.  Raucus Caucus.  

I read this excerpt from Ted Kennedy's book, True Compass.  I think its message has meaning today in a post Obama election America whose participants feel a similar sense of confusion and betrayal.

It was a question that many in Congress must have asked themselves.  It implied a crushing sense of betrayal.  Here we were, by our own sights, a collection of affluent, well-educated, polically successsful white men who had devoted years to a constellation of causes that might well have led to electoral defeat for any or all of us.  School desegregation. Desegregation in universtities.  Desegregation in transportation and public gathering places.  The Civil Rights Act.  The Voting Rights Act. The poll tax repeal. We acted, as I have said, because we believed that the principle of equality and justice among the races was a cause larger than our own ambitions.  We believed that our victories in these causes would change history.  And at the very moment in American time when we were anticipating a mood of joyfulness and uplift, our cities were exploding in violence.  How could it be?

There we no easy answers (True Compass, p. 247).

We elected our first African-American president to whom we look for change.  Many of us in Alaska, went out on a limb to express our desire for a more progressive approach to government.  Many of us risked retaliation by our employers and our peers for publicly expressing our progressive ideas and opinions.  We feel disappointed, but do we need to be?  

Echoing Ted Kennedy, who found many of his dreams thwarted by events beyond his control, there are no easy answers, more correctly, no obvious answers.    Answers can be found, and evidence of change does exist, however, we must be aware of how and where to find those answers and be wiling to look beyond the superficial to identify those changes that have occurred.  

A very careful study of government in Washington today, specifically in our many Departments will reveal that much improvement has occcured in the past year.  The FDA has received long overdue funding and has utilized that money to hire inspectors to ensure our meats and produce are safe (have you noticed that our meat once again bares evidence of the blue and pink stamp of inspection).  The TSA has and continues to undergo reorganization to improve its service and in doing so has pin pointed weak areas in the system (Department of Homeland Security reports).  More importantly, a change in leadereship culture encourages personnel to expose weakness rather than hide it and bluster through with false bravado.  The Department of Health and Human Services has begun the slow, arduous climb back towards rebuilding a system starved nearly to death by far right Republican's staunch refusal to neither fund it nor outright abolish it.  This department will play a key role in providing the infrastructure that will revitalize public health in ways only envisioned by those who desperately fought to implement it for all Americans.  

Now, more than ever, we need to back incumbants who represent middle class America, both to keep them informed of our will and show our support.  We do this not because they deserve special treatment, but because we believe their actions in Congress have demonstrated their value as representatives to ALL of the cities, boroughs and districts, rich and poor alike.  Those who have done well by their constituents should be rewarded with the privilege to continue in service.  

I feel certain that our country has moved, at least in part, away from the notion that a candidate can be 'sussed up by reading a few slogans, or a popular hairdo.  I know the fellow recently elected to the Senate in Massachussets seems to embody those very characteristics, but I believe he won, based not on superficial charisma, but because of the lack of voter turnout in the state.  

Voter turn out must be the key.  Every time the numbers in the ranks of the every day citizen swell, a progressive candidate, mindful of the larger structure of humanity, gets elected.  I cannot stress enough, that our greatest challenge in the coming election is to find ways to get as many people to the polls as possible.  We must genuinely reach out to those in need of assistance, who wish to be active citizens, and get them to the voting booth.  As community organizers who love our communities, we have to help every citizen see the importance of their vote.  We must link them to the process of government, and  remind those in government that the poorest and hardworking amongst us have a voice.  

I am one of those who must be reminded.  I know the frustration that grips me and threatens to paralyze me, to convince me I am powerless.  I have no time, no money.  I have stood idle in the belief that "If only I could get above the hassles of everyday existence, and find the time I need to make a difference."  These realities plague me, and I am certain plague many working class and middle class constituents in many voting districts.  But if I do not participate in my government, who will?  I will tell you.  Those with time and money.  

However powerful money may seem in government, it  cannot affect the power of one day in the polls when the public chooses to flex its electoral muscle.  Money can be used by those in power to forestall us in court with endless appeals, while they wait for us to die (Exxon Valdez), but they cannot stop us from marching to the polls.   We stop ourselves.  We allow ourselves to be beaten down.  We allow ourselves to indulge in self pity, and hopelessness. Let us not forget, we number in the millions, and we make a difference when we vote.  Obama's election proved that possible.  Now we must apply that discipline, that belief to local politics. If we are powerless, and our vote does not count, why then did those in control of southern government in the sixties turn the hoses on the young people who traveled to the south to register black voters, and on the voters themselves when they showed up to participate in their government?

Here and now, we either embrace the concept of grass roots, or we bury our heads in the sand and cry "foul."  Our system of government was intended to flow from the bottom up.  Our President is "inaugurated" meaning that he/she is embedded into a system of government already in place.  They are not crowned or incorporated.  They do not gain their position by buying controlling shares in company stock.  They are "inaugered."  If the system is ineffective, how effective can a President be?  We are the system.  It was structure to serve and protect, to provide the religious freedom and economic level playing field necessary to make "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" available to all humanity.  We the people are the most glorious part of the system.  We are volitale and unpredictable.  We are the backbone of the workforce that generates the taxes that drive the engine of government.  Why should we not care who administers the wealth we work to provide?  

The assemblymen and women we elect to local council must make budgets, plan neighborhoods and administer those who uphold the codes and laws that govern the citizens.  They do so within the confines of state and federal law.  They are the first in the chain that links each community to the larger government in Juneau and in Washington D.C.  What hope have we to influence how our federal money is spent if we do not take interest in this most basic link?  The budget they create  becomes part of the tapestry of the state fiscal design that in turn is woven into the larger federal budget.  If we do not ask for what we want in clear terms how can we expect to receive the money we need to build stronger neighborhoods?

We can meet these local candidates face to face.  We can demand they answer the public call for information, debate and something more relevant than a billboard sign, a sixty second sound bite over the airwaves, a Tweet or even droves of sign waivers.  We can refute the money they spend on campaigns by demanding they address us in public in buildings and during business hours paid for with our money.  We have this power.  We can tell them in letters and post cards that we want them in person, not on a triple fold piece of card stock stuffed into the cracks of our doors while go about the business of living.  We can cut through the mountains of money that bolster their drive for office by dictating to them the terms of their candidacy.

I urge all to attend the Democratic Caucus.  Bring your ideas, and your spirit.  This caucus gives us a platform to launch our concerns, but we must also bring a spirit of cooperation.  How have you been effected by your local representation?  What can they do to meet your needs and expectation.  In turn, how can they convey to you the difficulties they face?  What do they need from us to help them achieve their goals in Congress.  Be prepared to sweat.  Awe the leadership with your numbers once again.  Alaska stands at a cross roads in time.  The old cannot be as it was, nor will the future simply emerge rosy and complete without our participation.  

I will end by saying that when one talks to many of the younger, politically active folk in Anchoroage, one begins to ascertain that they possess a bit more patience their parents and grandparents.  They seem to reckon correctly that the change they seek will not be attained in one or even two presidential cycles.   No.  This generation is a lovely paradox of rationales in that, while they thrive on instant messaging and the joy to be had in acquiring the latest design in skinny jeans or a coach purse, they possess a healthy skepticism of those who believe that they will achieve salvation and the good life by hating the right people, investing blindly in the stock market because "I said so," and rejecting the principle that government seeks only to destroy humanity.  

As always, I am hopeful.  As always, I believe in my fellow humans to do what is right.    
 

Joshua Wade pleads guilty to 2 murders...were there more?

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:55:13 AM AKST

There are still monsters in the night...

Mindy Schloss                 Della Brown
murdered Aug 2007          murdered Sep 2000

The Summer of 1999: A Requiem
by Patti Greene

For most folks, the summer of '99 was idyllic and sunny.  Kids hauled salmon out of Ship Creek and dragged them up A Street to Midtown and home.  Business execs worked late and shook off the week with sun-filled backyard barbecues.  For me, that summer was a hellish version of Bill Murray's "Groundhog's Day", a night-after-night re-run of rock and roll, played in Anchorage's most notorious bar.  

For some, the summer of '99 was their last.

The band I was in played at The Hub, which enjoyed the worst reputation in town, attracting folks who drank too much and accepted endlessly the resulting deep trouble.  Commonplace were stories of black eyes, drunken beatings, and arrests -- and that was just the staff.  Drug deals went down, inside and out, sometimes from the bandstand.  The place felt ominous.  A few years back, the owner had been blown away after hours as he counted his money in the office.  It was rumored that his blood had been left splattered on the office wall, and that his angry ghost haunted the place.  I myself believed it was much simpler than that.  The Hub was the portal from Hell through which Evil entered the world.  At the time, I'd sarcastically add, " -- probably through the ladies' room", which was indescribeably filthy.

Theresa Johnny
Missing since July 1998

In June of '99, those of us who worked at the club started hearing rumors that Alaska Native women were being assaulted, targeted for their rural Alaska friendliness or their too-much-to-drink vulnerability.  Many of the women were regulars at The Hub.  It was suggested that the local police weren't taking the reports seriously.

There appeared on the wall of the ladies' room a big tagboard, hand-printed sign:  LADIES:  BEWARE.  RAPES HAVE BEEN OCCURRING IN ALARMING NUMBERS IN DOWNTOWN ANCHORAGE.  KNOW WHO YOU LEAVE WITH AND, REMEMBER, THERE'S SAFETY IN NUMBERS.  STAY SMART.  STAY SAFE.  I helped make the sign, leaning over a pool table on a band break, marker in hand, printing in big block letters on posterboard.  

Vera Hapoff
found murdered June 8, 1999

I remember a regular -- Vera -- who walked past, playfully slapping my butt as I bent to the task.  I remember her because, the next day, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Vera Hapoff's body was found in the waters of Ship Creek.  That was June 8, 1999.  There would be three more murders that year.

Those murders remain unsolved.

Today, I got a phone call that took me back to one specific night that awful summer.

Annie Mann
Found murdered August 1999

The band had finished its last song at 2:45 a.m.  Patrons had fifteen minutes to drink up and move out, and bar staff were none too polite in moving them to the door.  The happy mob stalled on the sidewalk out front.  As I made my way through them to my car, they patted my shoulder, or gave me hugs: "Good job!"  "Thanks for the music!"  "See you tomorrow!"

Michelle Foster Butler
Murdered September 1999

My car was on the curb, a low Honda CRX.  I sank into the seat, exhausted, and turned the ignition.  Another car pulled in at an angle behind mine, its blinding headlights reflecting in my rear view mirror.  A man got out of the car and walked toward me, silhouetted by his headlights.  He's going to ask me to pull forward so he can pull in, I remember thinking.  I rolled down the window a couple of inches.  A pleasant looking guy bent toward my car and said, "Hey, would you like to come to an after-hours party?"  He had short, light colored hair.  Military, I remember thinking.

"No thank you," I said, giving him my best smile.  "I've been here since seven-thirty and I think I'm just going to go straight home.  You go and have a good time."  I know this, because it's what I say to anyone who asks me out after a gig.  Sorry, fellas, this girl is tired.

Helen Kinigak
Found murdered January 2000

The guy staggered back as if he'd been slapped in the face.  Jabbing his fingers toward me in big, arm-waving gestures, he screamed, "You fucking bitch!"  He was backing away from my car, still stabbing the air.  "You SUCK, you hear?  Your music sucks!  And you're UGLY!  You're fucking UGLY! "

The exchange took less than thirty seconds, its ferocity reduced me to tears.  I sobbed all the way home.  The next day, I got up, went back to work, and put the exchange behind me.  I quit the rock band in September 1999..  Blues bands came calling with promises of more sane hours.  

Genevieve Tetpon
Found murdered March 2000

A year later, Della Brown was murdered in Anchorage.  Within the month, the media announced the arrest of a suspect:  Joshua Wade.  They showed Wade being transported in handcuffs.  The moment I saw him, I felt like I'd been kicked in the stomach, a strong and visceral reaction, a fleeting feeling of "I know that guy!"

Was Joshua Wade the guy outside The Hub ... ?

If you had asked me to raise my right hand and affirm that he was, indeed, that guy, I couldn't do it.  But I know that I felt the shock of instant recognition when I saw him.  I'd swear to that.

Wade was found not guilty in Della Brown's murder, and they weren't able to connect him with the murders of the other women that summer, tho he was the prime suspect.  Not too long after that, the Municipality of Anchorage tore down The Hub.  It was reduced to a pile of blue and white rubble, and from a friend, I got a few chunks of the concrete block.  I wanted proof that The Portal From Hell Through Which Evil Enters The World was really gone.

In 2007, Joshua Wade was again arrested, this time charged with murdering Mindy Schloss, a nurse who lived next door to him.  If found guilty, he faced the death penalty.

Josua Wade

On Sunday, the Anchorage Daily News ran the latest news about him, reporting that he will change his plea and admit guilt in the murders of Mindy Schloss and Della Brown.  They ran a photo of him I'd never seen before.  And again I experienced the same, kicked-in-the-stomach shock of recognition.  

I will now raise my right hand and swear that Joshua Wade was the guy who went off on me outside The Hub.

This all is on my mind because my friend Linda called this afternoon.  She encouraged me to write about this experience, knowing how brutal it had been.  She says someone out there may need to read it.

She also asked if she could have a piece of The Hub, in memory of the women -- the many women -- who are missing and were murdered...maybe by Joshua Wade.  After he's sentenced, she and I may have to bless and bury this final piece of concrete.

It's okay now, we can say that he could possibly be responsible for some of the unsolved, brutal killings of women in Anchorage between 1999 and 2001.  I can't raise my right hand and swear that he did it, but hey --- you fucker, come and get me.  

How Texas Rebiblicans are using our kid's textbooks to rewrite American history

by: Celtic Diva

Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 00:52:30 AM AKST

Leah's expertise has been recognized and she recently accepted a position on the board of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, allowing her an even better platform from which to do her work.)

Dominionist Revisionist History ~ Keep it in Your Sunday Schools!
by Leah Burton

They have been at this for a very long time. What is 'this'? Revising our public school text books to reflect a skewed view of America's history beginning with the claim that we were founded as a "Christian Nation". This is serious and threatening. Hearings were held in Austin, Texas last month, January 2010, to the 15 members of the Texas State Board of Education.

You may be thinking, "I'm not Texan, why does this matter to me?" Let me share an excellent article with you about how and why this is seriously significant to ALL of us. Russell Shorto of the NY Times published an article on February 11, 2010 that you really must take time to read in its entirety and you can click here to do just that.

In the meantime I will paste a few excerpts here so that we can spark a discussion around this insinuation of the Khristian Dominionists into our public education through the revision of history - and ultimately through the minds of our children.

First, we must talk about why Texas has so much influence in determining (and undermining) what ends up in our public education textbooks.

"Public education has always been a battleground between cultural forces; one reason that Texas' school-board members find themselves at the very center of the battlefield is, not surprisingly, money. The state's $22 billion education fund is among the largest educational endowments in the country. Texas uses some of that money to buy or distribute a staggering 48 million textbooks annually - which rather strongly inclines educational publishers to tailor their products to fit the standards dictated by the Lone Star State."

"Not surprisingly, money"...and organization...

"Texas was one of the first states to adopt statewide curriculum guidelines, back in 1998, and the guidelines it came up with (which are referred to as TEKS - pronounced "teaks" - for Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) were clear, broad and inclusive enough that many other states used them as a model in devising their own. And while technology is changing things, textbooks - printed or online -are still the backbone of education."

AH! And the always well-funded Christian Dominionist sect...the infestation begins...

"The cultural roots of the Texas showdown may be said to date to the late 1980s, when, in the wake of his failed presidential effort, the Rev. Pat Robertsonfounded the Christian Coalition partly on the logic that conservative Christians should focus their energies at the grass-roots level. One strategy was to put candidates forward for state and local school-board elections[...]"

And now enter the ReBiblicanized republicans...

"Since the election of two Christian conservatives in 2006, there are now seven on the Texas state board who are quite open about the fact that they vote in concert to advance a Christian agenda. "They do vote as a bloc," Pat Hardy, a board member who considers herself a conservative Republican but who stands apart from the Christian faction, told me. "They work consciously to pull one more vote in with them on an issue so they'll have a majority."

Steeplejacked! It is truly that obvious...the Texas State Board was intentionally targeted and successfully turned into an arm of the Christian Dominionist agenda to re-write our history. And what is the story they want our children to be sold?

"The one thing that underlies the entire program of the nation's Christian conservative activists is, naturally, religion. But it isn't merely the case that their Christian orientation shapes their opinions on gay marriage, abortion and government spending. More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians and according to biblical precepts. This belief provides what they consider not only a theological but also, ultimately, a judicial grounding to their positions on social questions. When they proclaim that the United States is a "Christian nation," they are not referring to the percentage of the population that ticks a certain box in a survey or census but to the country's roots and the intent of the founders."

Straight from the horse's mouth....

"Succeeding at this would help them toward their ultimate goal of reshaping American society. As Cynthia Dunbar, another Christian activist on the Texas board, put it, "The philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next."

One of the current board members up for re-election and former Chairman of the state board, Don McLeroy, describes himself this way,

"I consider myself a Christian fundamentalist," He also identifies himself as a young-earth creationist who believes that the earth was created in six days, as the book of Genesis has it, less than 10,000 years ago. He went on to explain how his Christian perspective [guides] him in the current effort to adjust American-history textbooks to highlight the role of Christianity. "Textbooks are mostly the product of the liberal establishment, and they're written with the idea that our religion and our liberty are in conflict," he said.

Here is where we begin to pull in the language of the Dominionists and stir it up into a muddy Tea (as it were) - a concoction of two kool aids - like mixing red & green together - you end up with a glass that looks something akin to swamp water. And let us not overlook that our favorite Poster Gal for Christian Dominionism, Sarah Palin, holds these very same views...I mean really holds them! As unbelievable as this may be to some of us, they truly believe that humans co-existed with the dinosaurs.

"Merely weaving important religious trends and events into the narrative of American history is not what the Christian bloc on the Texas board has pushed for in revising its guidelines. Many of the points that have been incorporated into the guidelines or that have been advanced by board members and their expert advisers slant toward portraying America as having a divinely preordained mission."

The article takes you on an in depth journey into the rationalization behind the Dominionist claim that we ARE a Christian nation and how they are in a relentless pursuit to incorporate this into our schools. The absence, to date, of their version of America in our public school textbooks is what leads the zealots to claim that our schools are "Institutions of Satan". Literally.

It introduces you to players like David Barton, Jay Sekulow and Cynthia Dunbar who is quoted as saying...

[...]"We as a nation were intended by God to be a light set on a hill to serve as a beacon of hope and Christian charity to a lost and dying world." But the true picture of America's Christian founding has been whitewashed by "the liberal agenda" - in order for liberals to succeed "they must first rewrite our nation's history" and obscure the Christian intentions of the founders. Therefore, she wrote, "this battle for our nation's children and who will control their education and training is crucial to our success for reclaiming our nation."

And there we go...it's the Dominionists' perceived mandate from God's lips to their ears to "Reclaim the 7 Mountains", and education is a huge target for them. (refer to the 7 Mountains video in my side bar)

Where in recent history have we heard the recitation of "a light/beacon on a hill? Well, Reagan in the 80s and it has rolled right on down that hill to Palin as recently as her speech at the Tea Nation Party gathering this month in Nashville, Tennessee.

I know my post is lengthy and Shorto's NY Times article is even longer, but it is worth reading even if you need to come back to it. This IS representative of what I (and others) have been writing about in our efforts to warn about Christian Dominionism in America and their very real goal to change our democratic republic into a theocracy.

**A fellow colleague and friend, Chris Rodda, is one of the foremost experts in this discussion and specifically David Barton. Her book is "Liars for Jesus" and I highly recommend it to be added to your MUST READ list. **

"Words, Words, Words... I'm So Sick of Words..." Eliza - My Fair Lady

by: Jeanette

Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 10:00:07 AM AKST

http://www.care2.com/causes/ci...

Mr. Williams addresses the recently released results of a poll co-conducted by the New York Times and CBS regarding the right of gays and lesbians to serve in the military.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2...

More accurately, this poll addresses the importance or lack thereof of how people view the terms we use to describe  gay and lesbian be it homosexual, gay, lesbian, same sex attraction, etc.

Why must we care what word we use to describe ourselves in this word.  Truly, no word can describe a person, or do much to resolve one person's prejudice against another.  The need to provide equal protection was conceived to protect people from the damage inflicted by a word or a combination of words.  Because of equal protection under the law, I am not allowed to extend or deny to my fellow citizen access to basic necessities such as food, shelter or income because I may believe that a person's character and worth can be defined by the color of their skin, their ethnic heritage or their ability to physically function at my level.

We cut ourselves off from so very much in this world, from potential allies, acquaintances and friends, when we allow ourselves to place people in boxes defined by words, and bullet phrases based on physical characteristics, or even outward mannerisms.  We certainly deprive ourselves when we rely on the comments of others to determine with whom we may be compatible.  Many amazing, spiritually mature and gifted leaders have throughout human history declared that to understand someone, one must take the time to know that person as an individual.  By no other means can one ascertain whether another human being be friend or foe.  

I posted this comment to Mr. Williams article, and with it I will end my post.  May we all step out of our comfort zones in order that we find greater comfort in the companionship of others different from ourselves.  It works.  Some of the greatest lessons taught to me have been from those whom at first I did not trust.  

Feb 15, 2010 10:12 AM
Jeanette F. says

What I long for more than anything else is to have a person simply ask me about my life - not my lifestyle, my agenda, or attempt to define my label. I am, above all else, a human being. I do not wear my hair in a particular style, adorn my feet with a select brand of comfortable shoes or even regularly attend the most public of rallies or parades for the LGBT community. My parents love my partner, and her parents love me. We have the support of our family. We could not exist as a couple without that support (get back in there and work it out, then come talk to us later). I do not hide my life, but then neither do I try and define it with outward props or affectations. Should a a stranger need to understand me better, I can offer no one word or combination thereof to dispel their discomfort. All I can do is to offer them a cup of coffee, a plate of food, and a moment of my time, and perhaps, should both our hearts be open and free from preconceived resentment, we might become better acquainted and less fearful of one another. This method alone has helped ease my way in life, and open doors that might otherwise have remained closed to me, and the love of my life. I thank all those neighbors, relatives, states persons and more who took the time to get to know us and accept us with love and understanding.

Sources:

Care2 Causes, Steve Williams, "Gay and Lesbian or Homosexual? What's in a Word?" February 14, 2010

CBS News Online,  Kevin Hechtkopf, "Support for Gays in the Military Depends on the Question", February 11, 2010 2:00 PM

Who do YOU think is being lampooned here?

by: Celtic Diva

Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 19:11:27 PM AKST

Tonight's episode featured a "unique" story line where character Chris Griffin was dating a girl with Down's Syndrome. A dangerous territory for comedy to be sure, that turned ugly, when Ellen (the character with Down's Syndrome) revealed that her mother was the former governor of Alaska.

The website insinuates that outrage would be justified...I disagree.

It's clear to me that they are making fun of Sarah through this fictional daughter-who-happens-to-be-Down-Syndrome.  One does wonder how much of her...ummmm...personality will rub off on the kids.

However, you make the call...outrage or no outrage?

WRWJC--What Religion Would Jesus Choose?--an amusing flow chart

by: Celtic Diva

Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 14:11:21 PM AKST

Since most folks just end up with their parents passed-on faith, I suspect this requires more thought process than most people have ever used to select a religion.

I've identified several dilemmas

--What if you f*cking love bacon AND hummus?

--Do you think Jesus secretly liked bacon?

--Where the hell do we put the Unitarians?

Thanks to Twitter (and my magic underwear) for bringing me this chart.

Speaking of the gift of Twitter, I highly recommend this special story "Jesus, Will you be my Valentine?"  Witness the height of bad poetry (emphasis mine):

By "Jesus the Radical Pastor":

"At the cost of his life, he gave us St. Valentine's Day. He laid down his life for Jesus. From the cross, Jesus asks, "Will you be my Valentine?"

Seriously? While Jesus is hanging on a f*cking cross, he's asking me to be his Valentine? How can anyone stomach this stuff?

This just highlights one of my personal beliefs:  great passion is no excuse for bad music or bad poetry.  It's why I don't listen to Christian Rock...they don't have the same standards.

The post also includes a number of Valentine Tweets to Jesus.

(Twitter...I f*cking love Twitter!)

Sarah/Todd emails show how Sarah threw a faithful, pro-life Conservative "under the bus"

by: Celtic Diva

Sat Feb 13, 2010 at 20:55:55 PM AKST

One of the first things that struck me when I started going through MSNBC's 3000 pages of emails from the State of Alaska is that whomever was making the decisions on what to "redact" and what to release was much more lax with these emails than with my records request.  A number of these emails were VERY embarassing for Palin in that they irrefutably back-up what former friends and ex-supporters alike have repeatedly stated--that Palin will throw the most loyal, dedicated worker under the bus. The conversation threads provide a facinating look into Palin's behavior and thought(?) process when it comes to what she demands of her supporters.

Take the case of Glen Biegel.  Glen has a long history as a Republican supporting conservative issues in Alaska. The most significant of these is his long-time participation and leadership role in Alaska Right to Life...a group that "coincidentally" was a very important constituency for Palin.  Alaska-Right-to-Life-ers were the ones manning the phones, standing on street corners waving signs, etc...They provided a good chunk of the ground forces Palin needed during her campaign for Governor.  

As mentioned on Palingates this morning, Glen became a strong member of Palin's campaign team, putting in countless hours as a speechwriter.  Glen was also involved in a number of strategy discussions and campaign decisions, including their direction on oil and gas.  Another former Palin campaign worker once stated to me that the dedication of both Glen Biegel and John Bitney made Palin's abuse of them and their fall-from-grace even more offensive.  

There are several email threads showing what happened when Glen made the mistake of a) investigating the status of a campaign promise regarding Home Schooling and b) committing the ultimate sin of saying something she perceived as disagreeing with her regarding oil taxes.

Glen talked about these emails himself when he filled-in on Dan Fagan's Show (H/T Palingates):

What both "offenses" have in common...he answered questions about them on the air, including on the radio show of her hated enemy, Dan Fagan.

Glen has been a board member of the Alaska Home Education Alliance...another very important constituency for the credibility of anyone attempting to portray themselves as a Conservative. That plus his position on the Palin campaign and as her supporter made him the obvious recipient of mail from other homeschool parents wanting to know the status of Palin's campaign promises...especially when, as the email thread demonstrates, the Palin Administration had been non-responsive since July 2007.  The first email of the thread is actually listed seperately and is the one Palingates partially posted in their article.  Three hours later, Glen sent a response:

From: Glen Biegel
To: Palin, Sarah (GOV sponsored)
Sent: Wed Sep 12 09:25:25 2007
Subject:: Fw: Letter from Governor Palin

Governor,

Here is a copy of a letter from Lynn Smith and an email from one of our parents.

Thanks

Glen

Here also is a paste from a different email about a response to Lynn Smith and a
conversation that She, Sally Javier and I had

The attached information, seen HERE, included an education questionaire Palin responded to during the campaign which made specific promises regarding homeschooling.  Palin is obviously still irritated:

From: Palin, Sarah (GOV sponsored)
To: Glen Biegel
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: Letter from Governor Palin

I was not provided all this infomation/communications Glen. Thanks for bringing it to my attention- but this is all the more reason a more responsible venue should have been found for you to air your grievences instead of playing into our known critic's hands. Fagan seemed to be using you, big time. All I could think of when listening to you was: "With friends like this, who needs enemies".

And it's not personally "hard on me" to go through things like that yesterday, but a conservative agenda gets squashed when those who could be working together to accomplish something are set up like you were yesterday. That was brutual Glen, and I've heard from others saying worse things than "brutal". Please don't pass these thoughts on to Fagan - he hates me and my administration enough as it is.

Yes, it's brutal to ask a politician about their timeline regarding campaign promises...whenis she  the politician being held accountable.  It's also obvious that Palin has her own obsession with Fagan.

From: Glen Biegel
To: Palin, Sarah (GOV sponsored)
Sent: Sat Sep 15 06:38:06 2007
Subject: Re: Letter from Governor Palin

Governor,

I still don't have any indication on how you want to proceed (Timeframe, next steps, meetings, etc). I am having to make guesses on what will happen in the future without any guidance, and then speak about it on the air. I will indicate on air that I did not get the information to you or to the right people and that I have every confidence that this issue will turn out, but it would be nice to have something more than your response below.

I don't want to make things worse (if they can get worse).

Thanks

Glen

Another sin...Glen very civily and subtly pointed out that Palin had neither answered the question nor provided any requested information.

So, Palin comes back at him again:

Glen- i am in Juneau. I got your message a couple of days ago, have been tasking folks to find out what I'm missing so you could receive an appropriate response with going back and forth again. Without fail, each person has reported back that they were confident they had communicated with you about our desire to help.

They had "communicated with you about our desire to help."  She was still providing none of the information that was requested and was getting nastier about the fact he kept asking.

I had people spend more than a day looking for "my" letter to you that seemed to have been the catalyst for the miscommunications on the air, because we wanted all info in front of us in order to respond. That letter was nonexistent, I believe you clarified then about the letter. That was less than three days ago. We're still seeking info on this issue so there will be no more miscommunications, damaged relationships, distrust, missed opportunities to help, etc. I believe you overreacted and you left many people with the impression that their homeschool issues will be better dealt with in a different administration.

It doesn't seem wise to me for you to "make guesses" about anything, then speak about it on the air. I have not had the chance to sit down with the AG to speak about this, as your request is to speak to him, so though it's not wise, nor fair, to "make guesses" again on the air, I can not tell you what to say on air... I've already expressed the committment to help, the tasking of staff to gather more information so the board can more aggressively tackle the issues, I've insisted homeschoolers get adequate time to address the board... etc.

So, Palin feels it's "not wise, nor fair" to "make guesses" on the air.  Yet she also states that "I can not tell you what to say on the air..."

She can't tell a talk radio host what to say on the air when he is trying to help her Administration?

The last communication in this series between Palin and Biegel comes from Glen:

Subject: Re: Letter from Governor Palin

Thank you for the response. That helps me a lot.

God Bless,

Glen

There is no way to know for sure from this email if the "That helps me a lot" was meant sarcastically.

Palin then forwards the email string to Talis Colberg, her AG at the time, and adds the rest of the "inner sanctum" folks on the CC: list (the two last email addresses are Todd and Frank Bailey).  Not surprisingly, we don't get to know the content of that message:

From: Palin, Sarah (GOV sponsored)
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 7:17 AM
To: Colberg; Talis J (LAW)
CC: Tibbles; Michael A (GOV); Perry; Kristina Y (GOV); Smith; Lynne M (GOV);
'fek9wnr@yahoo.com'; 'ftb907@yahoo.com'

Subject: Letter from Governor Palin

Talis

REDACTED

I don't think you'd be surprised to discover that it was around this time, Eddie Burke had started to become the Palin's bestest radio buddy!  He's not impeded by an intellect as sharp as Glen's!

Another email thread between Glen and the former Governor happened several months later, December 2007.  Again, it was the result of Glen asking for clarification regarding a tax issue, not getting it, and then doing his best to address the issue on the air.

The most interesting aspect of this exchange is when Palin does something that makes me wonder how often it's happened...she sends her response to the "inner sanctum," but seemingly forgets that Biegel is still on the "TO" line:

----- Original Message -----
From: Patin, Sarah (GOV sponsored)
To: Glen Biegel; 'fek9wnr@yahoo.com'
Cc: 'ftb907@yahoo.com'; Perry, Kristina Y (GOV) ; Anders, Bruce F (DNR) ; Galvin, Patrick S (DOR); Irwin, Tom E (DNR) ; Rutherford, Marty K (DNR) ; Tibbles, Michael A (GOV) ; Leighow, Sharon W (GOV)
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: Questions on the interest of the Admin for a lock in of Tax rates for Gas.

Does he not understand that CP's "proposal" doesn't meet the state's "must haves"... they admit it's far outside the law (AGIA) and even CP has admitted locking up tax rates for 30 yrs (!) as Glen suggests is unacceptable to the legislature, the Alaskan public, this administration, and the Constitution. THEY don't even ask for a 30 year lock-up.

He said that "the campaign" didn't have a problem with that fiscal certainty? Huh? And that he was the gasline consultant to the campaign? Huh? Tell that to the Magnificant 7 who publicly explained the folly of Murkowski's plan, and my willingness to embrace their advice and consultation.

Surely he knows we would not divulge any AGIA info to him that we wouldn't share with the public at the appropriate time... despite the megaphone he has with his radio show and his frequent visits with Dan Fagan on
Fagan's show.

Glen responds twice to an email he wasn't supposed to see, once HERE and then, a clarification HERE.  Both times, he took the high road.  

However, there is a third branch to this thread, where we see Palin sending Glen the response she MEANT for him 19 MINUTES after sending the one she DIDN'T mean to send!

-----Original Message-----
From: Paln, Sarah (GOV sponsored)
Sent: Thu 12/13/2007 9:31 PM
1 ROSTON 01234
To: 'Glen Biegel'; 'fek9wnr@yahoo.com'
Cc: 'ftb907@yahoo.com'; Perry, Kristina Y (GOV); Anders, Bruce F (DNR); Galvin, Patrick S (DOR);
Irwin, Tom E (DNR); Rutherford, Marty K (DNR); Tibbles, Michael A (GOV); Leighow, Sharon W
(GOV)
Subject: Re: Questions on the interest of the Admin for a lock in of Tax rates for Gas.

Glen- I sent this reply with all due respect, and in confidence between you and my administrators who have been working hard on getting Alaska's gasline project up and running.

"...WITH ALL DUE RESPECT?"  Where was that "respect" 19 minutes ago when she sent the snipe-fest to the "inner sanctum?"

From now on, everytime Palin says the phrase "with all due respect," I'll wonder what Palin ACTUALLY said just minutes before.  (Joe Biden at the VP debate?)

And once again, we see something else that may be a pattern...finishing an email thread with a REDACTED email:

From: Anders, Bruce F (DNR)
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 10:20 PM
To: Palin; Sarah (GOV sponsored); 'fek9wnr@yahoo.com'
CC: 'ftb907@yahoo.com'; Perry; Kristina Y (GOV); Galvin ; Patrick S (DOR); Irwin ; Tom E (DNR);
Rutherford; Marty K (DNR); Tibbles ; Michael A (GOV); Leighow; Sharon W (GOV)
Subject: RE: Questions on the interest of the Admin for a lock in of Tax rates for Gas.

REDACTED

The MSNBC emails are a treasure trove of information as long as someone is able to put them in context for the general public.

(**NOTE**I truly appreciate the folks who have been sending me information, links to interesting emails and questions about what they have read.  Many of you have been asking whether Glen and I are related--the answer is "yes, we are." Glen is the older brother of my husband. However, it is not pertinent to the story...it would be hard for us to be more diametrically opposed in our ideologies. Therefore, we NEVER discuss politics...ever...nor do we discuss our blog posts/radio programs. Consequently, we've never discussed any of this and I learned about the existence of these emails with the rest of the world.  

Any information in this post is already public knowledge somewhere on the Internet, over the airwaves or from other sources. The only deference I gave to Glen as a family member took the form of waiting for him to talk about this in a public forum first before I posted anything about it.  Matt Felling of KTVA already mentioned something about it on Twitter last week and Palingates posted Glen's disclosure this morning.)

Don't Palin fans know they need to live up to their bumperstickers?

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 01:36:37 AM AKST

I turned off my phone earlier today and when I turned it back on, my good friend (I'll call him "E") had called three times, which is unlike him.  He called again and told me this story (that he posted on his Facebook page), which explained why he wanted to talk to me so badly!

Nothing quite like being nearly sideswiped at 65mph with your child in the car!

The idiot woman with the "Choose Life" & "Palin 2012" bumper stickers on her BMW at least stopped her cellphone conversation long enough to flip me off after nearly slamming into me.

...no turn signal either, of course.

Some things to know:

1)  After trying for a long time, E and his wife K wanted to have a child together so badly that they emptied their bank accounts...their entire nest egg...and spent every penny they had on IVF (In Vitro Fertilization).  The reward is the beautiful little boy at the top of the page!

2)  K is a member of Mensa and E is no slouch himself. (I love it when geniuses procreate!) They are both quite Progressive.  Did I also mention they are agnostic?  

So this "intellectually elite," Progressive, "godless," couple enthusiastically "chose life!"  (By the way, they are also loving, caring, generous, and hysterically funny!)

3)  It is illegal to talk text on a cellphone while driving in Colorado. **(I was corrected by another Colorado resident.)**

4)  What E didn't say on Facebook is that BMW brat's reckless driving sent E and the baby fish-tailing out of control.  He said all he could do was hold on to the wheel and hope for the best.  Luckily, the best is what they got!

So, I guess "Choosing Life" for a Palinista is a purely selective process?

The issue here isn't even that this woman made several bonehead moves on the road...we all screw up occasionally.  The outrageous part of the story is that SHE put a 5-month-old and his father in danger by breaking the law and driving like a drunk woman.  Then, SHE gave HIM the finger like it was HIS fault!

Yup, sounds like the Palinistas we've been talking about!

**NOTE** Yes, I am calling this woman an "idiot" and a "brat" because I believe her behavior has earned her the labels!

Is it possible to reason with Palin's "Rebiblicans"?

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 08:56:55 AM AKST

There has been a debate the last several days around the blogosphere regarding blog posts and civility.  There are many who believe we should be careful in our language, avoid namecalling, etc...(good rules-of-thumb for debating).  They make a good argument for trying to leave things open for engagement between us and the right-wingers.  At the very least, being careful in our writing provides us more credibility.

However, in the discussion process, I wondered if folks actually thought that there may actually be a chance for Progressives to influence Palin's "Rebiblican" followers. These are folks who want the entire US to be run according to the Bible.  Commenters mentioned quotes from Martin Luther King about peaceful resistence. They used his success in the civil rights movement as an example of how the same can be done by Progressives in this current political climate.

There is a very large difference between then and now:  MLK was a pastor and linked the teachings of Jesus and his Baptist religion with social justice.  Today, the right wing Rebiblicans have systematically and successfully stripped religion from the Left in the minds of many Americans...even though 74% of Progressives identify as Christians and many of the rest are devout followers of other faiths. Somehow, they've also replaced the Gospels of Jesus with the vengeful God from the Old Testament...a God who deals out often fatal punishment to "the godless."

The problem:  their definition of "the godless" shifts and changes with whomever they are told (by "leaders" who may or may not be believers, but definitely know how to manipulate) fits that description.  Sometimes, it's as simple as a judge who ruled against Sarah's family in a custody case.

Yesterday, I wrote this in the comments of another blog about my experience with the teabaggers (with edits):

...it doesn't matter whether you are actively writing anything about Palin or not. Once you are on their radar, they will continue to send regular messages with hate, insults and threats. I get about 10 a week even if I'm just writing gardening posts-more if I'm writing political ones.

Also, getting on their radar frequently has nothing to do with whether or not you are insulting...it also has more to do with if you are effective and people are actually paying attention. Then, if you're not truly being insulting, they start making stuff up.

Let's be clear...when they talk about "civility" it is like every other rule in Palin's world...only meant for us and not for her or her followers. We could stop all negative posts about Palin (no matter how civil) and the insults and threats would continue because they would believe that's why those posts had stopped...because it's important for them to take credit for everything...because it's important for them to think they are "God's chosen ones" and we are evil.

That's what these people believe...by the very fact we call ourselves Dems, Libs or Progressives we are evil and we're all going to hell. Therefore, they do not have to treat us as if we are human beings.

An example is part of an email I received today:

You poor dear, God turned his back on your very existence and Satan stepped in. Now we know from whence all your vitriol, evil compositions and repugnance originate.

We will all pray for your soul, although it surely is already lost forever.

Making us the "ultimate enemy" gives them license to do whatever they want...and we have "earned" that not because of anything most of us have ever said or done, but because of what we believe.

The difference between the Civil Rights battle and the current political climate is that rather than using a vision of God to fight FOR our rights and protections, the Rebiblicans and the Rebiblican DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) want to circumvent them:

As progressives, we are well aware of the role of the Religious Right in issues such as gay rights and women's rights. However, the Religious Right's war on progressive economic policy, regulation, progressive tax structures, and labor unions is often overlooked. Radical free market ideology is being taught to students and adults as a biblical mandate and those in opposition are being literally demonized.  Revisionist textbooks rewriting science and social sciences to align with literal biblical interpretations, are widely used in homeschooling, some private schools, and also by "family values" organizations and adult seminars.

This includes taking away something that distinguished us from every other country when it was first instituted, the right of every child to have a free, secular education:

Federal government statistics show homeschooling increasing rapidly with an estimate of 1.5 million students home schooled in 2007.   Homeschooling organizations and the Alliance for Separation of School and State claim that number is growing rapidly.  The latter is an organization which aims to eradicate public education in America.  This agenda to privatize all schooling is supported by numerous religious leaders, and includes Rep. Ron Paul, syndicated columnist John Rosemond, and former Secretary of the Interior Don Hodel.

That's something the religious civil rights advocates in King's day would march to prevent.


(to be cont'd)