Click on the link above to watch the movie.
Cancer research shows cancer is curable without the torture patients go through currently. This has been known for years, but the powers that be, helped by your government, will not let this research come to the forefront. Please take the time to watch this documentary and share it with your friends and family. The goal is to spread this knowledge throughout the general public in order to facilitate not only progress on this issue, but also another facet of how the government does not work in the best interest of it’s citizens.
I would like to update this post by including a letter I received today:
Here is a copy of the letter I am sending to my Government Representatives at the state and national level. I also plan on sending this to as many agencies as possible that use taxpayer dollars to fund their cancer research operations, whether it be public or private. The main ones are the FDA, the NCI, the CRI, theMemorialSloan-KetteringCancerCenter, the Mayo Clinic, the CDC, the Surgeon General, and the President of theUnited States.
This letter is by no means extensive. So many stories can be told. I just reported on a few of the many issues in healthcare, for the sake of making my point, which I’ve been wanting to do for the last 10 years, but could put off no longer. Hundreds, even thousands of cases could easily be included to present the case against the fraud we call the “The War on Cancer.” Please read, then ACT!
Dennis M. – Spouse of two-time cancer survivor.
Cancer strikes fear in everyone because it is an exceedingly complex disease, compounded by layers of dysfunction, toxicity, and immune compromise. Cancer is a collection of many different kinds of uncontrolled cellular growths: leukemias, solid tumors, cancers from a variety of tissues and more. There are hundreds of cancers, each with a diverse array of treatments tailored by research. Some cancers can be surgically removed, others require chemotherapy, but most often are treated by a combination of “cut/burn/poison.”
Since the latest trend in cancer treatment is focused on triggering an immune system response, the following will explain how the body specifically kills cancer cells. It is known, and has been for a long time, that cancer cells can only grow in an acidic environment, and cannot grow in the presence of oxygen. One way the body rids itself of out of control cancer cells, is through cytotoxic killer T cells, which specifically kill the cancer cells, always present in the human body, very easily by attaching sacs of hydrogen peroxide to the cancer cell’s wall, which, when released, flood the cancer cell with oxygen. When the body’s immune system is missing any needed component, because of a compromised or defective immune system (diet, lack of exercise, defects within the body’s DNA, environmental toxins, etc.) and can no longer keep up the task, cancer takes over. What all the drugs, all the therapies, both Allopathic and Homeopathic, and all the research models are attempting to do, to help the cancer patient survive, is to mimic something the body does naturally, on it’s own, but can’t because of a malfunctioning immune system. The most commonly used mainstream approach is to cut the cancer out surgically, burn and cook the infected area with radiation, and poison the entire body, but not to the point of death, by injecting a chemotherapy solution of mixed chemicals through a surgically installed port in the chest, gaining access to the main artery above the heart. They choose this port installation because the chemicals used would severely burn or melt off the skin if the intravenous method should leak. Usually, with most chemo treatments, the patient is so nauseated, they need to take an anti-nausea drug, costing upwards of $250 per pill. Along with nausea, various other medications are prescribed for infections, and various other reasons, totaling 16 different medications or more, and, to help the patients further cope through this difficult time, they are even prescribed psychotropic drugs, to bring the patient into a state capable of tolerating the treatment, of which these various protocols might go anywhere from 12 weeks, to even 9 months, and longer. If the patient survives the first series of treatments, and the cancer returns, they have to go through the same protocols again, only more intense, or at the very worst, sent home to die, because the cancer has metastasized throughout the entire body, leaving the doctor and the patient with no further options. It’s even worse for brain cancer patients. Most lose quality of life with their treatments – permanent loss of hearing, loss of sight, loss of brain function, leaving them in a vegetable state, the last months of their lives. It’s especially troubling when a little child has to endure all this at the young age of 2 or 3. The more severe cancer treatments can run upwards of $250,000 dollars or more. Every day, more than 1,500 Americans die from the different forms of cancer, and at the present time over 12,000,000 Americans are coping with the disease. In the worst case scenarios, cancer patients are given only weeks to live and sent home to die, with no hope of recovery or life extension. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. The National Cancer Institute estimates that more than 240,000 men in the U.S.were diagnosed in 2011. About nine out of 10 of those cases were diagnosed with localized tumors and survived at least five years after diagnosis. Roughly 1 out of 10, or about 24,000 victims succumb to the disease. As for women, the most common form of cancer is in the breast, of which 1 in 8 women will have the disease during their lifetime. Over 230,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed this year alone, and about 40,000 women will die of the disease, about 1 in every 6.
The data concerning death rates according to disease, obtained from several sources, including the 1900-1970, U.S. Public Health Service, Vital Statistics of the United States, annual, Vol. I and Vol II; 1971-2001, U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, annual; National Vital Statistics Report (NVSR) (formerly Monthly Vital Statistics Report); and unpublished data, indicate that death rates, per 100,000, from all forms of Tuberculosis dropped from 194, in the year 1900, to 0.2 in 2005. Influenza and Pneumonia dropped from 202.2 to 21.3, and Cardiovascular disease dropped from 345.2 to 288.8. Malignant Neoplasms or Cancer, was the only one that skyrocketed, from 64 in 1900, to over 188 in 2005.
While the overall expenditure on cancer care in general has remained relatively steady over the past 2 decades – encompassing 4.8% of the total $513 billion spent on medical care in 1987, vs 4.9% of the average $979 billion spent annually from 2001 to 2005 – the cost of oncology drugs has soared past all other classes of pharmaceutical agents (Cancer 116:3477-3484, 2010). According to the marketing firm IMS Health, sales of oncology drugs have skyrocketed from $5 billion in 1998 to $19.2 billion in 2008. According to Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Fojo T, et al: J Natl Cancer Inst 101: 1044-1048), 90% of cancer-fighting drugs or biologics approved by the FDA over the past 4 years cost more than $20,000 for a 12-week course of therapy, with many offering a survival benefit of only 2 months or less. The result of the rising cost of cancer treatment is threatening not just the financial solvency of patients – a poll by the American Cancer Society found that one in five families use up all of their savings paying for cancer treatment – but that of the country as well. With health-care spending projected to balloon to $4 trillion by 2015, outpacing the growth in the gross domestic product by 20% (up from 17.3% in 2009), health-care industry experts and government agencies are looking for solutions to rein in costs without stifling drug innovation or jeopardizing patient care. When a patient is charged $80,000 for a drug that gives an average of 1.2 months survival advantage, that just doesn’t make sense. At some point, a small percentage of patients in whom the drug would be really effective, could be identified. Then expensive drugs could provide a better benefit to patients who are getting not 1.2 months, but at least 1 to 2 years’ benefit from them. Unfortunately, these drugs aren’t harmless. The initial information gives the impression that these drugs target the tumor and not normal tissues. But, in reality, these drugs target every cell in the body, even normal tissues. Consequently, all cancer therapy drugs have toxicities, often as bad or even worse than those of cytotoxic agents. So too many patients are being given these drugs and experience no benefit, and, are in fact, being caused harm in the process. We have to reprogram ourselves and recognize that these agents are like all previous drugs – they have side effects. So the decisions for drug therapy are actually choosing between having any real benefit while considering how much harm it will cause. And the harm can either be a case of no activity and some level of toxicity or, as the majority of these drugs are proving, may actually worsen the disease they are intended to treat. Everyone hopes that the drug would perform better, but, unfortunately, it does not, and a 1.2-month survival benefit just isn’t worth $80,000. It is also not worth conducting additional large trials to extend the indications for these drugs. We need to move forward. We need to do better for the patients by providing better drugs.
The drug manufacturers in the United Statesessentially have no downward pressure on the cost of cancer drugs. They can choose to charge whatever they like. There’s been this long period where manufacturers are getting increasingly bold in terms of the prices they’re willing to charge. One of them comes on the market with a drug with a high price, and no one flinches. Then the next one has no hesitation to charge a similar price. So we see this almost lockstep progression in the rise of the cost of cancer drugs and no check on that. With our medical care system as it works today, can anything really be done to substantially lower the cost of cancer care? There’s no question that the challenges ahead are sizable. But the reality is that anything that drives down the cost of drugs or decreases utilization will decrease the incentive for innovation, and if the incentives are decreased, it will tamp down on the total amount of beneficial innovation. That’s the expectation at least. How big an effect that will have in a negative direction, or how large the changes have to be to reimbursement, payment, and costs to really suppress pharmaceutical innovation, and even technologic innovation- that’s harder to know, but that is one tension here.
Everyone would agree that the rising cost of health care is economically unsustainable in theUnited States. And it seems that the cost problem we have in cancer care is just a reflection of the broader ills we have in our overall health-care system.
So the questions to ask are not only “Can all forms of cancer be cured” but also “Can all cancer patients afford the treatments?” The war on cancer has raged on since President Nixon enacted it, and the U.S.government has spent well over $200 billion dollars of taxpayers’ money in the last 25 years on research for finding “the cure.” Why is it then that cancer remains “undefeated” and conventional medicine’s war on cancer is a “qualified failure,” according to the New England Journal of Medicine? The Journal reported that the cancer death rate is not lower, but 6% higher in 1997 than it was in 1970. And what’s worse, two of the tools used by the professional medical mainstream, which were approved and endorsed by the FDA, the National Cancer Institute, and used throughout all hospitals in the U.S., include x-rays, and CT scans. Medical radiation, particularly the large radiation dose delivered by CT scans, is the single most identifiable cause of breast cancer in the U.S. today. NBC News said in 2009 that each whole-body CT scan can deliver as much radiation in 10 minutes as 440 chest X-rays. And CT Scans may have caused more than 29,000 cancers and 15,000 cancer deaths every year, which means that X-rays caused more breast cancer then they detected.
As for the conventional mainstream “cutting edge” research projects taking place through the “watchful eye” of the NCI, one such area offering hope in the fight against cancer is the many different forms of cancer vaccines, which are now available, or are currently under development. Cancer vaccines are designed to boost the body’s natural ability to protect itself, through the immune system, from dangers posed by damaged or abnormal cells such as cancer cells. The FDA has approved at least two types of vaccines to “prevent” cancer: vaccines against the hepatitis B virus, which can cause liver cancer, and vaccines against human papilloma virus types 16 and 18, which are responsible for about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. The cervical cancer vaccine was made mandatory, in a controversial move by then Texas Governor Rick Perry in 2007. It’s no coincidence that Pharmaceutical companies lined the pockets of one Presidential hopeful. Unbelievably, there was no evidence, whatsoever, that these vaccines afforded any positive protection against these two types of viruses. When women have annual gynecological exams, HPV is easily detected and treated – only those who neglect to schedule regular exams could possibly become infected. Each vaccine costed $360, which quickly added up to millions, paid for by insurance companies and/or the state ofTexas, in cases where young girls were not insured, and couldn’t afford the vaccinations. With all this said, the possible long-term side effects of Gardasil are not yet known. The real question here might be “How many young girls were sterilized in the process?” Opting out was offered, but has anyone ever “opted out” of a mandated vaccine? Try it. Rick Perry’s mandate completely bypassed the Texas Legislature (overriding debate and oversight). The Texas Legislature couldn’t repeal Gov. Perry’s order, allowing it to be in effect until the governor or his successor changed it. Could the ties that Gov. Perry had with Merck have something to do with such a radical mandate? According to the Associated Press, Merck’s political action committee donated $6,000 to Gov. Perry’s campaign for re-election. But that’s just part of the picture. An advocacy group called Women in Government headed up the effort to persuade state legislatures across the country to make Gardasil vaccinations mandatory, and Merck was funding the Women in Government efforts. This is where it all got more than a little sticky for Gov. Perry, ruining his recent Presidential run as a result. The AP reported that his former chief of staff was aTexaslobbyist for Merck, and the mother-in-law of the same chief of staff just so happened to be the state director for Women in Government. How much of this type of unethical behavior is rampant throughout the industry and government? What about the best interests of the American public? Why isn’t this criminal? Why aren’t these people arrested and put in jail?
The FDA/NCI have been opposing genuine breakthroughs in nontoxic cancer treatments, and have shown little improvement with their approved cancer therapies for over 50 years, wasting $200 billion of taxpayer money, benefiting only the drug companies. How many lives were lost to cancer because of their inappropriate or even criminal actions? What if the alternative cancer approaches being blocked by these agencies were allowed to treat patients under legitimate clinical trials, free of charge to the cancer victim? There are so many documented cases of people being cured of terminal cancer, by these various “alternative” clinical trial treatments, even after being sent home to die by their former medical doctor. This isn’t snake oil. These are legitimate treatments that have shown positive results over time.
Dr. Burzynski is one of the best examples of someone being thwarted at every turn since his announcement of a possible “cancer cure”. Quackwatch.org and other mainstream “watchdog” non-profit organizations seem to skew everything in favor of big business, and serve as a destructionist mechanism to shed doubt and ridicule on any organization or individual who does not support limiting treatments to those dictated by drug companies or conventional protocols. The documentary, entitled “Burzynski The Movie – Cancer is Serious Business”, is available for free viewing at vimeo.com and information and transcripts available at BurzynskiMovie.com. This documentary shows just how difficult one man’s journey is for bringing his “cure” to market. A medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist, Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest, and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food & Drug Administration in American history. His victorious battles with the United States government were centered around Dr. Burzynski’s gene-targeted cancer medicines he discovered in the 1970’s called Antineoplastons, which have currently completed Phase II FDA-supervised clinical trials in 2009 and could begin the final phase of FDA testing in 2011–barring the ability to raise the required $300 million to fund the final phase of FDA clinical trials. When Antineoplastons are approved, it will mark the first time in history a single scientist, not a pharmaceutical giant, will hold the exclusive patent and distribution rights on a paradigm-shifting medical breakthrough. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Various cancer survivors are presented in the film who chose these medicines instead of surgery, chemotherapy or radiation – with full disclosure of medical records to support their diagnosis and recovery – as well as systematic (non-anecdotal) FDA-supervised clinical trial data comparing Antineoplastons to other available treatments—which is published within the peer-reviewed medical literature. One form of cancer – diffuse, intrinsic, childhood brainstem glioma has never before been cured in any scientifically controlled clinical trial in the history of medicine. Antineoplastons hold the first cures in history – dozens of them. [ANP – PubMed 2003] [ANP – PubMed 2006] [ANP – Cancer Therapy 2007] [Rad & other – PubMed 2008] [Chemo/Rad – PubMed 2005]
Linus Carl Pauling is another example of an individual attacked by the mainstream medical community, and his clinical findings skewed. He was one of the most influential chemists in history and ranks among the most important scientists of the 20th century. Pauling was among the first scientists to work in the fields of quantum chemistry and molecular biology, and is one of only four individuals to have won more than one Nobel Prize. He is one of only two people awarded Nobel Prizes in different fields (the chemistry and peace prizes), the other being Marie Curie (the Chemistry and Physics prizes), and the only person awarded two unshared prizes. Pauling’s work on vitamin C in his later years generated much controversy. He was first introduced to the concept of high-dose vitamin C by biochemist Irwin Stone in 1966. After becoming convinced of its worth, Pauling took 3 grams of vitamin C every day to prevent colds. Excited by his own perceived results, he researched the clinical literature and published Vitamin C and the Common Cold in 1970. He began a long clinical collaboration with the British cancer surgeon Ewan Cameron in 1971 on the use of intravenous and oral vitamin C as cancer therapy for terminal patients. Cameron and Pauling wrote many technical papers and a popular book, Cancer and Vitamin C, that discussed their observations. Pauling made vitamin C popular with the public and eventually published two studies of a group of one hundred allegedly terminal patients that claimed vitamin C increased survival by as much as four times compared to untreated patients. A re-evaluation of the claims in 1982 found that the patient groups were not actually comparable, with the vitamin C group being less sick on entry to the study, and judged to be “terminal” much earlier than the comparison group. Later clinical trials conducted by the Mayo Clinic also found that high-dose (10,000 mg) vitamin C was no better than placebo at treating cancer and that there was no benefit to high-dose vitamin C. The failure of the clinical trials to demonstrate any benefit resulted in the conclusion that vitamin C was not effective in treating cancer; the medical establishment also concluded his claims that vitamin C could prevent colds was quackery. Pauling denounced the conclusions of these studies and handling of the final study as “fraud and deliberate misrepresentation”, and criticized the studies for using oral, rather than intravenous vitamin C (which was the dosing method used for the first ten days of Pauling’s original study). Pauling also criticized the Mayo clinic studies because the controls were taking vitamin C during the trial, and because the duration of the treatment with vitamin C was short; Pauling advocates continued high dose vitamin C for the rest of the cancer patient’s life whereas the Mayo clinic patients in the second trial were treated with vitamin C for a median of 2.5 months. The results were publicly debated at length with considerable acrimony between Pauling and Cameron, and Moertel (the lead author of the Mayo Clinic studies), with accusations of misconduct and scientific incompetence on both sides. Ultimately the negative findings of the Mayo Clinic studies ended general interest in vitamin C as a treatment for cancer. Despite this, Pauling continued to promote vitamin C for treating cancer and the common cold, working with The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential to use vitamin C in the treatment of brain-injured children. He later collaborated with the Canadian physician Abram Hoffer on a micronutrient regimen, including high-dose vitamin C, as adjunctive cancer therapy. Pauling directed research on vitamin C, but also continued his theoretical work in chemistry and physics until his death. In his last years, he became especially interested in the possible role of vitamin C in preventing atherosclerosis and published three case reports on the use of lysine and vitamin C to relieve angina pectoris. In 1996, the Linus Pauling Institute moved from Palo Alto, California, to Corvallis, Oregon, to become part of Oregon State University, where it continues to conduct research on micronutrients, phytochemicals (chemicals from plants), and other constituents of the diet in preventing and treating disease. Several researchers that had previously worked at the Linus Pauling Institute in Palo Alto, including the assistant director of research, moved on to form the Genetic Information Research Institute.
In order to clearly show the bias mechanism in place throughout the cancer industry, these two individuals were chosen because they are/were two of the brightest individuals we’ve seen in the last 100 years, in regards to cancer researchers. And the one thing they both share is the way in which they were treated by the Cancer establishment. Dr. Burzynski hasn’t won a Nobel Prize, like Linus Pualing, but has developed a method for gene specific therapy, which is the main direction in which cancer research is headed.
To show Dr. Burzynski is not a quack, like so many members of the mainstream Cancer community have suggested over the last 30 years, just compare his work to one of the most brilliant of the mainstream doctors, in the field of oncology today, Dr. David Agus. He is a Professor of Medicine and Engineering at the Keck School of Medicine USC, and the Viterbi School of Engineering, and is the Director of the USCCenterfor Applied Molecular Medicine and the USCWestsideNorrisCancerCenter. Agus is co-Director of the newly funded USC/NCI Physical Sciences in OncologyCentertogether. He is a member of several scientific and medical societies, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Association for Cancer Research, AmericanCollegeof Physicians, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Hematology and the American Medical Association. He is a co-founder of Navigenics, a personal genetic testing company, involved in developing gene specific therapies, and the webmaster of Oncology.com, the largest online cancer resource and virtual community. He has received many honors and awards, including the American Cancer Society Physician Research Award, a Clinical Scholar Award from the Sloan-Kettering Institute, a CaP CURE Young Investigator Award, and the American Cancer Society Clinical Oncology Fellowship Award, the HealthNetwork Foundation’s Excellence Award, and the 2009 GQ Magazine Rockstar of Science Award. In 2009, he was selected to serve as a judge for the first Biotech Humanitarian Award. Agus’s research has focused on the application of proteomics and genomics for the study of cancer and the development of new medications to be used in the treatment of cancer. He has published many scientific articles, and recently completed his first book, entitled “The End of Illness,” which was released January, 2012. In this book he states “Despite advances in modern medicine, why aren’t we better at curing illness? We must embrace a totally new view of looking at our health to prevent and combat heart disease, cancer and autoimmune disorders.” His two main focuses lie first in preventing the disease through diet and exercise, and second by using DNA specific drugs to treat illnesses more effectively, similar to what Dr. Burzynski has been doing since the 70’s, but not so much as a cure, like Burzynski’s approach which actually turns cancer cells off, but instead as a way of making current or future drugs more effective by simply giving more validity, through it’s efficacy, to a mediocre drug.
In many cases, it is critical to the survival of a cancer patient to shrink their tumors. However, in many other cases it is not life-threatening to leave a tumor alone and instead concentrate on stopping the spread of the cancer itself. “Modern medicine,” with its firm grasp of the art of making huge amounts of profits while their patients die, has totally brainwashed the public into thinking that the size of every tumor is important in a cancer treatment. In many cases shrinking the tumor is critical!! However, current medical therapies frequently desire to shrink tumors which are irrelevant to the survival of the patient. Here is a quote by Dr. Philip Binzel, M.D., from his book, Alive and Well – “When a patient is found to have a tumor, the only thing the doctor discusses with that patient is what he intends to do about the tumor. If a patient with a tumor is receiving radiation or chemotherapy, the only question that is asked is, “How is the tumor doing?” No one ever asks how the patient is doing. In my medical training, I remember well seeing patients who were getting radiation and/or chemotherapy. The tumor would get smaller and smaller, but the patient would be getting sicker and sicker. At autopsy we would hear, “Isn’t that marvelous! The tumor is gone!” Yes, it was, but so was the patient. How many millions of times are we going to have to repeat these scenarios before we realize that we are treating the wrong thing? In primary cancer, with only a few exceptions, the tumor is neither health-endangering nor life-threatening. I am going to repeat that statement. In primary cancer, with few exceptions, the tumor is neither health-endangering nor life-threatening. What is health-endangering and life-threatening is the spread of that disease through the rest of the body. There is nothing in surgery that will prevent the spread of cancer, there is nothing in radiation that will prevent the spread of cancer, and there is nothing in chemotherapy that will prevent the spread of cancer. How do we know? Just look at the statistics! There is a statistic known as “survival time.” Survival time is defined as that interval of time between when the diagnosis of cancer is first made in a given patient and when that patient dies from his disease. In the past fifty years, tremendous progress has been made in the early diagnosis of cancer, and in the surgical ability to remove tumors, and in the use of radiation and chemotherapy to shrink or destroy tumors. But, the survival time of the cancer patient today is no greater than it was fifty years ago. What does this mean? It obviously means that we are treating the wrong thing!” While there are some alternative cancer treatments that do shrink tumors, the focus on most alternative cancer treatments is to target and kill any cancer cells, or to revert the cancer cells back to normal cells. Shrinking tumors is generally secondary in alternative cancer treatments. If the tumor is pressing on a vital organ, is causing pain, and is obstructing the flow of fluids, or for some other reason needs to be eliminated from the body, alternative treatments may not be the best choice and instead should be removed with surgery. Most alternative cancer treatments will cause a tumor to swell temporarily, which you don’t want to have happen when it would do harm, but where there is no issue with temporary swelling, may be used and could be effective in a majority of cases. All treatments, which show real tangible results, whether in the lab, or clinical trial, or even with drugs currently on the market which have no trademark rights due to expiration, and show the ability to shrink or eliminate tumors, should be made available to the cancer patient.
On the other side of the treatment spectum, there are charlatans that peddle bogus cures, preying on patients when they are at their most vulnerable and promising false hope. Some alternative medical practitioners can promise natural cures, tempting the patient to abandon medical science. These alternative treatments are often without any scientific merit or evidence, tearing the patient away from real medicine. But not all alternative cancer treatments are without merit. The FDA/NCI’s continuing hidden agenda to bury the real cancer cures, and to steadfastly oppose research that shows very promising results, is “aWashington scandal of astonishing proportions”. Without question, the FDA/NCI should be held accountable for any malfeasance in skewing data in running clinical trials on a promising anticancer drug. Why hasn’t there been any jail time for bureaucrats at the top of these organizations that operate their agencies against the public’s best interest, but instead manipulate the system for the benefit of big pharmaceutical companies?
And what about the ramifications if a simple, inexpensive cancer cure were found? The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center is just one of the many, many centers in this country, involved with the cancer industry, and one of the world’s most respected centers, recently voted #1 in the country by U.S. News and World Report for 2012, and devoted exclusively to cancer patient care, research, education and prevention. It continues to set the standard in cancer prevention research and the translation of new knowledge into innovative, multidisciplinary care for patients, survivors and people at average or elevated risk of developing cancer. The Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences at MD Anderson is dedicated to eradicating cancer through pioneering research in the roles that biologic, genetic, environmental, behavioral and social factors play in cancer development and investigations of behavioral, surgical, medical and social interventions to prevent or reduce cancer risk. MD Anderson employs more than 18,000 people, including more than 1,500 faculty. A volunteer work force of about 1,100 contributes 200,000 hours of service annually, equal to 96 full-time employees. Together they work toward fulfilling MD Anderson’s mission of eliminating cancer as a major health threat. Almost 7,000 trainees, including physicians, scientists, nurses and allied health professionals, took part in educational programs at MD Anderson in 2011. The institution awards bachelor’s degrees in eight allied health disciplines and, in collaboration with the UT Health Science Center at Houston, awards M.S. and Ph.D. degrees at the UT Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences. In addition, thousands of health professionals participate in continuing education and distance-learning opportunities. This is just one of hundreds of institutions across the country and around the world that provide employment and income to millions of people. If a cure for all cancers is found, like what is professed in their mission statement, how big of an impact will the loss of employment have in each community? It would most likely devastate the entire country and the world for years, maybe never recovering from the fallout. This is the number one reason people – conspiracy theorists – believe that a cure will never be found.
So, in closing, and without losing focus on those who are dying from this disease, I would like to ask that our elected officials on Capitol Hill regain full oversight on budget and direction, within the cancer community, in order to stop special interests from controlling the outcome of research, development, and treatment therapies. All proceedings, through which these investigations would take place, should be, without question made available, through open hearings, C-span viewing, and transcripts available through the Freedom Of Information act for all to see. In the utmost urgency, serious questions need to be publicly raised and debated as to why the FDA/NCI’s research budgets have been nearly fruitless in their execution, and why they should be extended into the future, unimpeded, and under current management directives. Considering the FDA/NCI’s track record of mismanaging this country’s cancer research, especially over the last 25 years, the facts still remains that over $200 billion taxpayer dollars yielded almost nothing of benefit to cancer patients, and many, many people suffered and died from the lack of proper treatment. So why continue down the same road? Isn’t it time for a different paradigm?
Available monies and efforts should be redirected to seek out ALL effective treatments, and the ones that show promise should be fully funded by the Government, without bias, and without delay, and be fully accountable to our elected officials, not left just to defiant Washington Bureaucrats, to ensure all American people, not just the special class, be assured that no one individual or private organization be allowed to manipulate data or steal patent rights, or prevent “cures” from coming forward. These criminal actions have gone on far too long and, without exception, should result in criminal prosecutions of every individual involved in this scheme to cheat the people of this nation out of the most fundamental right of having proper medical care to support our inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Action on your part is needed in the worst way to break the log jam of deceit and self-interest.
Spouse of a two-time breast cancer survivor. Friend and relative of many who suffered and died from this dreadful disease.
So, my advice to all of you reading this is……Now is the time to make your voices heard. Please get involved by writing/calling your Representatives and telling them it all ends now. Every Government Agency needs to be overhauled, starting with these two – the FDA/NCI. And not to appease the few who are complaining, but for the millions who are dying. Many millions of lives are hanging in the balance, many millions have already been lost, many of those you probably know.
Walking for the cure is good…..but BEING the cure is even better! Get involved, not only by spreading the message as far and wide as you can, but get in contact with your government, on a daily basis if necessary and:
- Ask for real change
- Demand real change
- Settle for nothing less than real change.
It will help save so many people. Thank you for your time.
I leave you with this:
Linus Pauling, one of the greatest scientists of our time, and a two time Nobel Prize winner, said, “The war on cancer is largely a fraud.” The great Greek philosopher Socratessaid, “All wars are undertaken for the acquisition of wealth.” So there you have it.
The “War on Cancer” is largely an undertaking for the “acquisition of wealth,” not the curing of a disease.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Last week, one of the millions of workers hired by Census 2010 to parade around the country counting Americans blew the whistle on some statistical tricks.
The worker, Naomi Cohn, told The Post that she was hired and fired a number of times by Census. Each time she was hired back, it seems, Census was able to report the creation of a new job to the Labor Department.
Each month Census gives Labor a figure on the number of workers it has hired. That figure goes into the closely followed monthly employment report Labor provides. For the past two months the hiring by Census has made up a good portion of the new jobs.
Labor doesn’t check the Census hiring figure or whether the jobs are actually new or recycled. It considers a new job to have been created if someone is hired to work at least one hour a month.
One hour! A month! So, if a worker is terminated after only one hour and another is hired in her place, then a second new job can apparently be reported to Labor . (I’ve been unable to get Census to explain this to me.)
Here’s a note from a Census worker — this one from Manhattan:
“John: I am on my fourth rehire with the 2010 Census.
“I have been hired, trained for a week, given a few hours of work, then laid off. So my unemployed self now counts for four new jobs.
“I have been paid more to train all four times than I have been paid to actually produce results. These are my tax dollars and your tax dollars at work.
“A few months ago I was trained for three days and offered five hours of work counting the homeless. Now, I am knocking (on) doors trying to find the people that have not returned their Census forms. I worked the 2000 Census. It was a far more organized venture.
“Have to run and meet my crew leader, even though with this rain I did not work today. So I can put in a pay sheet for the hour or hour and a half this meeting will take. Sincerely, C.M.”
And here’s another:
“John: I worked for (Census) and I was paid $18.75 (an hour) just like Ms. Naomi Cohn from your article.
“I worked for about six weeks or so and I picked the hours I wanted to work. I was checking the work of others. While I was classifying addresses, another junior supervisor was checking my work.
“In short, we had a “checkers checking checkers” quality control. I was eventually let go and was told all the work was finished when, in fact, other people were being trained for the same assignment(s).
“I was re-hired about eight months later and was informed that I would have to go through one week of additional training.
“On the third day of training, I got sick and visited my doctor. I called my supervisor and asked how I can make up the class. She informed me that I was ‘terminated.’ She elaborated that she had to terminate three other people for being five minutes late to class.
“I did get two days’ pay and I am sure the ‘late people’ got paid also. I think you would concur that this is an expensive way to attempt to control sickness plus lateness. I am totally convinced that the Census work could be very easily done by the US Postal Service.
“When I was trying to look for an address or had a question about a building, I would ask the postman on the beat. They knew the history of the route and can expand in detail who moved in or out etc. I have found it interesting that if someone works one hour, they are included in the labor statistics as a new job being full.
“I am not surprised that you can’t get any answers from Census staff; I found there were very few people who knew the big picture. M.G.”
When I received my Census form in the mail, I filled it out. Nobody had to knock on my door.
I answered truthfully about the number of people living in my household. But I could have just as easily dou bled the number. Why not? Didn’t Census ad vertisements imply that my community would get more federal money if the popula tion were larger?
I’m glad people are finding work with the Census. For some it’s the only work they have had this year and the chump change they are making for a few hours’ work is a godsend.
But wasting taxpayers’ money on busywork isn’t going to do much for the economy.
This is the fifth and final portion of my Corrupting America‘s Vote Count Series.
We will discuss here the SOSProject, funded by George Soros and former Progressive Insurance magnate Peter B Lewis, which seeks to pack paid for democrat politicians into Secretary of State offices around the country. Due to it’s non-federal 527 status, SOS Project can bring in unlimited funding without having to disclose their involvement with a campaign until well after said election has taken place, thus enabling it to work below the surface of voter’s vision. On November 9, 2009 I did a comprehensive column on the SOS project. Which I will republish in part for you here:
http://www.secstateproject.org is their official website. At present, they are seeking donations and fostering the campaigns of the following candidates. Please get involved in the campaigns of the OPPONENTS, which in this early stage are too numerous to mention, of those being backed by SOS. George Soros backed SOS candidates at present are:
Michigan: Jocelyn Benson
California: Debra Bowen
Iowa: Michael Mauro
South Dakota: Ben Nesselhuf
Ohio Maryellen: O’Shaughnessy
Minnesota: Mark Ritchie
Work to see these people are defeated in the fall.
We will try to keep on top of this and notify you of involvement by the group in various states. Another website who will also be tracking this is http://americancourthouse.com/ . You can always investigate involvement by your local candidates at www.WatchdogCentral.org as well, on not only this but other important issues.
Due to warranted national preoccupation last week with the health care debate, we will run this series as one cohesive piece this weekend. Please stop by to see portions you have missed. You have seen what the Democrat Party is willing to do to justify victory. Our only hope is that we can secure a fair and just election come this fall. Do NOT trust that to happen on it’s own. ALL EYES MUST HELP SECURE A FAIR ELECTION COUNT. We need fair minded citizens to get involved on a local level in every single municipality around the country. Let it be you.
What if I were to tell you the same corrupt players have found new ways to steal elections in America?
S.O.S. Project claims:
By electing clean Secretaries of State in 2010, we can ensure fair elections in 2012 across the country. We’re endorsing great candidates who support our goals – and we need your help to get them elected!
We’ve helped to elect 11 of 13 election reform candidates in key states like Minnesota and Ohio. Winning in these states has made a difference already, and now we’re gearing up for more wins in 2010.
By making a small contribution you can make sure unethical Secretaries of State like her and Ken Blackwell, never get to suppress our votes again. Dollar for dollar, the SoS Project is one of the most effective political investments you can make.
Since we launched in the fall of 2005, we have engaged in eleven races and have backed the winning candidate in nine states, including: Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, Oregon, New Mexico, Montana, Nevada, West Virginia and Missouri. We lost only in Michigan and Colorado (and there by a tiny margin).
In 2008, we ran a sophisticated, highly targeted campaign in Montana which made the difference in a major upset – ousting the incumbent Republican Secretary of State. Most analysts anticipate a tough 2010 Senate race in Montana, and it is critical to have a fair Secretary of State in place. In Oregon last year we helped beat back a late unexpected surge to capture a critical open seat.
We are proud of our 2006 victory in Minnesota, where long time reformer Mark Ritchie pulled off a major upset, with our support. He was under fierce media and legal scrutiny as he oversaw the recount of the Franken/Coleman senatorial race, and operated with transparency and integrity, such that the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously ruled to uphold the extremely close election results, finally sending Franken to the Senate, where his vote is much needed.
We pride ourselves on being fast, nimble, and strategic in our spending. Potential donors should know that the SoS Project’s startup and overhead costs are already fully funded. So your contributions go to providing money directly to candidates in targeted races and independent expenditure campaigns in critical states, not to our operational costs.
We seek donations to our SoS Strategic Fund for three purposes:
- to establish state political committees that will conduct innovative independent expenditure campaigns.
- to build a reserve that can be deployed, where legally permissible, to benefit the races where it will matter most in the hectic final days before the election.
- to grow the donor base for crucial down ballot races by spreading the story to new donors through paid online and social network marketing and activism campaigns.
The Secretary of State Fund, a non-federal 527, can accept unlimited contributions.
Who are these people? According to their website, they are:
Becky Bond works for a socially progressive mobile telephone company based in San Francisco. She serves on the board of the New Organizing Institute* and ActBlue.com*.
Lola Elfman is has served as an organizer and trainer for The New Organizing Institute* since 2007, she served as Internet Director for Phil Angelides’ campaign for California Governor*, and was a consultant with M+R Strategic Services*.
Megan Hull was a Project Director for Democracy Reform at the Center for Civic Participation*. In 2004, she was a Co-Director of the coalition that investigated polling place problems and vote counting irregularities in Ohio and New Mexico.
Michael Kieschnick is a social entrepreneur based in San Francisco. He is also a board member of the League of Conservation Voters, among other progressive organizations.
What they forgot to tell you was who else is on their team.
According to Matthew Vadum at American Spectator:
The founders of the Secretary of State Project, which claims to advance “election protection” but only backs Democrats, religiously believe that right-leaning secretaries of state helped the GOP steal the presidential elections in Florida in 2000 (Katherine Harris) and in Ohio in 2004 (Ken Blackwell).
The secretary of state candidates the group endorses sing the same familiar song about electoral integrity issues: Voter fraud is largely a myth, vote suppression is used widely by Republicans, cleansing the dead and fictional characters from voter rolls should be avoided until embarrassing media reports emerge, and anyone who demands that a voter produce photo identification before pulling the lever is a racist, democracy-hating Fascist.
The group was co-founded in July 2006 by James Rucker, formerly director of grassroots mobilization for MoveOn.org Political Action and Moveon.org Civic Action. “Any serious commitment to wrestling control of the country from the Republican Party must include removing their political operatives from deciding who can vote and whose votes will count,” said another co-founder, Becky Bond, to the San Francisco Chronicle in 2006.
Its website claims, “A modest political investment in electing clean candidates to critical Secretary of State offices is an efficient way to protect the election.” Indeed. Political observers know that a relatively small amount of money can help swing a little-watched race for a state office few people understand or care about.
In 2006, the Minnesota ACORN Political Action Committee endorsed Ritchie and donated to his campaign. According to the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, contributors to Ritchie’s campaign included liberal philanthropists George Soros, Drummond Pike, and Deborah Rappaport, along with veteran community organizer Heather Booth, a Saul Alinsky disciple who co-founded the Midwest Academy, a radical ACORN clone. One article on Ritchie’s 2006 campaign website brags about the fine work ACORN did in Florida to pass a constitutional amendment to raise that state’s minimum wage.
It was revealed during a panel discussion at the Democratic Party’s convention in Denver this summer that the Democracy Alliance, a financial clearinghouse created by Soros and insurance magnate Peter B. Lewis, approved the Secretary of State Project as a grantee. The Democracy Alliance aspires to create a permanent political infrastructure of nonprofits, think tanks, media outlets, leadership schools, and activist groups-a kind of “vast left-wing conspiracy” to compete with the conservative movement. It has brokered more than $100 million in grants to liberal nonprofits including ACORN. The aforementioned Pike and Rappaport, who gave money to Ritchie’s campaign, are members of the Democracy Alliance.
According to IRS 8872 disclosure forms, the Secretary of State Project received donations from Democracy Alliance members including Soros, Rob Stein, Gail Furman, and Susie Tompkins Buell.
Who now heads the Democracy Alliance? Howard Dean.
What does SOS say of their recent victories:
In 2006, SoS Project donors helped raise over $500,000 to elect reform candidates in 5 key battleground states – Ohio, Nevada, Minnesota, Iowa and New Mexico. We raised over $200,000 in Ohio to defeat Ken Blackwell with one of the most progressive election officers in the nation, Jennifer Brunner. In the 2008 presidential election, Secretary of State Brunner made decision after decision to keep the election clean and make every vote count. In Minnesota, we helped Mark Ritchie beat a Republican incumbent. Because of Secretary of State Ritchie’s dedication to fairness and transparency, a recount in the Coleman-Franken Senate race ensured every vote was counted and resulted in the certification of Al Franken’s narrow victory in the 2008 Minnesota Senate contest. Dollar for dollar, the SoS Project was one of 2006’s most effective political investments.
The 2008 election was a magnificent one for the Secretary of State Project and our savvy group of supporters helping to win 4 of 4 races! Not only did we help oust a republican Secretary of State incumbent and win three other seats, but we also witnessed returns (as noted above) from our 2006 work to elect Secretaries of State in key presidential battleground states. In Montana alone, we launched a highly targeted campaign to put Linda McCulloch over the top by just 5,305 votes. In a state where Senator John Tester won his seat by less than 1% of the vote, Secretary of State Linda McCulloch will be able to ensure that every vote is counted when he runs for reelection in 2010. Our campaign made the difference.
According to Rebekah Chauhan in a blog on Brevard Tea Party:
Mark Ritchie, a Democrat and former community organizer, largely controlled the electoral process that seated Al Franken as the 60th Democrat in the Senate. Incumbent Republican Norm Coleman led Democrat Al Franken by 341 votes and the Democrats controlled 57 seats in the Senate, compared to the Republicans’ 40. The Minnesota seat was the only one that Democrats could try to steal. Franken was endorsed by ACORN Votes, ACORN’s federal political action committee. Minnesota’s secretary of state isn’t a Democrat by happenstance. Ritchie, who defeated two-term incumbent Republican Mary Kiffmeyer in 2006, received an endorsement and financial assistance for his run from a below-the-radar non-federal “527″ group called the Secretary of State Project. The entity can accept unlimited financial contributions and doesn’t have to disclose them publicly until well after the election. The founders of the Secretary of State Project, which claims to advance “election protection” only backs Democrats. The secretary of state candidates the group endorses sing the same familiar song about electoral integrity issues: Voter fraud is largely a myth, vote suppression is used widely by Republicans, cleansing the dead and fictional characters from voter rolls should be avoided until embarrassing media reports emerge, and anyone who demands that a voter produce photo identification before pulling the lever is a racist, democracy-hating Fascist.
…In 2006, along with Minnesota’s Ritchie, SoS Project-endorsed Jennifer Brunner (Ohio), who defied federal law by refusing to take steps to verify 200,000 questionable voter registrations, trounced her opponent, 55% to 41%.
Discover the network web site says:
The idea for SoSP germinated shortly after that 2004 election, when the group’s Democrat founders blamed Kerry’s defeat on then-Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican, who had ruled that Ohio (where Bush won by a relatively slim 118,599-vote margin) would not count provisional ballots — even those submitted by properly registered voters — if they had been submitted at the wrong precinct. Though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ultimately upheld Blackwell’s decision, SoSP’s founders nonetheless received the ruling with the same bitterness they had felt regarding former Florida (Republican) Secretary of State Katherine Harris’s handling of the infamous ballot recount in 2000 (when Bush defeated Al Gore in the presidential election). Moreover, SoSP’s founders accused Blackwell and Republicans of conspiring to suppress Democratic voter turnout in Ohio. “We were tired of Republican manipulation of elections,” said SoSP co-founder Michael Kieschnick, who also serves as President of Working Assets. “It seemed like lots of decisions were made by people who were pretty clearly political operatives.”
So, once again, George Soros, ACORN and the host of usual players are allowed to skirt the system to their own benefit. If you can’t win fair and square, win by any means necessary.
They are already formulating their campaigns for 2010. We need to keep that in mind. Watchdogs in the states touted by the SOS website as targets need to be on high alert and need to point out to fellow constituents what is really happening. Letters to the editor are a very effective tool for this as is calling local radio talk shows to bring up the subject.
http://secstateproject.org is their official website. At present, they are seeking donations and fostering the campaigns of the following candidates. Please get involved in the campaigns of the OPPONENTS, which in this early stage are too numerous to mention, of those being backed by SOS. George Soros backed SOS candidates at present are:
Michigan: Jocelyn Benson
California: Debra Bowen
Iowa: Michael Mauro
South Dakota: Ben Nesselhuf
Ohio Maryellen: O’Shaughnessy
Minnesota: Mark Ritchie
Work to see these people are defeated in the fall.
We will try to keep on top of this and notify you of involvement by the group in various states. Another website who will also be tracking this is http://americancourthouse.com/ . You can always investigate involvement by your local candidates at www.WatchdogCentral.org as well, on not only this but other important issues.
Due to warranted national preoccupation last week with the health care debate, we will run this series as one cohesive piece this weekend. Please stop by to see portions you have missed. You have seen what the Democrat Party is willing to do to justify victory. Our only hope is that we can secure a fair and just election come this fall. Do NOT trust that to happen on it’s own. ALL EYES MUST HELP SECURE A FAIR ELECTION COUNT. We need fair minded citizens to get involved on a local level in every single municipality around the country. Let it be you.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
This is part of an ongoing series on threats to the American Vote Count. The series will continue all week.
We must also point out the shortly upcoming push by Dems for another corruption of our voting system called “Universal Voter” program. This will further decay the reliability of the vote count substantially.
Please watch the above video. Late last fall at a conference at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, John Fund said:
In January [it is behind schedule], Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will propose universal voter registration. What is universal voter registration? It means all of the state laws on elections will be overridden by a federal mandate. The feds will tell the states: ‘take everyone on every list of welfare that you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of driver’s license holders and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be…they will include enfranchisement of felons, too.
In an article by the Examiner.com, James Simpson wrote:
Leftist groups are already arguing that universal voter registration will solve all the problems with our voting system. But the left created most of these problems. The radical leftist Nation magazine, for example, absolutely loves the idea of universal voter registration. This is the same magazine, however, that advanced Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven’s Manufactured Crisis strategy. The Cloward/Piven strategy was designed to undermine government institutions by overwhelming them with impossible demands for services. Cloward and Piven focused on welfare, housing and voting as the main targets of this strategy, and the radical group ACORN was specifically created for the purpose of executing it.
The Nation article enthusiastically lists Cloward/Piven-inspired organizations like Project Vote, the ACORN group where President Obama cut his teeth. It also discusses the left’s efforts to push enforcement of the Motor Voter law, and explains how universal voter registration could assist in these efforts. Cloward and Piven were the ones who crafted Motor Voter legislation in the early 1980s and pushed for it’s enactment until 1993, when President Clinton signed it into law. Cloward and Piven considered Motor Voter to be their crowning lifetime achievement.
The left has predictably launched vicious smear attacks against John Fund for bringing universal voter registration to our attention. A Google search of the issue brings up any number of nasty ad hominem attacks. Most notable is Media Matters, the leftist group whose sole purpose seems to be smearing Republicans and defending the left’s indefensible policies. They put up this gem: “Right-Wing Ass Weasel John Fund Doesn’t Like Universal Voter Registration because of ACORN.” Media Matters, what a class act!
The problems with universal voter registration are numerous and obvious. Many state lists include vast numbers of illegals, including some states which allow illegals to obtain driver’s licenses; because many homeowners have more than one home there will be duplicates; because so many people are on so many separate federal and state government agency lists, there will be duplicates, and because so many lists exist with little or no cross-checking capability these duplicates are likely to go uncorrected. Add to this the fact that Dems hope to extend voting rights to felons and the whole thing begins to look like a nationwide Democrat voter registration drive facilitated by taxpayers.
Universal voter registration will create massive vulnerabilities to systemic voter fraud nationwide, and if Democrats have proven anything in recent years, it is that they can win elections that way. The George-Soros-funded Secretary of State project (SOS) was designed to take advantage of such vulnerabilities and may have been developed in anticipation of the universal voter registration plan. Al Franken’s stolen election in Minnesota was a trial run for the SOS project. Longtime ACORN friend Mark Ritchie was elected Minnesota Secretary of State in 2006 with Soros’s SOS and ACORN money, and what followed in Norm Coleman’s Senate runoff election was a frighening demonstration of just how far Democrats will go to win. Franken won the runoff and the Democrats got their filibuster-proof sixty vote Senate majority.
The Motor Voter law was correctly identified as a facilitator of vote fraud. One of the few legal issues Barack Obama actually participated in as a lawyer was a 1995 suit against the State of Illinois, which he brought on behalf of ACORN. Then Republican Governor Jim Edgars saw the newly passed Motor Voter act as creating the potential for massive vote fraud and refused to implement it. With the assistance of the Clinton Justice Department, Obama’s legal team won that suit.
In part five we will look at the George Soros SOS Project. Coupled together with all the rest, the end of honest elections is at hand in America.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
This is part of an ongoing series on threats to the American Vote Count. The series will continue all week.
Today a look at the Technical Guidelines Development Committee:
Information on the government website states: The TGDC supports the Election Assistance Committee by providing recommendations on voluntary standards and guidelines related to voting equipment and technologies. It is composed of 14 members selected from various standards boards and for their technical and scientific expertise related to voting systems and equipment. NIST chairs and manages the TGDC.
Members include representatives from the EAC Standards Board, EAC Board of Advisors, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, American National Standards Institute, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, The National Association of State Election Directors (two representatives), and other individuals with technical and scientific expertise related to voting systems and voting equipment.
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) specifies the organizational membership of the TGDC, as follows:
The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) serves as chair
2 members of the EAC Standards Board
2 members of the EAC Board of Advisors
2 members of the Architectural and Transportation Barrier, and Compliance Board (Access Board)
A representative of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
A representative of the (IEEE)
2 representatives of the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED)
4 individuals with technical and scientific expertise relating to voting systems and voting equipment.
The individuals comprising the TGDC are as follows:
Patrick D. Gallagher
Deputy Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
EAC Standards Board – 2
City Clerk and Recorder
Director, Division of Elections
Florida Department of State, Division of Elections
EAC Board of Advisors – 2
Maricopa County Recorder
Administrator of Elections
Maryland State Board of Elections
Architectural and Transportation Barrier Compliance Board (Access Board) – 2
Director of Field Services, National Federation of the Blind
Senior Software Engineer
IBM Human Ability and Accessibility Center
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) – 1
Dr. David Wagner
Professor, University of California-Berkeley
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) – 1
National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) – 2
Dr. Brittain Williams
Retired professor- Kennesaw State- University of Georgia
Voting Systems Manager, Washington State
Other individuals with technical and scientific expertise – 4
As part of its development of new voting standards, NIST consults with TGDC subcommittees and holds regular subcommittee teleconferences and periodic TGDC meetings. Teleconference audio archives, TGDC meetings, and TGDC meetings and presentations and related NIST work material are open to the public. The public may also view and submit comments and position statements to the TGDC.
President Obama has named technical advisor to the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC), provided for in the “Help America Vote Act”, to assist US Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in developing federal voluntary voting system guidelines that are used to test and certify voting systems. Based on a column at VelvetRevolution and cross posted at the Brad Blog, comes the following:
Incredible. This would be the equivalent of appointing the sitting Vice President of Exxon Mobil to an EPA advisory committee, but Ed Smith has now been appointed to the disastrous U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC’s) Technical Guidelines Development Committee as one of their new “Technical and Scientific Experts.”
From the EAC’s email announcement on Friday:
Edwin B. Smith, III, vice president of compliance and certification at Dominion Voting Systems. Before joining Dominion Voting Systems, Mr. Smith was vice president of manufacturing, compliance, quality and certification at Sequoia Voting Systems. He also served as the operations manager at Hart InterCivic and the senior director of operations at K*TEC Electronics. He holds a Master of Business Administration from the University of Phoenix and a Bachelor of Science in engineering technology from Texas A&M.
So Smith went from voting machine company Hart Intercivic to voting machine company Sequoia Voting Systems and is now at voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems, where he is a VP, selling e-voting systems to jurisdictions around the country that receive federal money doled out by the EAC. And now he’ll also sit on an advisory board at the EAC helping to advise which one of those companies sees their systems certified for use in U.S. elections by the EAC. Just amazing.
Smith is the guy who, after years of paying a crackpot contractor named Mike Gibbons to do this and that for Sequoia with loads of federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) tax-payer cash, assigned him to do an “independent” analysis of Sequoia’s touch-screen machines after they failed in NJ’s 2008 Super Tuesday election. That was just after Smith had sent a letter threatening two Princeton computer scientists with legal action “to stop any infringement of our intellectual properties, including any non-compliant analysis,” if they performed the actually independent analysis of the machines as they were tasked by NJ election officials to do. (Additional outrage/irony shortly thereafter uncovered by The BRAD BLOG: Sequoia didn’t even own the Intellectual Property rights to the machines in question. Rather, the IP rights were, and are still to our knowledge, owned by Smartmatic, a Venezuelan firm tied to Hugo Chavez. Sequoia lied to both federal investigators and state election officials about that relationship.)
After The BRAD BLOG exposed who Smith’s friend Mike Gibbons actually was — a Sequoia insider, as well as a drunk and a philanderer with an obnoxious Facebook page seeking a “well endowed blonde nymphomaniac,” only to change the page after we’d outed him to feature a photo of him and George Bush Sr. and a professed love of Jesus Christ instead — Gibbons was fired. (He would be found dead a few months later, the actual cause of which we’ve never been able to ascertain.)
Smith was severely reprimanded at Sequoia for the embarrassing incident, and has now been rewarded by moving on to Dominion, which is in partnership with his old friends at Sequoia to supply the new, failed e-voting systems recently deployed, disastrously, for the first time in last November’s election — the one where the results of the NY-23 Special Election for U.S. House will now forever be in question. The Sequoia/Dominion contract to supply faulty, secret vote counting machines to NY-23 is worth some $20 million federal tax-payer dollars.
And now Smith’s been named to advise the EAC, the actual federal body tasked with overseeing, testing, and approving voting systems for federal approval — the very body that is supposed to oversee the very scams that Smith attempts to pull off with his worthless, broken, easily hacked, often-failed, computerized secret vote-counting systems. And, in the case of the NY systems, they’re being used even though they are neither federally nor state certified yet.
This is why I made the statement that the total disregard of the American vote and the voter’s wishes is permeating our government. I fear it will continue until such time as we as Americans stand up to them and tell them NO MORE!
In part four tomorrow, we will look at another assault to the vote count being proposed by the current administration called the “Universal Voter” bill.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” -Joseph Stalin
That is where we will begin.
Over the weekend I put up a documentary I wanted all to see called Hacking Democracy.
This film told the story of how Diebold, one of the largest voting machine companies in the world, but especially here in the US, has knowingly, willingly, perhaps even purposefully, neglected to make their voting machines secure from manipulation. The film detailed how votes are kept on smart cards and how the smart cards could be manipulated to mistally the votes recorded on them. It also showed how various municipalities do not follow law and are very cavalier about vote tabulation as well as procedures in place to forestall miscounting and corruption. If you have not seen the film as yet, it is crucial, as a citizen of this country you understand the important issue at hand. Our votes, just as our wishes on the current health care legislation and others, are not being taken seriously by our government.
I will attempt, over a series of columns, to lay out for you the corruption that is taking place right under our noses. There is a systematic attempt by George Soros, the Rothschilds, and others to corrupt our voting system. It is a blatant attempt to choose the winners for us, despite what votes we indeed cast.
In January, Soldier for Liberty put up a column entitled “Every Honest American Needs To Read This Before Tuesday”, which was the day of the Scott Brown election. In that column we detailed exactly how just about anyone could manipulate the voting machine tallies. We talked about the recent impacts this issue had with the outcome of the Minnesota election where comedic writer Al Franken was “determined” to be the winner and how the machines tainted the NY 23 election late last year. We talked about how George Soros funded outfits are hiring, in their words, progressive operatives for on the ground mobilization tactics already for the 2010 and 2012 elections. The most vital information came from this paragraph in the column:
Here I present three links which need to be read by every single voting American. These are serious bit by bit how to’s – exactly what to do and how to do it – mind boggling! Take a deep breath and read:
We also pointed you to a very important website, www.BlackBoxVoting.org which is put up by the lady in the Hacking Democracy film, which tells all of us how to monitor elections, provides examples, etc. Everyone who cares about fair elections should read and understand this information. If at all possible, you should, after such time as you understand this information, volunteer to get involved in your local precinct. We need to all become keepers of the Constitution. The detailed information is also found in the column printed the Tuesday before the election on Soldier for Liberty, linked above.
There are several voting machine companies in the US. The top producers of voting machines are ES&S, Diebold, Sequoia, Hart, Microvote and others. Black Box Voting has provided us with the list of machines to manufacturer so you may detect who manufactures the machines in your municipality:
Brand names matched to vendor:
Diebold = Premier; makes AccuVote, TSx, TS-R6, OSx
ES&S makes M100, M150, M650, Eagle Optech, iVotronic, sells AutoMARK, some models called M400,M550 etc.
Sequoia makes Optech (same machine as ES&S); Insight, Edge, Advantage
Hart makes eSlate, eScan, BallotNow
Danaher makes 1242, also sold as Shouptronic by defunct vendor called Electec
Advanced Voting Solutions (AVS) (Defunct) made WinVote
Last fall, ES&S announced the acquisition of Premier Election Services division of Diebold. Prior to the acquisition, ES&S serviced 47.7% of purchasing jurisdictions in the country. If the acquisition was allowed to go through, this would rise to a whopping 74.7% of electronic or computerized voting machines in the country. (see map)
Last week, however, word came the Department of Justice handed down a ruling saying ES&S must divest itself from the Diebold portion of the merger- or so it seems. Bev Harris, true to her viligant self, has looked over the decision and found VERY important flaws. From Black Box Voting:
Here’s a quick analysis of the possible impact of the USDOJ antitrust decision:US Department of Justice on antitrust grounds. However, the DOJ erred by not acting promptly to protect the Premier Elections operation from being gutted by ES&S.U.S.) or GBS (midwest) could expand into servicing and controlling more states. They may be licking their chops on this. In other words, LHS Associates could say “Hey, Pennsylvania, whether or not any “acquirer” shows up to buy ES&S’s divestiture of Premier, we’ll support you with your existing equipment.”milarities to the 1997 deal when ES&S got into antitrust problems after buying a massive voting machine company called Business Records Corp. Under the antitrust order, ES&S was allowed to service existing accounts and Sequoia was allowed to sell and service new accounts.US elections industry would remain overconcentrated.
The acquisition by ES&S of Diebold’s Premier Election Solutions has been (supposedly) nixed by the
The Dept. of Justice claims that the deal flew under the radar so they couldn’t stop the pillaging of Premier in time. That’s not the case. The records will show that the Dept. of Justice had received — and acknowledged — formal complaints in time to put a protective halt on the mass firings of Premier employees.
HERE’S WHY THIS ERROR IS SO SIGNIFICANT:
The USDOJ failed to act to protect the assets of Diebold’s Premier Elections unit, resulting in the problem that they now cannot mandate full divestiture of Premier by ES&S, and instead have ordered ES&S to remove itself from Premier’s current locations only partially — or perhaps, not at all.
That’s right. If the acquisition were to stand, ES&S would have over 70% market share. But under the current Dept. of Justice decision, ES&S may still end up with over 70% market share.
Here’s why: Because ES&S gutted Premier and fired over 100 employees, no other entity can swoop in to acquire an intact company. According to my sources inside Diebold, the Diebold corporation has no intention whatsoever of taking its Premier Elections unit back. Diebold Inc. considers the current situation to be ES&S’s problem.
If another entity were to step in and buy the gutted Premier entity, they would not have enough support staff to service the accounts.
We are in the midst of an election year, with primaries coming down the road pell-mell. Counties with the Premier equipment still need to run their elections. Under the USDOJ decision, they can choose to sign with ES&S to take over their election support, or they can opt to wait and sign with an “acquirer” — an entity that does not yet exist. The expedient action will most likely be to sign with ES&S.
THIS LEAVES THE FOLLOWING POSSIBILITIES:
a) Most or all current Premier voting systems customers may sign with ES&S to support their Premier equipment, because they have elections coming up. Firm deadlines with no other support available could effectively force counties to sign with ES&S.
b) Hart Intercivic or Sequoia might step in to become the “acquirer”, and under the USDOJ agreement the “acquirer” can scramble around trying to re-hire the Premier employees that were let go months ago. Hart and Sequoia could use their existing staff to help handle election support pressure, which will be intense.
c) One or some of the subcontractors, like LHS Associates (northeast
d) Some crony of ES&S, possibly waiting in the wings all along, could step in and may perhaps have already networked with former Premier employees to take over in the event of an antitrust rollback. Since we still don’t know who actually owns ES&S, and we won’t necessarily know who owns some new “acquirer” entity if it is privately held. Who knows, it could even be the same guys who are quietly involved in ES&S.
e) A group of angel investment bankers may jump in and theoretically that could be an opportunity for the citizenry to jump on this to form a kind of public utility. Don’t hold your breath on this outcome, which might be cool but would scare the pants off some of the dirtier players in the elections industry.
BRC VOTING MACHINE ANTITRUST SITUATION, REVISITED
This proposed agreement has si
The current USDOJ decision allows ES&S to service existing accounts, but only an “acquirer” can sell new Premier equipment (if anyone even wants it!)
If any jurisdiction wants to replace more than 50% of its existing voting system with new Premier stuff, they can’t go to ES&S for the new stuff, but have to buy it from the “acquirer” instead. So, it would make sense for Hart or Sequoia or one of the subcontractors like LHS Associates to jump in to grab the cash on new equipment sales. Essentially, this would only rearrange the deck chairs, and the
ROLLBACK OF THE NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS
One interesting situation: Former Premier employees and the ES&S employees who were involved with supporting the Premier product line recently will be released from their noncompete and nondisclosure agreements.
The decision doesn’t seem to cap or limit that requirement, from what I can see. So the potential for spilling some more beans exists.
Black Box Voting also has a forum where you can check to see what instances of irregularities have occurred in your county, or where you can post information you are aware of.
In part two of this series, tomorrow, we will continue the discussion on voting machines and the other many red flags- so many that it is now apparent what has been occurring and where they are headed. It is thoroughly sickening what has come to pass to this point. It matters not which side of the isle you are on, both sides are complicit. The fact of the matter is that our votes are becoming meaningless and we can not have that happen in America. This series will go on for most of the week, if not all, due to the many facets to this story.
While all eyes are on the health care issue, I maintain the two are related. The point being, where government is concerned, manipulation, trickery, etc.. is all permitted. In the view of politicians and government bureaucrats apparently the ends do justify the means. The sanctity of the American vote and the wishes of “We The People” mean nothing.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Just days after House Democrats and Republicans began floating the idea of a one-year moratorium on earmarks, K Streeters seem convinced that there is no appetite in Congress to shut off the spigot for lawmakers’ pet projects.
As the March 19 deadline looms for House earmark requests, appropriations lobbyists say the power of the purse isn’t going anywhere because rank-and-file Members don’t want to give up an opportunity to bring back money to their districts before the midterm elections.
House Democrats were scheduled to huddle during a leadership meeting Tuesday evening. However, no movement on imposing an earmark moratorium had been made by press time.
“This comes up almost every year,” said Democrat Rich Gold, head of Holland & Knight’s government relations operation. “Something like 80 to 90 percent of the caucus is opposed to these” bans.
“If we’re having problems back home, it’s not over process or earmarks. It’s over substance,” Gold added.
Jim Dyer, head of Clark & Weinstock’s appropriations practice, agreed.
“It’s March and we don’t even know if there is going to be a budget resolution, and we’re having an academic exercise about whether or not the Congress giving up earmarking authority somehow could be a good thing,” Dyer said, indicating that Congress should be focused on the business at hand instead of hypothetical discussions on banning earmarks.
Even if the House moves to implement an earmark ban, it’s unlikely that the Senate would enact a similar policy, lobbyists say.
Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, commended U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for considering a one-year earmark ban and pledged to force a vote this week on a similar earmark ban in the U.S. Senate.
“Nancy Pelosi and I don’t agree on many things, but if she’s willing to take a stand for taxpayers, I’ll work with her to put an end to the earmark favor factory,” said Senator DeMint. “Americans have been disgusted by the backroom deals and earmark kickbacks used to ram through bad legislation and drive up our debt. Right now, earmark lobbyists are flooding Capitol Hill hoping to secure billions in taxpayer dollars for special interest projects. The Senate will have the opportunity this week to stand with Americans and put a stop to this wasteful spending. Our nation is drowning in debt that will be paid by our children and we’ll never stop Washington’s spending addiction unless members of both parties take bold action. We need to focus on balancing the budget, not pork barrel spending that has wasted money on bridges to nowhere, teapot museums, and monuments to politicians.”
Many in Congress defend their constitutional right to allocate federal dollars — often inserted into legislation at the discretion of a single lawmaker, in what amounts to the issuance of a no-bid contract — but critics say the practice rewards lawmakers who have influence because of their seniority on appropriations panels.
After a series of scandals involving earmarks, Congress passed rules requiring lawmakers to post every earmark they are seeking on their congressional Web sites each spring. Obama, who sought earmarks in his first two years in the Senate but later disavowed them, has asked Congress to post all earmark requests on one easy-to-search Web site.
In past years, bipartisan support for earmarks was strong, with the majority party traditionally receiving 55 to 60 percent of the total dollar value — but Republicans have become increasingly critical of the process. Dozens of House Republicans — including Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) — now refuse to seek them, and Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) has offered legislation to provide a presidential line-item veto to torpedo items deemed wasteful.
The top earmarkers in both the House and Senate are Republicans, even after the GOP has spent much of the past year making fiscal restraint and runaway government spending the centerpiece of its political message.
Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.) and Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) — both atop defense spending panels — led their respective bodies in securing earmarks, according to an analysis by the nonprofit Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Young, the ranking member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, helped secure 63 earmarks worth $128 million. Cochran, his counterpart in the Senate, had his hand in 242 earmarks worth nearly $498 million. In the House, Young was followed by Reps. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) with $121 million, Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) with $116 million and Jim Moran (D-Va.) with $107 million. After Cochran, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) was No. 2 in earmarks with $392 million, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) received $368 million in earmarks and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) grabbed $292 million for his home state.
Democrats changed earmarking rules when they took control of Congress after the 2006 election, making earmark requests part of the public record. And in appropriations bills, lawmakers were forced to put their names next to their projects in the bill.
But the move hasn’t dramatically curtailed the number of earmarks. Congress spent $16 billion on pork-barrel spending in fiscal 2010 spending bills — a slight increase over fiscal 2009, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Hawaii — represented by Senate Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) — had the most earmarks per capita: $412 million for its nearly 1.3 million citizens. Wyoming had the least per capita and overall — $5.76 million.
Here are places you can check up on the earmarks being granted or put forth:
On Dec. 3, 2009, a new database of Recovery Act data was released on FedSpending.org. Available under the “Recovery” tab, this database allows searching over 160,000 reports from recipients of almost $159 billion in Recovery Act contracts, grants, and loans awarded between Feb. 17 and Sept. 30.
On Oct. 21, 2009, FedSpending.org was updated with new federal data, which provides site users with full spending data for federal contracts through part of the first three quarters of FY 2009 and federal assistance data for the first two quarters of FY 2008. The FedSpending.org database now contains over $21 trillion in federal spending dating back to FY 2000.
Taxpayers for Common Sense is an independent and non-partisan voice for taxpayers working to increase transparency and expose and eliminate wasteful and corrupt subsidies, earmarks, and corporate welfare.
On this page, click on the name of a congressional member to see whether that congressional member has received financial support from the interests for which he or she has sought federal earmarks.
Don’t forget there are many, many fantastic watchdog tools to track your politicians, radical groups, and others imposing influence on your tax dollars and your liberties at www.WatchdogCentral.org
I hesitate to put out such a time consuming column. It’s important, however, to illustrate in video the recent government behavior in a concise and cohesive way. These videos, when combined, go a long way in providing a general understanding to the American people of what we are truely up against. These will bring home the importance of each of us taking responsiblity, as citizens of this great country, to become informed in the name of our own futures. Corruption in our government is so immense. It has been let go as “We The People” feel powerless to stop it. While the truth is it is the classic “David and Goliath” tale, we really do have the power to stop it. Please take the time today, or bookmark this to look at sometime during the week, in order to strengthen your resolve to take back our country’s future.
From a noted conservative’s viewpoint above to a noted socialist’s viewpoint below.
They seem to agree. The government’s spending is nonsense, suicidal, unconscionable in it’s patterns. So why, then has not the audit the fed legislation been fast tracked? Because it’s not in the government’s best interest to shed sunlight, no matter what they are saying on air.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, was quoted recently as saying, “The challenges we had to address in 2009 ensured that the center of action would be in Congress. In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda.”
Administration officials said the increased focus on executive authority reflected a natural evolution from the first year to the second year of any presidency. Are they kidding? This is the same mentality that says the agenda is not popular with the American people because Obama has not made enough speeches.
“We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.
Circumventing the wishes of the citizens as a whole has become business as usual in Washington. While executive orders are not new, the number of EOs written by Obama is already astronomical at 40+ in his first year in office. Apparently, that was just a warm up. The President has made the decision to create a budget commission although Congress refused and made this statement boldly at his State of the Union address. He has threatened to circumvent Congress regarding approval of his cabinet members. The EPA is following suit by instituting portions of cap and trade without the bill being passed. Last week the administration announced a nearly $1 billion in health care technology grants.
Michelle Malkin pointed out:
The Daily Caller reported last week that senior administration officials are considering a series of proposals known as “High Road Contracting Policy” that would give preference to companies bidding on federal contracts that pay hourly workers a “living wage” (typically a mandated, above-market wage) and provide additional benefits above and beyond existing labor laws.Critics say the proposals would heavily favor unionized companies and significantly increase the cost and amount of time needed to award contracts. Estimates have the potential cost increase at 20 percent, adding about $100 billion a year to the federal budget. “Making contracting decisions based on political or ideological litmus tests will waste taxpayer dollars and limit economic growth at a time when we can least afford to do so. The administration’s new rules amount to a backdoor attempt at card check. The last thing our small businesses need is to be saddled with new rules that effectively say ‘unionize or die,’” said John Hart, communications director for Senator Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican. Coburn and four other Senate Republicans sent a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag last week asking for a briefing on the proposals; they have yet to receive a response.
So, don’t get complacent thinking the health care bill, cap and trade, and other issues such as card check are dead. Watch the other hand. Just remember what Pelosi said about getting their agenda passed:
“You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in.”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
StimulusWatch.org was built to help the administration keep its pledge to invest stimulus money smartly, and to hold public officials to account for the taxpayer money they spend. We do this by allowing you, citizens around the country with local knowledge about the stimulus projects in your city, to find, discuss and rate those projects.
Did you see the list of banks who took tarp money? It is a whopping 26 pages of fine print long. Want to see if your bank is on the list and how much took?
You can find more egregious spending in my column from Tuesday. We may be pinching pennies, but Congress is not. They are even spending constituents yearly income equivalents on office furniture, catering, and living high on the hog. Let’s not forget their pay raises, too.
Also, in a column last week “The Audacity of Dopes” I detailed the figures for the national budget, including their raises.
I’m sure there will be more to come to talk about in upcoming days. The money faucet appears to be working in D.C. even though there’s a money drought in the rest of the country.
PS- As long as your blood pressure is already up, here’s an article I came across, I thought I would pass along:
12 House Members have fundraising firm email addresses? Is your representative on the list?
Read more http://tinyurl.com/rb8t8aRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
October 6, 2009
The Honorable Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader
S-221 United States Capitol
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Leader Reid:
As you know, Americans across our country have been actively engaged in the debate on health care reform. Whether or not our constituents agree with the direction of the debate, many are frustrated and lacking accurate information on the emerging proposals in Congress. Without a doubt, reforming health care in America is one of the most monumental and far-reaching undertakings considered by this body in decades. We believe the American public’s participation in this process is critical to our overall success of creating a bill that lowers health care costs and offers access to quality and affordable health care for all Americans.
Every step of the process needs to be transparent, and information regarding the bill needs to be readily available to our constituents before the Senate starts to vote on legislation that will affect the lives of every American. The legislative text and complete budget scores from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of the health care legislation considered on the Senate floor should be made available on a website the public can access for at least 72 hours prior to the first vote to proceed to the legislation. Likewise, the legislative text and complete CBO scores of the health care legislation as amended should be made available to the public for 72 hours prior to the vote on final passage of the bill in the Senate. Further, the legislative text of all amendments filed and offered for debate on the Senate floor should be posted on a public website prior to beginning debate on the amendment on the Senate floor. Lastly, upon a final agreement between the House of Representatives and the Senate, a formal conference report detailing the agreement and complete CBO scores of the agreement should be made available to the public for 72 hours prior to the vote on final passage of the conference report in the Senate.
By publically posting the legislation and its CBO scores 72 hours before it is brought to a vote in the Senate and by publishing the text of amendments before they are debated, our constituents will have the opportunity to evaluate these policies and communicate their concerns or their message of support to their Members of Congress. As their democratically-elected representatives in Washington, D.C., it is our duty to listen to their concerns and to provide them with the chance to respond to proposals that will impact their lives. At a time when trust in Congress and the U.S. government is unprecedentedly low, we can begin to rebuild the American people’s faith in their federal government through transparency and by actively inviting Americans to participate in the legislative process.
We respectfully request that you agree to these principles before moving forward with floor debate of this legislation. We appreciate your serious consideration and look forward to working with you on health care reform legislation in the weeks ahead.
Senator Blanche L. Lincoln
Senator Evan Bayh
Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
Senator Claire McCaskill
Senator Ben Nelson
Senator Mark L. Pryor
Senator Jim Webb
LET THEM KNOW YOU ARE WATCHING TODAY!
CALL, FAX, EMAIL, Whatever you have do to get the point across!
AND TELL THEM YOU KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY THEY HAVE RECIEVED FROM HEALTH CARE LOBBYISTS!
SEE YESTERDAY’s COLUMN: http://wp.me/pxG9Z-b8 to find out how beholding your Senator and Representative are by what they have pocketed!
Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not “expect” to read the actual legislative language of the committee’s health care bill because it is “confusing” and that anyone who claims they are going to read it and understand it is fooling people.
Senator Carper says the language is too difficult, so difficult in fact, he is not a proponent of posting the legislative version. He does think it would be fine to post the “translation” of the bill for citizens to read. He says that’s what those voting will be “reading” instead of the actual bill.
My fear is what would be “lost” in the translation??? Do these people really know what they are voting for? Do they care?
Published by Dave Levinthal 10/01/2009
Hidden ‘Bundles’ of Lobbyist Giving Show Full Court Press by Health Care Donors
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A month-long collaborative investigation by the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics has uncovered never-before-seen webs of campaign contributions from outside lobbyists and their clients, who are all important players in the healthcare reform, to key members of Congress.
The investigation identified outside lobbyists that donated to the same members of Congress as their clients, and strongly suggests that special interest giving is enhanced by the K Street contributors they hire.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee and author of the main health care reform bill now being debated in the Senate, was one of the biggest beneficiaries of this one-two punch from the lobbyists and their clients. From January 2007 through June 2009, Baucus collected contributions from 37 outside lobbyists representing PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry’s chief trade association, and 36 lobbyists who listed drug maker Amgen Inc. as their client.
Nor was Baucus alone—other members also received contributions from the employees, their family members and political action committees of health care firms and from the outside lobbyists that represented them. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., collected lobbyist “bundles” from 14 major healthcare organizations. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., actually led the list, with 22 organizations—though much of that money was directed at his presidential campaign last year.
Other leading recipients of combined lobbyist-client giving were Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Democratic Senators Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Mark Udall of Colorado.
PhRMA and Amgen were the organizations with the most outside lobbyists chipping in with extra contributions. Some 32 members of Congress got money from 10 or more PhRMA lobbyists over the last two-and-a-half years. Amgen’s lobbyists did the same for 24 members.
Behind them were Roche Holdings, with 16 members, Pfizer Inc. with 13, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield with 11.
There is no indication that the extra giving by lobbyists was part of a planned effort by the healthcare firms to solidify their support among key members of Congress. But whether coordinated or not, the newly-found clusters of lobbyist giving clearly illustrate the intensity of the full-court press that the industry is currently waging on Capitol Hill.
In all, 61 members of Congress—39 in the Senate, 22 in the House, 38 Democrats and 23 Republicans—got money from 10 or more outside lobbyists whose healthcare or health insurance industry clients also contributed to their campaigns.
Tracking Your Representatives’ Health Care Cash
Published by CRP on June 25, 2009 (For the most up-to-date health care charts and downloadable spreadsheets included in this blog post, check out our health care tools page.)
(The chart updated on August 14, 2009, to include 2009 second quarter campaign contributions.)
If you’re trying to understand all of the reasons why your representatives may support or oppose certain health care reform measures, we can add the money-in-politics puzzle pieces. Here’s a cool tool that brings together data from various parts of OpenSecrets.org to show how much money each current lawmaker has raised from various health-related industries and the health sector overall since 1989 (including the haul of President Obama, who tops every one of these lists). Sort by column to discover that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the Senate Health Committee, is the top recipient of pharmaceutical cash, or that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), has collected more money from health insurers than all other current members of Congress. Please note that this includes contributions from individuals and political action committees to both the lawmakers’ candidate committees and leadership PACs. Also, the health insurance industry numbers here are a combination of contributions from health and accident insurers, HMOs and other health services.
Senate Finance Committee
MAX BAUCUS, MT
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, WV
KENT CONRAD, ND
JEFF BINGAMAN, NM
JOHN F. KERRY, MA
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, AR
RON WYDEN, OR
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, NY
DEBBIE STABENOW, MI
MARIA CANTWELL, WA
BILL NELSON, FL
ROBERT MENENDEZ, NJ
THOMAS CARPER, DE
CHUCK GRASSLEY, IA
ORRIN G. HATCH, UT
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, ME
JON KYL, AZ
JIM BUNNING, KY
MIKE CRAPO, ID
PAT ROBERTS, KS
JOHN ENSIGN, NV
MIKE ENZI, WY
JOHN CORNYN, TX
HOW MUCH HAS YOUR SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE BEEN PAID FROM THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY? FIND OUT HERE:
WHY IS THIS OK? IF YOU LOOK AT NEARLY ALL OF THOSE SERVING US IN WASHINGTON, YOU WILL FIND MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS BY THOSE INDUSTRIES THEY MAKE POLICY FOR . SHOULDN”T “REAL CHANGE” BE INSTITUTED TO STOP THIS PRACTICE?Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
FOCUS IS NOW ON HEALTH CARE REFORM LEGISLATION- BUT MANY OTHER PERILS ARE IN OUR IMMEDIATE FUTURE:
UN CLIMATE SCIENTISTS and other Government Scientists SPEAK OUT ON GLOBAL WARMING
“Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat’s dream.
If you control carbon, you control life.”
– MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, UN IPCC lead author and reviewer.
Per Senator Inhofe’s website: The Senate climate debate has largely been in standby mode since June, but Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is ready to kick-start the process with the release next week of a draft bill. Sources off Capitol Hill say they expect Boxer to start legislative hearings during the week of Oct. 5, with a tentative markup penciled in for the week of Oct. 12. Of course, much depends on the fate of the Senate health care bill, just how quick U.S. EPA can turn around an economic analysis of Boxer’s legislation and whether the chairwoman wants to satisfy key moderates on her panel, which include Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.). Here is the House version that passed http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/show
At link above you will find the 225 page 2009 Minority Report “..Scientists Debunk Global Warming Crisis”
One scientist, DR. JOHN T. EVERETT, UN IPCC lead author and reviewer, led work on five impact analyses for the IPCC including Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones. a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager, project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans, said “It is time for a reality check,” Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing, The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even further warming, than the next ice age that will bring temperatures much colder than even today. The NOAA PaleoClimate Program shows us that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the earth was much warmer, the CO2 levels were 2 to 4 times higher, and coral reefs were much more expansive. The earth was so productive then that we are still using the oil, coal, and gas it generated. For most life in the oceans, warming means faster growth, reduced energy requirements to stay warm, lower winter mortalities, and wider ranges of distribution,” he explained. “No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more.” The quotes from 700+ scientists go on from there. Proof there is no concensus at all.
Despite tax dollars being spent on a report, in which consensus is Global Warming Science is not based on science at all, but rather a ploy by the UN and governments worldwide to take control, many of your elected officials refuse to back down.
31,478 American scientists have signed a petition, including 9,029 with PhDs signed a petition. The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
Proved: There is No Climate Crisis -Written by Robert Ferguson (July 2008)
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm] demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) stated way back in a 2003 press release : http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm
- “Over the past 2 hours, I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation’s top climate scientists.
What have those scientists concluded? The Kyoto Protocol has no environmental benefits; natural variability, not fossil fuel emissions, is the overwhelming factor influencing climate change; satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century; and climate models predicting dramatic temperature increases over the next 100 years are flawed and highly imperfect.
- Finally I will return to the words of Dr. Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences, and a professor emeritus at Rockefeller University, who compiled the Oregon Petition:
But if the relationship between public policy and science is distorted for political ends, the result is flawed policy that hurts the environment, the economy, and the people we serve.” …
- “Over the past 2 hours, I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation’s top climate scientists. Finally I will return to the words of Dr. Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences, and a professor emeritus at Rockefeller University, who compiled the Oregon Petition:
What have those scientists concluded? The Kyoto Protocol has no environmental benefits; natural variability, not fossil fuel emissions, is the overwhelming factor influencing climate change; satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century; and climate models predicting dramatic temperature increases over the next 100 years are flawed and highly imperfect.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
These are sobering words, which the extremists have chosen to ignore. So what could possibly be the motivation for global warming alarmism? Since I’ve become chairman of the EPW Committee, it’s become pretty clear: fundraising. Environmental extremists rake in million of dollars, not to solve environmental problems, but to fuel their ever-growing fundraising machines, part of which are financed by federal taxpayers.
So what have we learned from the scientists and economists I’ve talked about today?
The claim that global warming is caused by man-made emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science.
And yet, Democrats and those aligning themselves with the environmental justice crowd in Washington insist on getting Cap and Trade legislation passed. They must be stopped.
Below please find a list of ACORN Affiliates A list of ACORN branch names and addresses is published seperately on this site http://wp.me/pxG9Z-9w . I would appreciate the cooperation of all Watchdogs, Corruption Fighters, Truth Seekers, Dragon Slayers and Sleuths to track down facts that up until now were hidden from view. These may include back door Congressional dealing, under the table funding, extortion payments, etc.. Please use tools listed on this site, to the right of this column under Citizen Tools to unearth the web of deceit. The government is supposedly in the process of cutting ties with ACORN. You know, and I know, they will merely find another way to do it from the shadows. Let’s work together to stop them in their tracks. Please. Also, it is my belief the government will fund acorn through the banks from here on out. After all ACORN and the banks have a cozy history and the government now owns the banks. See this http://wp.me/pxG9Z-9L to find out how BofA worked with ACORN. Please keep that in mind while you are searching. I have chosen not to publish where I came upon the list of Affiliates as things have been disappearing from the web of late.
- 385 Palmetto Street Housing Fund Corp.
- 4415 San Jacinto Street Co
- ACORN 2004 Housing Development Fund Corp.
- ACORN 2005 Housing Development Fund Corp.
- ACORN Associates
- ACORN Beneficial Association
- ACORN Beverly Y LLC
- ACORN Campaign Services
- ACORN Campaign To Raise The Minimum Wage
- ACORN Center for Housing, Inc.
- ACORN Children’s Beneficial Association
- ACORN Community Land Association
- ACORN Community Land Association of IL
- ACORN Community Land Association of LA
- ACORN Community Land Association of PA
- ACORN Community Labor Organizing Center
- ACORN Cultural Trust
- ACORN Dumont-Snediker Housing Development Fund Corp
- ACORN Fair Housing
- ACORN Fund
- ACORN Housing Corp.
- ACORN Housing Corp. of IL
- ACORN Housing Corp. of MO
- ACORN Housing Corp. of PA
- ACORN Institute
- ACORN Law for Education, Representation, and Training
- ACORN Management Corp.
- ACORN National Broadcasting Network
- ACORN Services
- ACORN Television In Action For Communities
- ACORN Tenant Union Training and Organizing Project
- ACORN Tenants Union
- Affiliated Media Foundation Movement
- Agape Broadcasting Foundation, Inc.
- American Evironmental Justice Project, Inc.
- American Home Childcare Providers Association
- American Institute for Social Justice
- Arizona ACORN Housing Corp.
- Arkansas Broadcasting Foundation
- Association for the Rights of Citizens, Inc.
- Associated Regional Maintenance Systems
- Austin Organizing and Support Center
- Baltimore Organizing and Support Center
- Boston Organizing and Support Center
- Broad Street Corp.
- California Community Network
- Chicago Organizing and Support Center
- Chief Organizer Fund
- Child Care Providers for Action Franklin
- Citizens Action Research Project
- Citizens Campaign for Work, Living Wage and Labor Peace
- Citizens Consulting, Inc ( or CCI )
- Citizens Campaign for Finance Reform
- Colorado ACORN Housing Corp.
- Crescent City Broadcasting Corp.
- Desert Rose Homes, Inc.
- Dumont Avenue Housing Development Fund
- Elysian Fields Corp., Inc.
- Elysian Fields Partnership
- Fifteenth Street Corp.
- Floridians for All PAC
- Franklin ACORN Housing
- Greenville Community Charter School, Inc.
- Greenwell Springs Corp.
- Hospitality Hotel and Restaurant Organizing Council (HOTROC)
- Houston Organizing and Support Center
- KABF Radio
- KNON Radio
- Labor Neighbor Reasearch and Training Center, Inc.
- Living Wage Resource Center
- Louisiana ACORN Fair Housing
- Massachusetts ACORN Housing Corp.
- Metro Technical Institute
- Missouri Tax Justice Research Project
- Montana Radio Network
- Mott Have ACORN Housing Development Fund Corp.
- Mutual Housing Association of New York, Inc.
- National Center for Jobs and Justice
- New Mexico Organizing and Support Center
- New Orleans Community Housing Organization
- New York ACORN Housing Company, Inc.
- New York Agency for Community Affairs, Inc.
- Orgainzers Forum
- Pennsylvania Institute for Community Affairs
- People’s Equipment Resource Corp.
- Phoenix Organizing and Support Center
- Project Vote
- SEIU Local 100
- SEIU Local 880
- Service Workers Action Team
- Shrevport Community Television
- Site Fighters
- Sixth Avenue Corp.
- Social Policy
- Southern Training Center
- St. Louis Organizing and Support Center
- St. Louis Tax Reform Group
- Texas ACORN Housing Corp
- Wal-Mart Workers Association
- Wal-Mart Association for Reform Now
- Working Families Association
- A Community Resource Network
- ACORN Foundation
- ACORN International
- Cypress ACORN Housing Development Fund, Inc.
- Mermetau Elderly Housing Corp.
List of theACORN COUNCIL from US House of Representatives Report
1. Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (“ACORN”)
2. ACORN National Office: Brooklyn, NY
3. ACORN Bronx, NY
4. ACORN Brooklyn, NY
5. ACORN Buffalo, NY
6. ACORN Hempstead, NY
7. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Brooklyn, NY
8. PROJECT VOTE Brooklyn, NY
9. MHANY Brooklyn, NY
10. ACORN National Office: Washington, D.C.
11. ACORN Washington, DC
12. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Washington, DC
13. ACORN Political 1334 G St, NW Suite B Washington, DC 20005
14. AISJ Washington, DC
15. ACORN National Office: Little Rock, AR
16. ACORN Pine Bluff, AR
17. ACORN Housing Corporation Little Rock, AR
18. ACHC Little Rock, AR
19. ANP Little Rock, AR
20. PROJECT VOTE Little Rock, AR
21. KABF Little Rock, AR
22. SEIU LOCAL 100 Little Rock, AR 72206
23. ACORN National Office: Phoenix, AZ
24. ACORN Glendale, AZ
25. ACORN Mesa, AZ
26. ACORN Tucson, AZ
27. ACORN Housing Corporation Phoenix, AZ
28. ACORN National Office: Dallas, TX
29. ACORN Arlington, TX
30. ACORN Dallas, TX
31. ACORN El Paso, TX
32. ACORN Ft. Worth, TX
33. ACORN Houston, TX
34. ACORN Irving, TX
35. ACORN San Antonio, TX
36. ACORN Research Dallas, TX
37. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Dallas, TX
38. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Houston, TX
39. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION San Antonio, TX
40. AGAPE Dallas, TX
41. SEIU LOCAL 100 Corpus Christi, TX
42. SEIU LOCAL 100 Dallas, TX
43. SEIU LOCAL 100 Houston, TX
44. SEIU LOCAL 100 San Antonio, TX
45. ACORN National Office: Boston, MA
46. ACORN Boston, MA
47. ACORN Brockton, MA
48. ACORN Springfield, MA
49. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Boston, MA
50. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Springfield, MA
51. ACORN National Office: New Orleans, LA
52. ACORN Baton Rouge, LA
53. ACORN Lake Charles, LA
54. ACORN New Orleans, LA
55. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION New Orleans, LA
56. Louisiana ACORN Fair Housing Organization New Orleans, LA
57. ALERT New Orleans, LA
58. AISJ New Orleans, LA
59. SEIU LOCAL 100 Baton Rouge, LA
60. SEIU LOCAL 100 Lake Charles, LA
61. SEIU LOCAL 100 New Orleans, LA
62. SEIU LOCAL 100 Shreveport, LA
63. HOTROC New Orleans, LA
64. ACORN Bay Point, CA
65. ACORN Fresno, CA
66. ACORN Los Angeles, CA
67. ACORN Oakland, CA
68. ACORN Sacramento, CA
69. ACORN San Bernardino, CA
70. ACORN San Diego, CA
71. ACORN San Francisco, CA
72. ACORN San Jose, CA
73. ACORN Santa Ana, CA
74. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Fresno, CA
75. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Los Angeles, CA
76. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Oakland, CA
77. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Sacramento, CA
78. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION San Diego, CA
79. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION San Jose, CA
80. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Santa Ana, CA
81. ACORN Aurora, CO
82. ACORN Denver, CO
83. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Denver, CO
84. ACORN Bridgeport, CT
85. ACORN Hartford, CT
86. ACORN Waterbury, CT
87. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Bridgeport, CT
88. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION New Haven, CT
89. ACORN 408 East 8th St. Wilmington, DE
90. ACORN Ft. Lauderdale, FL
91. ACORN Hialeah, FL
92. ACORN Jacksonville, FL
93. ACORN Lake Worth, FL
94. ACORN Miami, FL
95. ACORN Orlando, FL
96. ACORN St. Petersburg, FL
97. ACORN c/o the Progressive Center Tallahassee, FL
98. ACORN Tampa, FL
99. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Miami, FL
100. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Orlando, FL
101. Floridians For All Miami, FL
102. ACORN Atlanta, GA
103. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Atlanta, GA
104. ACORN Honolulu, HI
105. ACORN Chicago, IL
106. ACORN Springfield, IL
107. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Chicago, IL
108. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION of IL
109. SEIU LOCAL 880 Chicago, IL
110. SEIU LOCAL 880 East St. Louis, IL
111. SEIU LOCAL 880 Harvey, IL
112. SEIU LOCAL 880 Peoria, IL
113. SEIU LOCAL 880 Rock Island, IL
114. SEIU LOCAL 880 Springfield, IL
115. ACORN Indianapolis, IN
116. ACORN IA
117. Peace and Social Justice Center of South Central Kansas Wichita, KS
118. ACORN Louisville, KY
119. ACORN Baltimore, MD
120. ACORN Hyattsville, MD
121. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Baltimore, MD
122. ACORN Detroit, MI
123. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Detroit, MI
124. Edison Neighborhood Center Kalamazoo, MI
125. ACORN St. Paul, MN
126. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION St. Paul, MN
127. ACORN Financial Justice Center St. Paul, MN
128. ACORN Kansas City, MO
129. ACORN St. Louis, MO
130. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Kansas City, MO
131. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION St. Louis, MO
132. SEIU LOCAL 880 East St. Louis, MO
133. SEIU LOCAL 880 St. Louis, MO
134. ACORN Jersey City, NJ
135. ACORN Newark, NJ
136. ACORN Paterson, NJ
137. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Jersey City, NJ
138. ACORN Albuquerque, NM
139. ACORN Las Cruces, NM
140. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Albuquerque, NM
141. ACORN Charlotte, NC
142. ACORN Cincinnati, OH
143. ACORN Cleveland, OH
144. ACORN Columbus, OH
145. ACORN Toledo, OH
146. Lagrange Village Council Toledo, OH
147. ACORN Portland, OR
148. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Portland, OR
149. ACORN Allentown, PA
150. ACORN Harrisburg, PA
151. ACORN Philadelphia, PA
152. ACORN Pittsburgh, PA
153. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Philadelphia, PA
154. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Philadelphia, PA
155. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Pittsburgh, PA
156. ACORN Providence, RI
157. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Providence, RI
158. ACORN Memphis, TN 38104
159. ACORN Norfolk, VA
160. ACORN Richmond, VA
161. ACORN Burien, WA
162. ACORN Milwaukee, WI
163. ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION Milwaukee, WI
164. ACORN Beverly, L.L.C.
165. ACORN Center for Housing, Inc.
166. Arkansas Community Housing Corporation
167. ACORN Community Land Association, Inc.
168. ACORN Community Land Association Albuquerque NM
169. ACORN Community Land Association of Louisiana Baltimore MD
170. ACORN Community Land Association of Louisiana New Orleans LA
171. ACORN Community Land Association of Pennsylvania, Inc.
172. ACORN Community Land Association of IL.
173. ACORN Community Labor Organizing Center, Inc.
174. ACORN Fair Housing, A Project Of American Institute Washington DC
175. Arkansas ACORN Fair Housing, Inc.
176. New Mexico ACORN Fair Housing Albuquerque NM
177. ACORN Fair Housing Washington DC
178. ACORN Housing 1 Associates, LP (limited partnership)
179. ACORN Housing 2 Associates, LP (limited partnership)
180. ACORN Housing 2, Inc.
181. ACORN Housing Affordable Loans, LLC
182. ACORN Housing Corporation, Inc.
183. Desert Rose Homes, L.L.C.
184. Franklin ACORN Housing, Inc.
185. Mott Haven ACORN Housing Development Fund
186. Mutual Housing Association of New York, Inc.
187. New Orleans Community Housing Organization, Inc.
188. ACORN Community Land Association of Illinois
189. Massachusetts ACORN Housing Corporation
190. Broad Street Corporation
191. Elysian Fields Corporation
192. ACORN 2004 Housing Development Fund Corporation
193. ACORN 2005 Housing Development FUND CORPORATION
194. ACORN Dumont-Snediker Housing Development Fund Corporation
195. Dumont Avenue Housing Development Fund
196. Elysian Fields Partnership
197. Fifteenth Street Corporation
198. New York ACORN Housing Company Inc
199. Development Fund Corporation
200. New York Organizing and Support Center, Inc
201. Baltimore Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
202. Chicago Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
203. Houston Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
204. 5301 McDougall Corporation
205. New Mexico Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
206. New York Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
207. Phoenix Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
208. 385 Palmetto Street Housing Development Fund Corporation
209. Sixth Avenue Corporation
210. 4415 San Jacinto Street Corporation
211. St. Louis Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
212. St. Louis Tax Reform Group, Inc.
213. Greenwell Springs Corporation
214. Austin Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
215. Boston Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
216. American Home Day Care Workers Association, Inc.
217. American Workers Association
218. Baton Rouge Association of School Employees, Inc.
219. Hospitality Hotel and Restaurant Organizing Council
220. Illinois Home Child Care Workers Association, Inc.
221. Labor Link, Inc.
222. Labor Neighbor Research and Training Center, Inc.
223. Missouri Home Child Care Workers Association, Inc.
224. Middle South Home Day Care Workers Association, Inc.
225. Wal-Mart Alliance for Reform Now, Inc.
226. Wal-Mart Association for Reform Now
227. Working Families Association, Inc.
228. Wal-Mart Workers Association, Inc.
229. People Organizing Workfare Workers/ACORN/CWA, Inc.
230. Texas United City-County Employees, Inc.
231. Texas United School Employees, Inc.
232. United Labor Foundation of Greater New Orleans, Inc.
233. United Security Workers of America
234. Orleans Criminal Sheriffs
235. SEIU Local 100
236. SEIU Local 880
237. Arkansas Broadcasting Foundation, Inc.
238. Agape Broadcasting Foundation, Inc.
239. Affiliated Media Foundation Movement, Inc.
240. Allied Media Projects, Inc.
241. ACORN National Broadcasting Network, Inc.
242. Alabama Radio Movement, Inc. (Dissolved)
243. ACORN Television in Action for Communities, Inc.
244. California Community Television Network
245. Flagstaff Broadcasting Foundation, Inc.
246. Iowa ACORN Broadcasting Corporation
247. Maricopa Community Television Project, Inc.
248. Montana Radio Network, Inc.
249. Radio New Mexico, Inc.
250. Shreveport Community Television, Inc.
251. Crescent City Broadcasting Corporation
252. KABF Radio
253. KNON Radio
254. ACORN Institute, Inc.
255. ACORN Institute Inc. Washington DC
256. ACORN Institute Dallas TX
257. ACORN Institute Inc. New Orleans LA
258. American Institute for Social Justice, Inc.
259. Association for Rights of Citizens, Inc.
260. New York Agency for Community Affairs, Inc.
261. Pennsylvania Institute for Community Affairs, Inc.
262. Project Vote/Voting for America, Inc.
263. ACORN Tenant Union Training & Organizing Project, Inc.
264. ACORN Law for Education Representation & Training, Inc.
265. American Environmental Justice Project, Inc.
266. ACORN International, Inc.
267. Environmental Justice Training Project, Inc.
268. Movement for Economic Justice, Education & Training Center, Inc.
269. Missouri Tax Justice Research Project, Inc.
270. ACORN Beneficial Association, Inc.
271. ACORN Canada
272. ACORN Children’s Beneficial Association, Inc.
273. ACORN Campaign to Raise the Minimum Wage, Inc.
274. ACORN Cultural Trust, Inc.
275. ACORN Dual Language Community Academy
276. ACORN Fund, Inc.
277. ACORN Foster Parents, Inc.
278. ACORN Institute Canada
279. ACORN Political Action Committee, Inc.
280. ACORN Tenants’ Union, Inc.
281. Community Training for Environmental Justice, Inc.
282. Connecticut Working Families
283. Democracy for America
284. Hammurabi Fund, Inc.
285. McLellan Multi-Family Corporation
286. Metro Technical Institute, Inc.
287. New Party National Committee, Inc.
288. Volunteers for America, Inc.
289. Volunteers for California, Inc.
290. Volunteers for Missouri, Inc.
291. ACORN Management Corporation
292. Associated Regional Maintenance Systems
293. ACORN Associates, Inc.
294. ACORN Associates Inc. Albuquerque NM
295. ACORN Campaign Services, Inc.
296. ACORN Services, Inc.
297. Citizens Consulting, Inc.
298. Chief Organizer Fund, Inc.
299. Citizens Services, Inc.
300. People’s Equipment Resource Corporation, Inc.
301. National Center for Jobs & Justice
302. Service Workers Action Team
303. Living Wage Resource Center
304. American Home Childcare Providers Association
305. Association for the Rights of Citizens Inc
306. California Community Network
307. Child Care Providers for Action Franklin
308. Citizens Action Research Project
309. Citizens Campaign for Work, Living Wage & Labor Peace
310. Citizens for Future Progress
311. Citizens Campaign for Finance Reform
312. Floridians for All PAC
313. Greenville Community Charter School Inc
314. Student Minimum Wage Action Campaign
315. Site Fighters
316. Social Policy
317. Southern Training Center
318. ACORN Votes
319. Communities Voting Together
320. Arkansas ACORN Political Action Committee
321. Arkansas New Party
322. California APAC
323. Citizens for April Troope
324. Colorado Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
325. Citizens Campaign for Fair Work
326. Citizens Services Society, Inc.
327. Clean Government APAC
328. Community Voices Together
329. Community Real Estate Processing, Inc.
330. Council Beneficial Association
331. Council Health Plan
332. Desert Rose Homeowners’ Association
333. District of Columbia APAC
334. Friends of Wendy Foy
335. Illinois APAC
336. Illinois New Party
337. Institute for Worker Education
338. Jefferson Area Public Employees
339. Jefferson Area School Employees
340. Local 100 Health & Welfare Fund
341. Local 100 Political Action Committee
342. Local 100 Retirement Fund
343. Local 880 PAC
344. Local 880 Political PAC
345. Louisiana APAC
346. Maryland APAC
347. Massachusetts APAC
348. Missouri APAC
349. Mutual Housing Association of New York Neighborhood Restore
350. Neighbors for Arthelia Ray
351. Neighbors for Maria Torres
352. Neighbors for Ted Thomas
353. New Mexico APAC
354. New Orleans Campaign for Living Wage Committee
355. New York APAC
356. Oregon APAC
357. Orleans Criminal Sheriffs Workers Organization, Inc.
358. Pennsylvania APAC
359. Progressive Houston
360. Progressive St. Louis
361. Rhode Island APAC
« Previous Entries