1,000 people marched today with OccupySTL and various labor groups for the November 17th Day of Action, marking the two month anniversary since Occupy Wall Street began. The protesters in St. Louis, as well as many other cities, marched to a local bridge to remind our legislators that we could put a lot of people to work by fixing our crumbling infrastructure.
The Fox 2 helicopter had some cool footage (make sure you see then end where it pans out on the whole crowd; sorry the resolution is so bad... oh, and the sound is strange too):
Several weeks ago, when I heard Andrew Breitbart was going to be in town for a conservative conference, I challenged him to finally have an honest discussion about his smear campaigns against two St. Louis institutions: UMSL and our local SEIU. I have to admit, this is a little personal for me, since Breitbart shamelessly tried to destroy people I know and institutions that do a lot of good for the city, but I also think there are pretty strong objective reasons why Breitbart should have this discussion with me if he wants to maintain his constructed image of someone who's willing to "take on all-comers" (see below).
Despite the fact that I personally tweeted Breitbart at least 20 times over several days, that dozens of other people also asked him to accept the challange over Twitter (see examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), including people Breitbart obsessively follows on Twitter like Eric Boehlert of Media Matters, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, Karoli of Crooks and Liars, and Joan Walsh of Salon, and that many other people sent Breitbart Facebook messages asking him to accept the debate challenge, Breitbart not only did not accept the invitation, but was too cowardly to even respond. So when I saw he was going to be in St. Louis again I thought I would take the conversation to the guy who's been running away from real debate on the two topics for a lot longer than just the three weeks I've been asking him to debate.
Breitbart was speaking at a black conservative conference in St. Louis, and my friend Brian Matthews and I had no interest in interfering with any of the conference, so we patiently waited in the lobby for Breitbart to come out. Several conference attendees recognized us, and we had nice conversations with them, including one of the conference organizers Chris Arps (former staffer of Jim Talent). Though the conversations were friendly, several people went back into the room to report that we were outside. Other people left the room and scoped out the layout of the building, and soon Breitbart along with Dana and Chris Loesch were power-walking towards an obscure side-entrance in order to avoid Brian and myself. Fortunately, I was able to catch up with them before the getaway was complete, and so was finally able to confront him with my camera rolling about his dishonest smear campaigns against St. Louis institutions.
Since fully understanding the conversation requires some background knowledge, I'm going to follow the same format as I did with my run-in with Dana Loesch at the Tea Party Rally, posting links and info to help explain some of the points and in particular why Breitbart is full of it. I'll try to put most of the info after the videos, but there are a few points I'd like to make in advance since the conversation is initially a little hard to follow thanks to Breitbart's incoherent ranting:
Breitbart starts of by saying he's here to represent the rights of kitties and to talk about electrocuted cats. I originally had no idea what he was talking about but eventually figured it out. He was referring to some of the video he posted of a labor studies course where a professor describes a tactic unions used in Peru where it was illegal for utility workers to strike. The professor describes the workers releasing cats in powerhouses where the cats would be electrocuted and short out the system. The workers' behavior is pretty morally abhorrent in my opinion, but the professor was not making a moral argument that you should engage in this behavior; rather, she was describing tactics which had previously been used. So this claim by Breitbart has absolutely no relevance to the criticism that his website published deliberately distorted quotes from the professors.
Yes, that is CNN contributor Dana Loesch desperately trying to get attention while I'm speaking with Breitbart. More on her absurd claims below.
The one comment I regret making was joking about Loesch preventing Breitbart's ability to "defend his manhood" after one of the times Breitbart humorously had to tell Loesch to stop interrupting the conversation. Anyone who knows me would know that I don't take the concepts of "manhood" or "machoness" seriously at all, and mostly just think it's funny that anyone cares about them (this is not to say that I have anything against people who find these qualities sexy or admirable or whatever; just that I personally think they're funny). But I realize that something that might be funny among friends can be off-putting when said to strangers, so I regret using that term to make a joke.
At one point in the video, I say that I know more about these cases than Eric Boehlert. By this I certainly didn't intend any disrespect. My only point was that because I'm covering this from St. Louis I personally know many of the people and institutions involved and thus had access to information and context that Boehlert did not. Boehlert did an excellent job covering these events, and I have great respect for him as a writer and a thinker.
There's so much more nonsense and falsehoods from Breitbart (and Loesch) to discuss, but for now I'll post the video and save the further observations and links to the facts below: (apologies for the fact that my phone camera is turned sideways in the middle of the discussion)
OK, so with that, here are some observations about the "discussion:"
Breitbart claims that Kenneth Gladney was called the n-word by Elston McCowan. At best this claim is disputed and I would argue the evidence against it is stronger than the evidence for it. At the trial, which I attended unlike anyone from the tea party, the three defense witnesses all were consistent in saying that what Elston McCowan, a black Baptist Minister, said was the word "negro" rather than The N-word. On the other hand, out of the three witnesses from the prosecution, one said that McCowan used the bizarre expression "son of an n-word," one said he used the expression "n-word" but didn't hear anything about a "son of a..", and Kenneth Gladney, after two years of saying that only Elston McCowan used the n-word, all-of-a-sudden changed his story to now claim that both McCowan and co-defendent Perry Molens called him the n-word. The inconsistencies between the prosecution's witnesses and the fact that Gladney changed his story no doubt counted strongly against the prosecution's case, as the jury took only 40 minutes to reach a "non-guilty" verdict for the SEIU defendants.
Breitbart repeated his absurd conspiracy theory that the White House sent a signal for "union thugs" to beat up innocent tea partiers at the town halls. He implicated the deputy White House Chief of Staff, the head of the AFL-CIO John Sweeney, and the SEIU in his grand conspiracy. Though the claim is clearly absurd that there was some massive government conspiracy coming from the White House to beat up a random guy selling buttons at a townhall, Breitbart actually showed remarkable constraint, at least considering that his sites and the tea party have collectively implicated all of the following groups and entities in their conspiracy theories about that night:
the president of SEIU, the president of the AFL-CIO, the President of the United States, Congressman Russ Carnahan, Carnahan’s spokesperson Sara Howard, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, former OFA Missouri Coordinator Buffy Wicks, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, Field Director of Health Care for America Now Margarida Jorge, Prosecutor Bob McCullough, St. Louis County Counselor Patricia Reddington, County Executive Charlie Dooley, the NAACP, the ACLU, the head of the St. Louis County Dept. of Health, and even the local animal control department.
If you believe that all of these entities were involved in a massive conspiracy to beat up a random guy in St. Louis, I don't even know what to tell you.
Some people might object to me saying that I thought some of the claims about Sarah Palin's targets causing violence were ridiculous. I don't mind there being a calm discussion about whether the use of such imagery is irresponsible, but I think claiming that it "caused" some particular act of violence is, in general, pretty silly. Considering that Breitbart clearly claims that comments from the White House caused the alleged attack on Gladney, his claims are also absurd.
Breitbart asks, "how many times have I met you?" I respond, "zero." he says, "No. One! You can't even get that right!" Pretty hilarious! I expected better from him.
It's also pretty hilarious that Breitbart continuously demands that I allow him to repeat his same old tired talking points that I've read 100 times. Notice how much of an opportunity I had to speak during the entire conversation? Yet he has the audacity to claim that I won't allow the truth to come out.
Breitbart claims that only Carnahan supporters were allowed in the townhall. This is not true. In fact, Dana Loesch and many tea partiers were in the townhall, as she admits. The claim is based on the fact that in addition to the main entrance there was a side door where some but not all people were being allowed in. My guess is that the door was being used to allow people in who had volunteered to help, but I honestly don't know the exact circumstances. Regardless, it doesn't have much relevance for the question of who started the altercation between McCowan and Gladney.
Regarding Breitbart's claim that he wasn't going out a side door to avoid Brian and myself. There's a pretty obvious main entrance to the building, and he did go out the side door. He first claims that he was going out the side door because that's where they were parked. Hilariously, he then starts to go back into the building and when I ask him why he says it's because he doesn't want Brian and I to see the car. And then he gets picked up in the car! Pretty funny. As noted above, he has clearly been avoiding this conversation for weeks.
He says that he offered to debate "anyone" on the Gladney case for $10,000 donated to charity. I've certainly never seen that offer to "anyone," though I've seen Breitbart routinely offer to debate Eric Boehlert since he knows that Boehlert has good reasons to not want to be put in a situation where the media could sloppily categorize him as "the liberal counterpart of Breitbart." What Boehlert does is far more respectable than what Breitbart does, and a debate would have the potential to cloud that fact. Anyway, I personally am happy to debate Breitbart on the subject, as I've made clear many times. If he's going to continue slandering innocent people, he should take me up on the offer.
Comedy gold: Breitbart said he wouldn't debate me because my tactics are "unfair." When I asked him what's unfair, he replies "you only care about your side." Classic!
As I've described previously, the witnesses for the prosecution that Breitbart cites are not credible. Two witnesses, Harris and Sandra Himes, originally suggested in the police report that they saw how the fight started. Later, Harris Himes said in an interview that his wife did not see how the fight started and that he had been walking away. Harris Himes also has a history of extreme right-wing politics. The other witness, John Mirelli, is seen on video earlier in the evening having to be held back from getting in an altercation with an SEIU member.
To try to get out of the discussion, Breitbart and Loesch demand that I debate a black conservative about Gladney. I told the guy demanding that I debate him, Martin Baker, that I would be happy to debate him later but I was here to talk to Breitbart since Breitbart led the smear campaign. As soon as Breitbart left I found Baker and told him I'd be happy to talk about it. I have video of the discussion that I'll be posting later.
Breitbart ridiculously suggests that you need to watch 31 hours of footage from a labor studies course to see if his web site deliberately distorted the quotes of two professors. Needless to say, you don't need to review every word ever spoken to know that omitting the fact that Judy Ancel was quoting someone else and cutting out the middle of Don Giljim's comments is a deliberate misrepresentation of what they said. I am glad, however, that Breitbart and Loesch admitted that they saw the full footage before it was posted on the site and Breitbart said he "stands by the video." Now they have no excuse for their dishonesty.
Breitbart's argument that UMSL should post the full 31 hours of video is a red herring. UMSL is prohibited by law from releasing the personal information of students, and for good reason. Academic freedom is, in part, based on the idea that students should be allowed to explore academic ideas in a classroom without fear of retribution or persecution. Breitbart's decision to post video of the students' comments on a public website is despicable. As for his suggestion that UMSL publish a transcript of the entire class with student names blocked out, I suspect that the reason they're not doing that is the same reason that he won't do it: it would be an absurdly time-intensive project.
Loesch's ridiculous comments deserve their own section:
At the beginning of the video Loesch asks "Does Washington University know that it's employee is here using its resources to smear private citizens?" It's true that I'm a graduate student at Washington University, but why Loesch thinks that I'm "using university resources" by engaging in a non-academic discussion on a Saturday afternoon in the summer is beyond me. Seems a little anti-free speech, doesn't it?
Loesch claims, and has been claiming for a year, that I'm an "SEIU blogger." I've never been paid anything by SEIU and have no idea why anyone would call me that. Loesch claims that someone referred to me as an "SEIU blogger" on a video, and suggests that someone from SEIU made that claim at an NAACP press conference. I'm skeptical that anyone from SEIU said that since I don't think anyone from the group was even at the press conference she mentioned, but whomever said it would be wrong.
Loesch also claims that I "laughed" at the same NAACP press conference when someone called Gladney an "Uncle Tom." It's true that I was at the event, but I'm sure I didn't laugh. I remember feeling uncomfortable with the comments. Another manufactured smear.
Finally, Loesch disgustingly claimed that I was "stalking her children," another tea party conspiracy theory I've heard before. I previously had no idea what the claim was referring to, but Loesch explained that it was in reference to the fact that, "you clicked the website where my children are on." In other words, despite the fact that I have never, ever, said anything about her children in any context nor do I know anything about them or want to, she's claiming that I "stalk her children" because one time I linked to a post on her Mom Blog that she had referenced from her political Twitter account. That's pretty despicable behavior from a CNN analyst, or from anyone for that matter.
So there you have it: more than you ever wanted to know about the dishonesty of Andrew Breitbart and Dana Loesch. It's no wonder that Breitbart is so afraid to have a real debate on these topics where both sides can be presented in full.
As expected, it turns out that all of Andrew Breitbart's blustery chest-thumpings and challenges to debate are nothing more than part of his circus act. When he was provided with ample opportunity to debate his smear campaigns against SEIU and UMSL, he ran away scared. Not only was Breitbart afraid to accept my debate challenge while he was in St. Louis, he was afraid to even respond, despite the fact that he received many Twitter and Facebook messages challenging him to debate. Honest debate is like holy water for Breitbart's vampires, so the fact that he ran away from having to actually discuss the evidence is not at all surprising.
However, while he was here, he did have time to go to a Cardinals game, visit the Lemp Mansion, and most interesting from my perspective, to claim that the ACLU, the White House, SEIU, and the AFL-CIO were all involved in a massive conspiracy against Kenneth Gladney that somehow slipped past the twelve jurors who found the SEIU members not-guilty of misdemeanor assault after only 40 minutes of deliberation. Oh, and he called St. Louis a "Godforsaken town" while Dana Loesch cheers and claps:
And with that it becomes pretty obvious why Breitbart won't debate the topic. His claims are so ridiculous they wouldn't hold up for 2 minutes in a real discussion. He doesn't have even the most basic understanding of what happened, yet he continues to spread lies about it. What do you even say about someone so diametrically opposed to all of the best characteristics of humanity (reason, honesty, courage, etc.)?
Andrew Breitbart likes to claim that he's willing to engage "anyone," even people who have no particular claim to fame. He also runs around the internet challenging people to "debates" who have better things to do. I probably have better things to do myself than debate a proven charlatan, but I've been especially offended by a couple of his smear campaigns targeting St. Louis institutions and I think he owes us an explanation.
I challenge Andrew Breitbart, while he's in St. Louis for the Smart Girl Summit, to have a debate on his smear campaigns against UMSL and against SEIU. I predict that he will be too gutless to accept, despite the fact that he has no good excuse.
I am as informed as anyone on the left (with the possible exception of some of the people who were smeared) on the details of these cases. I wrote a comprehensive summary as to why the right-wing story claiming that SEIU beat Kenneth Gladney was highly flawed. Naturally, the right-wing cowards were afraid to address these points, claiming that it was "obvious" that Gladney was beaten. Now, even after a jury found after 40 minutes of deliberation that there was no serious evidence that Gladney was beaten, Breitbart and his minions are hilariously running around claiming that Media Matters fixed the case. Yet they have still refused to debate the actual facts.
This is what Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert, the man Breitbart is obsessed with, had to say about my coverage:
An additional media note about the sad Gladney chapter: The two-year tale ended up pitting St. Louis blogger Loesch against an upstart local, a liberal blogger named Adam Shriver who runs a site called St. Louis Activist Hub. By the time the not guilty verdict was read yesterday it had become clear to everyone who followed the story that Shriver had absolutely demolished Loesch and her weak Gladney conspiracies.
Right from the outset, Shriver was among the very first bloggers to dissect the Gladney video and raise all kinds of factualdoubts about the tall tale the Tea Party was telling about the “union thugs.” And it was Shriver who stayed on the case since 2009 and who, I think, was largely responsible for helping to reveal, yet again, the kind of serial fabricator that Dana Loesch is. Andrew Breitbart, too.
So in that sense, the Gladney story helped highlight the stark, well-established contrast between the liberal and conservative blogospheres, and how Loesch and Breitbart effortlessly trafficked in lies, while Shriver stuck to the facts and undertook meticulous reporting.
I also took the local lead on reporting on the attempted smear campaign against the University of Missouri St. Louis. I immediately challenged the initial reports and demanded that Breitbart's gang release the full video clips, which they refused to do. I was, I believe, the first person or one of the first people to publish UMKC professor Judy Ancel's statement debunking the lies from Breitbart's sites, and I thoroughly documented the completely dishonest nonsense from Dana Loesch during the ordeal and their meltdown when longer tapes came out. I interviewed two students from the class who rejected the Breitbart version of events. And I posted exclusive video showing members of the tea party (who later posted their story on Breitbart's site) trying to bait students into attacking them. Finally, I worked hard to make sure that our local media covered the story accurately, and they eventually did. I say all of this not to brag or demand credit, but merely to point out that I clearly would be a good person to debate Breibart on this topic. In fact, I'd wager that I know far, far more than him about both of these cases.
So if Breitbart wants to run around the internet chest-thumping and pretending that he's willing to debate anyone, he'd better step up to the plate here. His smear campaigns in St. Louis could easily have destroyed the lives of many innocent victims. If Breitbart has any courage at all, he should be willing to at least offer a justification for his despicable actions.
Finally, I should point out, if I'm wrong and Breitbart does have an ounce of courage, then the debate should be structured in a way where both sides are able to express their views. A mob scene with frequent interruptions would not be adequate.
Tell Breitbart on Twitter or facebook: have a debate when you're in St. Louis!
Yesterday, I attended a rally with the AFL-CIO, SEIU, St. Louis Jobs with Justice, and other awesome local groups in St. Louis. The rally was in solidarity with Wisconsin, and about 70 people attended and then went on to canvass and make phone calls. Some firefighters also made an appearance to show their solidarity. The focus in Missouri is a little different than in Wisconsin, but the differences and similarities are instructive.
First, since almost everyone realizes that unions were responsible for creating the American middle class (giving us weekends and overtime pay and ending child labor practices), one argument the anti-worker pro-corporate forces often give is that "unions were once valuable, but now they're no longer needed because we have laws protecting workers." This is laughable not only because current laws are much more friendly to corporations than to workers, but also because it ignores what would happen if unions were destroyed by the Right. All one has to do is look at Missouri, where certain groups are organizing to try to roll back the minimum wage law passed by a 3 to 1 margin by Missouri voters only a few years ago, to roll back child labor laws, and to end protections against discrimination, to see what the ultimate agenda is. If unions are destroyed or significantly weakened, the Right will waste no time in rolling back every single step of progress the unions have fought so hard for, including weekends, overtime, etc. In fact, they are doing so already.
This is why it's so important to stand with workers in Wisconsin, Missouri, and all across the United States. The end game for the corporate right is the complete destruction of worker's rights, where nothing will stand in the way of maximizing corporate profits and increasing the wealth of a very small group.
Anyway, here's a nice press release from yesterday's St. Louis rally that explains what the rally was all about:
Working Missourians Stand Together as One Against Attacks on the Middle Class
Unity rally for solidarity with workers in Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio and canvass to save our minimum wage
On Saturday, February 26, working Missourians held a rally and canvass in St. Louis to stand in solidarity with the people of Wisconsin defending against attacks on the middle class. All across the country, working people facing these types of attacks are standing together in solidarity with Wisconsin families and to protect their own basic rights being threatened by the politics as usual.
“Working people voted to create jobs, but politicians bankrolled by corporate CEOs are up to the same old tired politics. Instead of focusing on jobs, they’re trying to weaken or eliminate workers’ freedom to join unions so they can’t serve as a check on corporate greed to restore balance. What’s going on in Wisconsin is not an isolated event--these attacks are sweeping the nation. In Missouri, voters approved raising the minimum wage by a 3 to 1 margin, but politicians are set to give the lowest paid workers in the state a pay cut.
Rather than creating jobs, too many of our elected officials are pushing a laundry list of attacks on working people. Minimum wage, a push to repeal child labor laws and “right to work for less legislation” are legislative priorities of out of control Wall Street banks and corporate CEOs, not Missouri voters.
Jobs with Justice and community groups, small business owners and workers who provide vital services to local communities will share their stories and concerns about the partisan political assault on working families in Missouri and demand our elected officials instead focus on creating good jobs.
And here's some coverage from Fox 2 News:
Update: Looks like the tea party rallies were even worse than reported. From the photos, it looks like they had less than 50 people.
In a radio interview, Ed Martin was asked what differentiated him from GOP primary opponent Sarah Steelman. Ed Martin said that she had been supported by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in the past and that SEIU "beats people up at tea party rallies." Here's his quote:
SEIU, over here in St. Louis, we call them the purple beaters. You know, they beat people up at our tea party rallies. You can hear the audio here:
Of course, what Martin is referring to is the tea party's hilarious conspiracy theory that President Obama sent "thugs" to a town hall to beat up a random merchandise seller. It obviously is nonsense that SEIU or Obama or Carnahan ordered people to beat up tea partiers, but even their basic description of events has been pretty thoroughly debunked here. Since the tea party has not ever bothered to respond to the points raised here, I can only assume that they aren't able to. Kenneth Gladney has been caught in multiple lies and the tea party witnesses do not appear to be credible. Anyway, it's a pretty ridiculous thing for Ed Martin to be campaigning on, though not surprising in the slightest.
And for those not familiar with the group that Martin and the tea party is trying to demonize, SEIU played a crucial role in fighting for the minimum wage increase in Missouri, in making sure that public transportation was funded in St. Louis, and in making sure St. Louis voters turned out in droves against Rex Sinquefield's earnings tax repeal. Since they do things to significantly improve the lives of the poor and middle class, they naturally are a bogeyman for politicians like Ed Martin.
I documented yesterday how St. Louis Tea Party members dressed up in SEIU shirts at the rally outside of President Obama's speech. They despise the Service Employees International Union, frequently including SEIU in their conspiracy theories and accusing union members of being "thugs." They hate them so much that they think the mere fact that a Carnahan employee used to work for SEIU is enough to prove that Carnahan is an evil person, and so much that they think that any organization that uses the SEIU call center must be involved in an illicit kick-back scheme. This hatred of SEIU is no accident, and is in fact revealing about the true nature of the tea party. They hate SEIU for the same reason they hate ACORN: because both organizations help Democrats and progressives build political power and win elections.
Those who follow the tea party will know that they continually portray themselves as being a populist movement that arose in response to oppression. Now as much as I disagree with the tea party, I could at least understand how, if you were someone disappointed with the way the country was going, angry about a bad economy, or whatever, you might blame the government for your problems. It of course doesn't make much sense to blame the Obama administration two months into their term, as the tea party did, but you could at least see the general trajectory of how the reasoning would work. The government is a big, powerful entity that has a lot of influence over our lives, so when you're looking for somewhere to project your anger, it's a great place to start. In fact, most liberals would agree that the way our government works is seriously flawed, but of course the reason we think so is because the very corporations that the tea party defends have far too much influence on legislation, leading to a health care system gone mad, an out-of-control banking industry, and environmental destruction.
But while you can tell a plausible story about why people project their anger on the government, there is no similar story to tell about SEIU. SEIU is a labor union that represents 2 million workers across the country fighting to be treated fairly. SEIU represents nurses, janitors, window-cleaners, bus-drivers, child care providers and many other people. Unions are based on a very simple principle: when workers organize together, they have enough leverage to be treated fairly, but when they are isolated, corporations whose interest is to maximize profits are able to exploit them. The fundamental purpose of the union is to ensure that their members are treated fairly. There is no plausible story the tea party could tell about how they are being "oppressed" by SEIU, so they instead make up elaborate conspiracy theories that turn momentary altercations into vast conspiracies "ordered" by the U.S. government and union leaders.
But why do they feel the need to invent these conspiracies? For exactly the same reason they felt a need to attack ACORN. ACORN registered low-income people and minorities to vote, which increased the population of people who would vote for Democrats when voting for their self-interest. For this reason, the organized Right decided that they needed to destroy ACORN, and did so by inventing stories, blowing minor points into giant conspiracies, and ultimately by secretly videotaping ACORN employees and manipulating the video. They set out to destroy ACORN not because ACORN oppresses anyone, but rather because they knew that hurting ACORN hurts the left.
The exact same basic story is true of the Right's emphasis on SEIU. SEIU is at its core a group of workers fighting to get a fair shake. However, they are also one of the most powerful labor unions in the country, and one that provides a lot of funding for political organizing that helps workers rather than corporations. So naturally the Right is determined to destroy them. And this is why the local tea party is constantly ranting and raving about SEIU, and trying to imply that there is some massive history of violence associated with the union. Just like with ACORN, they're trying to continually put out negative misinformation about SEIU, in hopes of laying enough groundwork that some minor event can eventually be blown out of proportion to destroy the organization in the same way that O'Keefe's reporting virtually destroyed ACORN.
But what I really want to emphasize is that this anti-SEIU sentiment is not something that would spontaneously arise from the grassroots. Why would the average person care about union workers fighting to get a better contract or organizing for health care? They wouldn't. The people who care are high-paid Republican strategists who get big money to think about the best way to undermine the organized Left. These are the people who determine the direction of the St. Louis Tea Party.
The St. Louis Activist Hub blog is the home of weekly event listings for progressive activism across St. Louis. It is also a group blog where a variety of St. Louis viewpoints are presented. You can follow the Activist Hub on Twitter and join the Facebook group for further ways to stay connected.
Anonymous tips? Send email to stlactivisthubtips@yahoo.com
Posts
