If this is the first time you have read this series, then I suggest you read part 1 and part 2 first.

There are only three ways to digest what I have revealed in the first two parts of this piece. The first is that Dr. Shirley Pigott is off her proverbial rocker and I have been taken in by a fraudulent story. Thus, by extension, there is no larger meaning. The second is that Dr. Pigott's story is true and accurate however her case happened in a vacuum. The third, and the one I will explore, is that her case opens up a pandora's box of corruption in which BCBS has decided to systematically corrupt the system in order to weaken their rivals the private family physicians.

Let's review what I have laid out. Three doctors, Dr. Doug Curran, Dr. Keith Miller, and Dr. Fred Merian, were simultaneously in significant positions of power in the Texas medical community. Dr. Curran was the head of the Texas Academy of Family Physicians. Dr. Miller was head of the Texas Medical Board's Disciplinary Committee. Dr. Merian was head of the Texas Medical Association. At the same time, these three were also members of the super secret BCBS Texas Medical Advisory Board. In other words, they were playing both sides of the fence. They represented the interests of doctors, and at the same time represented the interests of BCBS against doctors. Furthermore, Curran and Miller played a crucial role in attempting to weaken and intimidate Dr. Pigott in a process known as sham peer review.

It is possible but unlikely that these three found their way into these simultaneous roles by accident. It is also possible but unlikely that Curran and Miller played such a crucial role in Dr. Pigott's sham peer review by accident. It is also possible but unlikely that the Texas Medical Advisory Committee at BCBS is the only state in which such a committee exists.--

What is more likely is that these three were helped into their position of power by BCBS in order to help execute corruption against doctors like Dr. Pigott. It is also much more likely that most if not all states have their version of the Texas Medical Advisory Board.

Again, the relationship between private family physicians and insurance companies like BCBS is a naturally confrontational one. That's because, like I mentioned in part 2, private family physicians are the most motivated class of doctors to maximize the amount of money they charge the insurance companies. This naturally confrontational relationship is probably good for the system as long as both groups maintain relatively equal power and both play by the rules. What this case illustrates is that BCBS isn't playing by the rules. I will also illustrate that the power is not split anywhere near equally.

It's important to understand that the private family physician is not the high ticket field in medicine. Private family physicians treat patients before they get sick. Thus, their bills are nowhere near the range of doctors like surgeons. While this may not mean anything to the average reader, it's important to realize that doctors leave medical school with likely six figures worth of student loans. There is an immediate lack of motivation for the field of private family physician among most other fields of medicine.

Yet, the private family physician is on the front lines health care. They treat patients before they get sick, and their worth is measured by how few of their patients actually do get sick. The concept of preventive medicine is most often practiced by the private family physician. You will only see a surgeon once you already are sick. You see the private family physician in order not to get sick. In fact, this is a concept that BCBS likely understands all too well. It's likely that they don't want to eliminate private family physicians. More likely, BCBS would simply like them to work for the medical equivalent of slave labor. In the case of Dr. Shirely Pigott, BCBS could have simply kicked her out of their contract. They had already found that her billing records were bloated and she had become a leader in bringing about change to challenge BCBS' own strong arm billing tactics.

BCBS never took that step, and that's likely because most of Dr. Pigott's patients never got sick. Her practice ultimately made them money. What BCBS wanted to do was pay her as little as possible for keeping her patients, and their insurance clients, well. This would be just fine if they were playing fairly and if the power was spread relatively equally between the two. Unfortunately, neither of those two happened.

It is likely that there are cases like Dr. Pigott's all over the country. It is likely that BCBS is trying to do such things to private family physicians everywhere. If that is so, then what BCBS is doing is destroying the market for future private family physicians. All those doctors who's job it is to keep us well will slowly disappear. While BCBS would like to keep them around at slave wages, that isn't how markets work. If it is impossible to make a good living in private family practice, then eventually medical students will stop gearing their educations toward that practice.

This campaign will have the future of health care at its center, and I doubt that anyone will talk about this case. That's too bad. This case of corruption and many others like it contribute just as much as any other reason to the skyrocketing costs of health care. It is my opinion that BCBS has decided to systematically weaken the one class of true capitalists in the medical system. If the system has been corrupted by one of the players, and the corruptor is sytematically making it impossible to work in another part of the sytem, then I would say that has just as much to do with the breakdown of the system as anything. Yet, none of the Presidential candidates are talking about cleaning up the systemic corruption going on in the system.

Did you know that health insurance providers enjoy limited exemptions to the Sherman Antitrust Act?

The exemption that the insurance industry has extends only to insureds. Insurance companies do not have an antitrust exemption in dealing with providers

Maybe, that's why in Texas BCBS holds insurance for about one third of all patients. Does it sound as though BCBS and the private family physicians enjoy relatively the same amount of power? In Texas, BCBS is nearly the only game in town as far as insurance providers. If you are a doctor and not licensed with BCBS, then I wish you luck in maintaining your practice. The doctor needs BCBS a lot more than the other way around. Thus, the old saying applies

absolute power corrupts absolutely

BCBS enjoys relative immunity from Sherman and the doctors have no choice but to use them. Is it really altogether surprising that the organization then goes on and attempts to corrupt the system?

Then, there is the media. Why am I the first media of any kind to publish Dr. Pigott's story? It certainly wasn't from lack of trying on her part. She approached most of the major media outlets in Texas. None of the print and television media followed up with this story.

This isn't the first time that I have been involved in a case of major fraud involved in the medical field in which the media has been nearly silent. I have covered the corruption at Grady Hospital in Atlanta, and there the AJC has been largely silent on the corruption as well. I also broke the story of a cover up of a serial killer nurse in South Carolina and in that case the media in South Carolina also refused to tell that story. Dr. Andrew Agwunobi has gone on a cross country tour of medical corruption and none of the media anywhere on his stops have ever done anything more than go through the motions in investigating him.

It is hard to know why the media won't cover this story, however I would bet that health insurance companies like BCBS are major advertisers. Their motivations are ultimately beside the point. Corruption only exists if the media fails to do its job. Until the media starts to take this sort of corruption seriously it will continue.

This problem won't be solved easily, but there is a good place to start. The place to start is by making sham peer review illegal and by the government on all levels making prosecution of its perpetrators a top priority. I have only scratched the surface with my reporting. There are thousands of doctors being abused by sham peer review every year. Not only does it disrupt and even ruin their lives, but it also corrupts the entire health care system. We can't solve the so called health care crisis if the system is corrupted. Hopefully, everyone reading this understands the implications of what it leads to. As we continue with the health care debate, it's time someone addresses the systemic corruption within it. Until we do, all other solutions will be of little use. A corrupt system is a broken one, and that is what we have in health care today.

Introduction: Please note, if you haven't read the prologue to this piece, you can find that here. The prologue is an introduction to the overriding principles that this case uncovers. Please take a minute to read that in order to understand this portion better.

As the story I am about to tell unraveled for me, I couldn't help but notice some similarities between it and the movies of two of my favorite directors, Sergio Leone and Robert Altman. Those two film legends often told their tale by unfolding multiple story lines all at the same time and skipping from one sub plot, seemingly randomly, until the entire puzzle fit into place at the end of the film. Such is the story of the way in which BCBS, and their surrogates Dr. Doug Curran, Dr. Keith Miller, Dr. Fred Merian, retaliated against private family physician Dr. Shirley Pigott of Victoria, Texas. This story, much like other stories of corruption that I've covered, has many twists and turns.

Since, the reader can easily get lost in all the twists and turns, I will introduce many of the characters and entities that are involved first. Dr. Doug Curran is private family physician in a modest area of Texas. He is also the former head of the Texas Academy of Family Physicians and continues to be one of three members of the super secret BCBS Texas Medical Advisory Committee. The TAFP is the Texas branch of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The AAFP is the most powerful special interest group representing family physicians. Dr. Curran serves on the super secret BCBS Texas Medical Advisory Committee with two other doctors, Dr. Keith Miller and Dr. Fred Marien. Dr. Miller is currently a private family physician in Center, Texas and he was during the events in question the head of the Texas Medical Board Disciplinary Committee. That committee is in charge of judging cases of purported malfeasance by doctors in Texas. Dr. Fred Marien is the third person on the BCBS Texas Medical Advisory Committee and he was during the time in question also the head of the Texas Medical Association. The TMA is the biggest association of doctors in Texas.

Dr. Shirley Pigott is a thirty plus year private family physician in Texas. She was also during the time in question an active member in the TAFP. Jim Whitewas the executive director of the TAFP during the period in question. Dr. Doug Henley was the Executive Director of the AAFP during the time in question. Dee Whittelsey was the physicians liasson for BCBS during the time in question. Katie Johnonius was an attorney at the Texas Medical Board. Scott Freshour ws the head of litigation at the TMB. Finally, Robert Simpson was the general counsel for the TMB.(all during the period in question) Dr. Pigott went through the process of medical peer review at the Texas Medical Board. This involved a process called an informal settlement conference. This was the TMB's equivalent of a hearing and this hearing was presided by Dr. Keith Miller. The committee rendered their findings in writing, and the process of appealing these findings went through an organization called the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). Dr. Pigott eventually hired former surgeon and semi retired attorney Clark Watts to represent her at this hearing.





The story starts in the middle of 2002 when BCBS sent Dr. Pigott a correspondence. BCBS determined that her billing practices raised suspicions and thus they were going to formally challenge them. Unbeknownst to Dr. Pigott at the time was that the committee responsible for going over her billing was the BCBS Texas Medical Advisory Committee made up of Curran, Miller, and Marien. This case was resolved several months later with BCBS deciding that some of Dr. Pigott's treatment bills were too large, and they took their standard financial action. (in other words they docked Dr. Pigott some fees and payments)





At roughly the same time, there was a growing and more restless set of AAFP members. These members were private family physicians. Throughout the country members complained that they were being squeezed, intimidated, and targeted by BCBS. Many members complained that the AAFP wasn't doing enough to represent their interests against BCBS. After about a year, the group finally decided to stop complaining and do something about it. What eventually grew was a group of doctors that called themselves the group of 35 (because the group initially grew to 35). They formed an alliance of private family physicians that was going to demand action from the AAFP.





The group of 35 came up with three mandates that they planned on presenting first at the state level and eventually nationally. The three mandates were as follows: 1)the AAFP was going to be more aggressive in representing the interests of family physicians, 2)it was no longer acceptable for insurance companies to delay and withhold payments from family physicians, and 3)a clearing house would be created for complaints of family physicians to be shared among members of AAFP. These three mandates would serve as the bedrock for a new commitment for the AAFP to serve the interest of its private family doctor members more aggressively.





Dr. Pigott was put in charge of getting these three mandates through the Texas branch of the AAFP later that year in 2005. The proper procedure in the TAFP would for these three mandates to be debated in the Health and Managed Care Services Committee. The committee was enthusiastic about the three mandates and there was near unanimous agreement that this be moved to the full TAFP. There was just one dissenter, however that dissenter was quite vocal. That dissenter was Dr. Doug Curran. Dr. Curran was not even a member of this particular committee. He was however the President Elect of the TAFP and decided to sit in on this particular hearing. At this time, Dr. Pigott had only heard of Dr. Curran, and this was her first direct contact with him. Despite Curran's dissension, the mandates passed and eventually they even passed the national charter later that year.





In March of 2006, Dr. Pigott treated a peculiar patient. The standard procedure that Dr. Pigott uses in her practice is for a patient to have a physical and run the standard battery of tests. Then, when the tests come back, Dr. Pigott would meet with the patient to analyze the tests. It is this second appointment where Dr. Pigott would earn her money so to speak. The point wasn't merely to give the tests, but for her to analyze the tests and to go over them with the patient. It is now that proper dieting, exercise, and frankly general lifestyle can be recommended based on the conclusion of the test. This particular patient didn't want any part of the second meeting. They started sending letters to Dr. Pigott's office demanding their tests be sent to them. The letters became more confrontational and quickly the letters threatened formal action if the tests weren't sent. According to law, the patient has the right to receipt of those tests within 15 calendar days.





Because the behavior was so unusual, things unfolded before anyone realized. Dr. Pigott's administrative staff received the letters. The tests weren't sent because that is not the procedure. Dr. Pigott wasn't made aware of the letters until just more than 15 days had gone by. The tests were then sent out and no one thought about it again for a while.





In July of 2006, Dr. Pigott again prepared to present that year's mandates on behalf of the group of 35. These were several specific mandates in pursuit of accomplishing the goals of the mandates passed the previous year. Dr. Pigott expected this particular hearing to go fairly smoothly. She had been in contact with the TAFP for months, and each of the mandates had been announced to the organization. Dr. Pigott believed prior to the hearing that this would nothing more than a mere formality.





The hearing went nothing like she expected right from the start. The hearing was scheduled for two hours and it was an hour and forty five minutes before she was even allowed to speak. Each of her proposals was met with resistance. Members claimed that mandates were already being covered by other mandates, or that they had already been addressed. No matter what Dr. Pigott proposed, the committee had a confrontational response to it. Not only were each of the mandates killed but Dr. Pigott felt humiliated by the treatment of the committee. The person that was leading the charge in resisting each of these mandates was of course none other than Dr. Curran. Again, he wasn't even part of the committee, but rather decided to sit in as part of his duties as President.





Within months, several other things happened. First, Dr. Pigott was formally notified in writing of an upcoming informal settlement conference to settle a complaint by the previous patient who claimed that Dr. Pigott didn't return their lab reports in proper time. Then, Dr. Curran appeared in this advertisement for BCBS





Then this puff piece about Dr. Curran appeared on the internet

Dr. Doug Curran is everywhere these days. The longtime Athens-based family physician has been spotted in a few magazines you may have heard of, such as Newsweek and Sports Illustrated.

Through his longtime association with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, Curran appears – wearing his white lab coat, clutching a stethoscope and looking more serious than one usually finds him – in a series of their print ads.

While those ads have garnered him the most attention over the last few months, a less visible appearance in another magazine carries even more prestige.On page S-18 of December's Texas Monthly (S for Super), Curran's name is listed under the Family/General Practice section of "Texas Super Doctors
2005."

BCBS was referenced in connection to Curran throughout the article and Dee Whittelsey was even quoted in the article throwing fawning praise at Curran. Dr. Pigott found these two things to signal a gross conflict of interest. In fact, it likely violated the Texas Medical Practices Act's position on so called testimonial advertising. Dr. Pigott began reaching out to anyone that would listen. She went up the chain of command at not only the TAFP but the AAFP. She even reached out to Dee Whittelsey herself. She even made several attempts to contact Curran himself. She called Jim White and Doug Henley along with Whittelsey and Curran.



The responses ranged from no comment to simply that none of what she complained about was in fact a conflict of interest. Dr. Pigott was not satisfied. She decided to use listserve. Listserve is the intranet chat room for all members of the AAFP. She complained on listserve that she believed the advertisement, the article, along with Curran's confrontational behavior amounted to a conflict of interest.



Finally, Dr. Curran confronted Dr. Pigott directly by phone. During a twenty minute conversation, Curran vigorously defended his actions and refused to acknowledge any conflict of interest. Then, out of the blue Curran said this,

by the way, do you know I'm on the BCBS Texas Medical Advisor Committee

By September of 2007, her case came up in the informal settlement conference in front of the disciplinary committee chaired by Dr. Keith Miller. Dr. Pigott expected nothing more than a minor slap on the wrist. After all, not sending out lab reports with 15 days (she says the lab reports got to the patient in about 20 days) is frankly the medical violations equivalent of j walking.



Instead, Dr. Miller began questioning Dr. Pigott very heavily. Throughout the hearing Miller tried to get Pigott to admit to wrong doing. He asked questions like

isn't the failure to give lab reports a violation of your oath as a doctor

Dr. Pigott felt like a witness on cross examination. This simple hearing about a technical violation turned into an interrogation. There was typical around a six month lag time between the informal hearing and the written findings being issued and thus this portion wouldn't pick up until the beginning of March of 2007.

The next event was a memo emailed throughout the AAFP. The memo essentially said that Dr. Curran would no longer appear in advertisements for BCBS. The memo was worded carefully. It never assigned any wrongdoing to any of Curran's prior actions, however it did essentially say that Curran would cease all the activities that Dr. Pigott was concerned about.

In one week, at the end of February and the beginning of March, three simultaneous to divorced (on the surface at least) events happened. First, she received a letter from the AAFP saying that her list serve privileges would be suspended. Then, Dr. Pigott attended a special hearing of the TAFP to discuss the concerns that she had raised about Dr. Curran. Since he had promised to cease all the activities that concerned her, Dr. Pigott had decided that it was no longer necessary to bring any mandates against him up for debate. Thus, when called, she merely said she was fine.

The TAFP, lead by Curran himself, then proceeded to charge three mandates against Dr. Pigott: 1)Dr. Pigott acted nastily and inappropriately toward Dr. Curran, 2)the Committee had treated Dr. Pigott appropriately at the 2006 meeting (when all of the mandates she brought to the floor were voted down), and 3)Dr. Pigott must write a letter to everyone she contacted regarding this matter and essentially make a mea culpa.

Then, when she got home from the meeting, she received the written findings from the TMB Disciplinary Committee. (keep in mind again that this is all over a patient not receiving lab results in fifteen but about twenty days) Here are some highlights.

Board to take disciplinary action against Respondent based upon Respondent's unprofessional or dishonorable conduct that is likely to injure the public, in particular, the disruptive behaviors that could reasonably be expected to impact the quality of her patients' care, as described in Board Rule 190.8(2)(Q).(3) [c04-Vio Rule 165 – Med Recds] Section 164.051 (a)

...

For a period of one year from the date of the Board's entry of this Order, Respondent's practice shall be monitored by a physician

...

The Compliance Division of the Board shall designate the monitor and may change the monitor at any time for any reason. The monitor shall have expertise in a similar specialty area as Respondent. The Compliance Division shall provide a copy of this Order to the monitor, together with other information necessary to assist the monitor.

...

The Compliance Division shall select records for at least 30 patients seen by Respondent during each three-month period following the last day of the month of entry of this Order

Thus, to conclude, for being six days late in getting lab results, Dr. Pigott was

unprofessional or dishonorable conduct that is likely to injure the public, in particular, the disruptive behaviors that could reasonably be expected to impact the quality of her patients' care

The punishment for this behavior included being monitored by a doctor appointed by the TMB and access to up to 30 patient's records. I believe the term draconian comes to mind when analyzing this punishment.

At this point, Dr. Pigott finally realized for sure that something was rotten in Denmark, as Shakespeare might say. Dr. Pigott decided not to accept the findings. In her letter, Dr. Pigott disputed everything the disciplinary committee found and for the first time she used the term, sham peer review.

This incident is an egregious example of what is commonly termed sham peer review. Without conscience, certain members of the Board have defamed my character and have determined to cause me harm.

Sham peer review is a process by which medical peer reviews like the one that Dr. Pigott had just gone through get corrupted. They can be summarized by one simple phrase: judge, jury, and executioner. The corrupting forces usually not only bring the charges, but they are the ones presenting the charges, and also in a position to rule on them. (veterans of my work will remember the case of Dennis Lennox in which he faced his own cousin of sham peer review. The concept of judge, jury and executionor certainly applied to his case as well) In this case, while there is no proof, the patient was likely a plant, and the corrupting forces always planned to bring the case in front of Dr. Keith Miller so that he could issue this draconian charge.

She decided to investigate some of the players. The most important discovery was the discovery in the TMB website that listed in the bio of Dr. Keith Miller was his position in the BCBS Texas Medical Advisory Board. She began making inquiries to members of the TMB, TAFP, AAFP, and BCBS itself. Everyone she spoke to neither confirmed or denied his position on this panel. She shared what she had found with the TMB attorney Katie Johnonius. Johnonius was unmoved, and thus the battle would now move to SOAH, the medical peer review version of appeals courts.

Once she discovered this new information, she took everything she had and hired Austin, Texas lawyer Clark Watts. Watts took what she gave him and approached Scott Freshour, head of litigation at the TMB. (the head of litigation would take over the case from here). Freshour and Watts agreed to a reduced penalty. This penalty removed most of the draconian language but still instituted a heavy fine and other stiff measures (continuing education, lighter monitoring, etc). Pigott refused to take this. Watts approached Freshour again and this time they settled on a $500 fine and 10 hours of continuing education in patient safety.

While Pigott considered even a one cent fine extortion, she finally relented and accepted the terms of the reduced penalty. Pigott then proceeded to take her story to any of the media on Texas. She approached the Dallas Morning News, the Houstin Chronicle, the Corpus Christi Caller Times, the San Antonio Express, as well as her local Victoria Advocate. She even approached her local ABC affiliate. Despite the potential far reaching implications if this story is accurate, she was denied every single time. In fact, she told me that the conversations we had (I would estimate between 5-6 hours) in preparation for this story were the most that any media ever gave her. Even though one could reasonable hypothesis, that this case would open up a pandora's box that could lead potentially to uncovering systemic corruption perpetrated by BCBS upon the entire medical system, the media would have none of this story.

The media has also largely ignored the travails of Dr. Keith Miller subsequent to some of the events described here. A google search of Dr. Keith Miller finds only certain activist groups reporting on his corruption

Notorious Texas Medical Board (TMB) henchman, Dr. Keith Miller, abruptly resigned his position on the TMB on Friday, September 7, 2007.

Miller’s resignation was due to the intense scrutiny of his abusive and tyrannical actions against physicians while on the TMB. It was also due to his relationship with Bridget Hughes, his Nurse Practitioner. Bridget Hughes, who was found to be a narcotics addict by the Texas Board of Nurse Examiners while employed by Miller, continues to work as Miller’s nurse practitioner at his office in Center, Texas. Hughes had her prescription writing ability suspended when she was disciplined by the Texas Board of Nurse Examiners (TBNE) on April 16, 2007 for stealing (50) triplicate prescriptions from her previous supervising physician employer and forging his name to obtain narcotics for her own use.

The story mentioned regarding a nurse of his stealing 50 pills of a controlled substance and forging Dr. Miller's name. Yet, this nurse practioner, Bridget Hughes, has never been brought up on charges, and you aren't going to find much mention of this crime anywhere in the Texas media.

In part 3, I will discuss my conclusions and the implications I see of this case, including the near black out by the media. So please follow the link for the conclusion of this series.

In Mary Mitchell's new column, she pre emptively plays a new race card. If you are in Indiana or North Carolina and you vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, then it is strictly because you are a racist. Here is how she begins to frame the issue.

Looks like Clinton has gotten a lift from the fear-mongering, and is now slightly ahead of Obama in Indiana, and has narrowed his double-digit lead in North Carolina.

Polls in Indiana show Clinton now leads Obama there by four points among likely Democratic voters, 48 percent to 44 percent. Eight percent of voters there remain undecided, according to an analysis by a CNN poll.

That means the Jeremiah Wright controversy has hurt Obama and helped Clinton, even though some voters in Indiana would probably swear on a stack of Bibles that they weren't influenced by the negative coverage.

Thus, what Mitchell sets up is this. Hillary has used the Wright fiasco to play to people's most racist fears, and it has worked because the polls show as much. While Mitchell has heard that folks aren't affected by the Wright issue, she is concerned that their inner most racist feelings will come out at election time.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows because it appears that I will have to defend Hillary Clinton a bit. First, just because you may be concerned about the Wright issue, that doesn't actually mean you are a racist. In Mitchell's world, there is no other reason why anyone would be swayed by what has transpired vis a vis Wright, but there is. Second, Hillary hasn't necessarily used fear mongering to win. In fact, at some point some supporter of every loser will proclaim the winners fear mongered. Certainly, there was no fear mongering toward any inner racist as Mitchell proclaims.

Thus, while her set up is utterly absurd, it does allow her to continue with a theme...

Despite the racially polarizing events, Obama has not wavered from this belief and recently reiterated his belief that if he loses his bid for the Democratic primary, it won't be because of his race.I'm still not so sure.

...

For instance, reported on the New York Times blog on Monday was a piece by a reporter who went to a "mostly white highly educated, professional . . . politically independent" area and found voters were "unaffected" by the Wright controversy.

But the reporter also found that while supporters of both Clinton and Obama said "they did not think the Wright episode should change the race" they feared it might in other areas where "people might be searching for some acceptable explanation for not voting for a black candidate."

That's a truth that many will call a lie.

...

In the secrecy of the voting booth, many of us still vote for a candidate because of his or her race, or gender, or status, or humor, or style, or attractiveness.

But when asked, the majority of voters would die before admitting that they cast a ballot based on those superficial qualities.

...

Because the truth is, some voters will vote for a black candidate. Some voters will not.

If fear-mongering has swayed Indiana voters in this critical primary, it can't be blamed on Wright.

It would be their shame.

There you have it. Barack Obama is infallable. His opponent is wicked, and if you happen to vote for Hillary over Obama, then that is because your most inner and crude racist tendencies have been unleashed.

Let's sum up. In Mitchell's estimation, voters say they haven't been affected by the Wright fiasco, but she doesn't believe them. If they were, it was due to fear mongering by Obama's opponent. If voters are swayed by the Wright fiasco, it is because they have succombed to their most racist tendency. The word chutzpah seems to come up many times when analyzing what Mitchell says.

In Mitchell's world, if you are white and you don't vote for Obama then it has to be racial. There is no way anyone could not vote for Obama for any good reason. Every reason must be rooted in prejudice.

I maybe getting ahead of myself but it appears that Mitchell is putting whites in Indiana and NC on notice. If you vote for Hillary, I will call you racist. It's truly breathtaking to see this racist accuse others of her ills.

In her world, Barack Obama is infallable, and thus voting against him is only done for nefarious reasons. The Wright controversy is nothing more than a distraction perpetrated by his opponents to whip up the prejudism that she knows the average white person has. Thus, cynically she puts all whites on notice in Indiana and NC...vote for Obama or else.


Once again, here is the contact information to her boss: Tom McNamee and you can complain to him by calling 312-321-2510, emailing @ tmcnamee@suntimes.com, or faxing to 312-321-2122. Here is a list of some of the more high profile advertisers in the Sun Times. Intel, Grossinger GMC, State Farm, XM Satellite Radio,Ford, and BlackBerry. Please feel free to make your voice heard.

Also, for the second week in a row, Real Clear Politics has featured her column. To complain please contact any of these three emails: tom@realclearpolitics.com john@realclearpolitics.com and

As I have pointed out earlier, Mary Mitchell has been a steadfast supporter of Barack Obama. I haven't read every article that Mitchell wrote in relation to Obama, however everytime her support is mentioned toward him it is men, it is mentioned in the context of race.

At a time when African Americans are on the cusp of watching a barrier come crashing down,

As such, the only times I have seen her attack Obama is in response to his own attacks on African American figures. She made several attacks of Obama vis a vis Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and then there is this defense of Louis Farrakhan

When Sen. Barack Obama "rejected" and "denounced" the support of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan during the MSNBC debate last week, it wasn't his finest hour.

What is more revealing is the obfuscations and moral equivalency that she uses to defend Farrakhan...

No matter how many times Farrakhan explains, defends or refutes anti-Semitic comments that have been attributed to him, his kiss is still the kiss of death.

...

The point here, of course, is that these men -- one the pastor of an 8,000-member congregation where the church roll reads like a Who's Who of the Chicago black elite, and the other the leader of an organization that has historically saved young men from crime and drugs -- are unfit to even speak of Obama.

Now, if Farrakhan has apologized for some of these statements, I didn't hear about. Let's just give a sampling of some of his racist remarks. (source)

The real anti-Semites are those who came out of Europe and settled in
Palestine, and now they call themselves the true Jews, when in fact, they
converted to Judaism (2007)

...

“I heard from a very reliable source that under that levee there was a 25
foot hole, which suggested that it may have been blown up, so that the water
would destroy the black part of town, and where the whites lived, it would be
dry.” (9/12/2005)

...

White people are potential humans…they haven’t evolved yet."
(3/18/2000)

...

I call them the so-called Jews because to be a Jew you have to adhere to
the statutes and laws that create the special relationship. How can you be a Jew
and promote homosexual marriage (3/18/2004)

Now, many of these were within the last couple years. Yet, in the view of Mary Mitchell he has apologized profusely for them. Mitchell just can't seem to grasp that the endorsement of a racist maybe a problem to a politician, but then again why would a racist see the endorsement of another racist as a problem.

Now, contrast Mitchell's support of Farrakhan to her crude attack on Don Imus.

Don Imus needs to go home, permanently.And while he's at it, he can take his radio producer with him. Although Imus deserves all the bombs being tossed his way for referring to black members of the Rutger's basketball as "nappy-headed hos," McGuirk led off by first referring to them as "hardcore hos." Neither one of these men would dare call white women soccer players hos on air.

I don't know what pisses me off the most--the fact that Imus and his sidekick get paid for entertaining white listeners by bashing black people, as was pointed out by the Rev. Jesse Jackson , or the fact that black people had to protest before CBS Radio and MSNBC took any action against Imus. Didn't one executive at either outlet know all hell was about to break loose?

Now, I don't know anyone that apologized more profusely for their remarks than Imus did. Furthermore, Imus does all sorts of good things in the community. Yet, when he made his remarks, Mitchell was quick and brutal in not only denunciating him, but in calling for him to be fired. In Mitchell's world, white racists have no place making a living, while African American racists, like herself, are given every opportunity.

The other thing that is interesting is that Mitchell sees Obama's distance as nothing more than politicking.

Fortunately for Obama, most black people understand the game.

...

Although Obama scored points for defusing a political bomb, his answer was
insulting.

Yet the stakes are too high for African Americans to lose faith.

...

Obama should have found a way to escape Russert's trap without denigrating Farrakhan's legacy.

But, like I said, we understand.

In other words, in Mitchell's view, Obama's renunciation was nothing more than pandering to white voters because he needs their votes. She believes that Obama really does subscribe to Farrakhan but can't outwardly admit it because Farrakhan has been unfairly demonized by whites.

Once again, the chutzpah that Mitchell shows is breathtaking. Imagine if a white person had been insulted when John McCain distanced himself from John Hagee. Imagine if the same person had said we white people understand the game. Imagine if the white person had excused Hagee's incendiary remarks by pointing to the good Hagee had done in the community. Imagine if the white person had ended the article by saying, "like I said, we understand". The furor would have been overwhelming again. Yet, Mitchell is able to defend Farrakhan, turn it into a black and white issue, and proclaim that black people understand that Obama is only pandering to whites, and get away with it.

Finally, there is this interesting quote toward the end of the article.

Other longtime supporters of the Nation of Islam are willing to forgive Obama for playing into the hands of his staunchest critics.

"There is a new level of political maturity that one can observe going on in the black movement," said Conrad Worrill, a professor at Northeastern Illinois University Jacob Carruther's Center, and a co-founder of the National Black United Front."

Right now, people are exercising political discipline as it centers around the goals of the black electoral empowerment movement. In the '60s, '70s or '80s, if this kind of condemnation had taken place by one of our revered leaders, there would have been a verbal bloodbath," he said.

"But the more we engaged in verbal rhetoric, the more our enemies used it against us. It is just unfortunate that at this moment in history we don't have the kind of power as a people to keep us from capitulating to forces that have their own agenda."

What is the National Black United Front?

The National Black United Front (NBUF) is a coalition made up of individuals and organizations working together for the benefit of all people of African descent.

Among its goals and platforms is an Afro Centric education curriculum in the public schools, reparations for slavery, and this...

On Friday, October 25, 1996, the National Black United Front (NBUF) launched a National Petition Drive charging the United States Government with genocide.

The National Black United Front takes the position that the proliferation of the distribution and sale of crack cocaine by Africans in America street organizations has reached epidemic proportions, causing serious harm to the African community in America. This harm can only be described as acts of genocide by the United States government through its Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

In addition to the acts of genocide perpetuated through the CIA and in this recent revelation, acts of genocide can also be attributed to the government's use of taxpayers resources to wage war on a segment of the American population. this can be evidenced by the following:

So, this group believes, like Reverend Wright, that the CIA introduced crack cocaine into the inner cities. Now, it is journalistically dishonest to quote the head of this group without setting context of what this group is all about. Then again, it is likely that Mitchell believes that the CIA introduced crack cocaine into the inner cities and so she likely didn't see anything wrong in quoting him.

Thus, to review, we have a column in which a racist, homophobe and anti Semite is defended. He is defended by using the most outrageous obfuscations and moral equivalencies. Furthermore, a politician is attacked when he attacks this racist, and ultimately that attack is chalked up to cynical politics.

Here is the contact information for her boss and editor: i Tom McNamee and you can complain to him by calling 312-321-2510, emailing @ tmcnamee@suntimes.com, or faxing to 312-321-2122.

This is the first official day since I called for racist Sun Times columnist to be fired. Mitchell, who's notorious writing includes this nugget

          Whites don't get it, blacks do, and it's time to move on

published her most recent piece yesterday. While the piece has only subtle allusions to her standard issue black superiority and separationist ideologies, it was long on personal attacks on specific folks. Here is how she described Hillary

But I am also sick of Hillary Clinton's high-pitched screech and her phony
laugh.

And her pantsuits are really getting me down. There's nothing that reminds a woman more of her matronly status than seeing a peer in a brightly colored pantsuit that tries, but fails, to camouflage her spreading hips.

Hillary's know-it-all attitude is irritating, but I am especially fed up with her "I'm the luckiest woman alive to have a husband like Bill" routine that she launches into whenever she wins a state.

Here is how she views John McCain

But I'm also sick of seeing John McCain wave to a room of white supporters.

Even though did he visit New Orleans' devastated Ninth Ward, which is predominantly poor and black, the clips that we see most often is of McCain and other whites. Well, I did see some footage of McCain with a black man, but the man was really old, and looked too much like a servant in a plantation-era movie.

Mitchell's classless behavior takes on a new low when she even cynically attacks McCain's wife...

And I'm already tired of McCain's ram-rod, every-hair-in-place, toothpick of a wife.

In many ways, her pieces remind me of most of my fraternity mates only they were racist against African Americans and most importantly they didn't get paid for their racism.

It's interesting because most of the racists I have met felt superior to others in general. I certainly get the same general impression of Mitchell. From much of her writing she isn't merely a racist, but she just generally feels superior to others. There is a certain obscene chutzpah in someone proclaiming to be so cynical and fed up with the process when all the contribute is vile, filth, and divisiveness to that process.

The print edition of the Sun Times today had a plethora of interesting advertisers that must be made aware that their advertising dollars are supporting a racist. The advertiser that needs to be contacted most is Cook Brothers Warehouse because their ad is found opposite to the reactions to Mitchell's column yesterday. Here is their contact information.

As you might expect, the list of advertisers in the Sun Times is rather eclectic. National retailers like ABT, US Cellular, Macy's and Nikon share space with local retailers like Golf Mill Ford, Razny Jewelers, and Park Place Homes. Any advertiser that continues to sponsor in the Sun Times is not only giving tacit approval to her racism but they help subsidize it.

Enough is enough. Here is a copy of the email I sent Cook Brothers.

My name is Michael Volpe and I am blogger at
www.theeprovocateur.blogspot.com

In today's Chicago Sun Times your ad was facing the page that had the reactions to Mary Mitchell's latest column. Mary Mitchell is a racist and she has made a career out of spewing racist vile. Just recently she started one of her colums like this

"White people don't get it, black people do, now it's time to move on"

Last week, her column had this passage in the middle,

"At a time when African Americans are on the cusp of watching a barrier come crashing down, up jumps a divisive issue that is being driven by those outside of the black community.

...

There is no institution in the black community more respected than the black church. And the notion that white pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in the black church is repulsive to most black people."

This sort of racist and separtist filth is much of what is wrong with our national discourse, and it wouldn't be tolerated if Mitchell were white. Yet, she is given a free pass for it because she is African American.

Enough is enough, and she must be held to account. Racism is racism and I don't believe your advertising dollars should go to subsidize a racist. I hope you concur. I hope to hear from you on this. I am starting a campaign to finally hold her accountable and I hope you will do what's right and withhold advertising from the Sun Times until they deal with Mitchell properly.

You can reach Cook Brothers here.

I finished a recent piece by proclaiming this...

Mary Mitchell's racism is no longer in question. The only question is how
much longer she will continue to earn a living from it.

I have decided to do everything I can to make the answer to the second sentence as short as possible. Before, I delve more into that I think it is appropriate to review somethings I have already pointed out along with some things I have since learned.

It all started with a column that started like this...

Whites don't get it, blacks do -- and it's time to move on

That blatantly racist proclamation was followed by one just as racist.

At a time when African Americans are on the cusp of watching a barrier come crashing down, up jumps a divisive issue that is being driven by those outside of the black community.

...

There is no institution in the black community more respected than the black church. And the notion that white pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in the black church is repulsive to most black people.

Now, I have only begun to really analyze her work however I have no doubt those types of racist rants are plentiful and at least one reader concurs

If you are a reader of Mary Mitchell, you already know that in her world, there is no right and wrong, there is only black and white!I could cite many of her writings and find it amazing that she gets away with it further, she never answers any of the queries by the public!The vitriolic rantings by Rev. Wright is only another platform to blame the White Community for all the sins of the world.and her defense of his rantings, just further pulls the community apart.

I have also discovered some new information since my last piece. I found some very disturbing information.

I'm on the third day of a six-day bus tour through Pennsylvania as part of the media contingent covering the Obama campaign, and I have heard only one voter mention the name of Jeremiah Wright. Even then, the young white male dismissed the controversy as irrelevant.

Mary Mitchell is a columnist not a reporter. Furthermore, she has been decidedly in the tank for Obama for the entire campaign. What in the world is she doing being part of a contingent "covering the campaign"? Those reporters are supposed to at least give the presentation of being unbiased. Can anyone imagine the uproar if a newspaper sent out a decidedly pro McCain columnist to cover the campaign? Is it any wonder Mitchell found almost no one that was "concerned about the Wright controversy". I doubt it was her intention to find any. Then, she said this...

People who are concerned about Wright can no longer remain silent. At 7:00 p.m. Monday night, friends and supporters of Wright will hold a rally and prayer vigil at Trinity United Church of Christ to show support for their church and their retired pastor.

Mitchell has in fact been defending Wright from the beginning and she continues to defend him to this day.

Furthermore, she has spent the better part of the campaign accusing the Clinton campaign of stirring up the race card

Hillary again playing the race card

Polarizing politics seen as her only way to slow Obama's roll

If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

She even attacked Obama for not defending Louis Farrakhan

When Sen. Barack Obama "rejected" and "denounced" the support of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan during the MSNBC debate last week, it wasn't his finest hour.

This has to stop. The irony is that she has been doing this most of her career. As such it is not only that much more obscene, but it is that much more difficult to hold her accountable. Mary Mitchell is free to say what she wants however she is not free to receive a handsome living from being a racist.

I believe she can be held to account and everyone and everything else that set up a system that allowed a racist.


Thus, I am starting a campaign to get Mitchell fired that I am calling Mitchell Gate. I am announcing right here and now that Mary Mitchell must be fired immediately. There are many things everyone can do immediately. First instance, her boss is Tom McNamee and you can complain to him by calling 312-321-2510, emailing @ tmcnamee@suntimes.com, or faxing to 312-321-2122.

In order for this to work though, the advertisers of the Sun Times and Mitchell's columns in particular must be held to account. I believe a lot of advertisers find themselves supporting Mitchell without even knowing it. If they were contacted many of them would do the right thing. For instance, by merely going to each of her columns online you find several major corporations and businesses: Land Rover, Intel, Grossinger GMC, State Farm, XM Sattellite Radio, and Blackberry. I haven't even gotten to any of the companies that advertise in their print paper everyday.

I believe that I should lead by example so I will not only contact as many of these folks myself but also post emails I sent from time to time. I hope others will share their emails in the comments section. Let's remember the stakes folks. If Mary Mitchell is allowed to make money from being a racist, she can open up a niche for such venom. If she is held to account, it will make it that much more difficult for the next racist to profit.

Now, to start the campaign off, here is contact information for each company I listed: Intel, Grossinger GMC, State Farm, XM Satellite Radio,Ford, and BlackBerry.

Also, here is a copy of my email to Tom McNamee

Mr. McNamee,

In the last four weeks Mary Mitchell has published two virulently racist columns. As her editor, you had the responsibility of approving these columns. By that measure I assume that your editorial positions include such thoughts as

Black people get it, white people don't, now it's time to move on.

Mitchell has made a living out of being a racist and you have given her tacit approval as long as you have been her editor. This is inexcusable. Earlier during the campaign, Mitchell accused Hillary Clinton of playing the race card and just yesterday Mitchell said this

There is no institution in the black community more respected than the black church. And the notion that white pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in the black church is repulsive to most black people.

It is nothing short of brazen chutzpah for Mitchell to on the one hand accuse someone else of playing the race card and then play it herself so blatantly. In my opinion, it is nothing short of incompetence for her editor to allow it. That is exactly what you have done. Furthermore, Mitchell herself proclaimed that she was part of a group of journalists "covering the campaign" of Barack Obama. She has been in the tank for Obama the entire campaign. Since when is a columnist with a clear bias toward a candidate assigned to cover that candidate?

In fact, your newspaper has allowed Mitchell to make a good living being a racist and as long as you have been her boss, you are the main culprit for that behavior. You have an opportunity at long last to do the right thing and hold her accountable. I will be watching and I have started a campaign to have Mary Mitchell removed from her duties. If you don't do it I will.

When Jimmy the Greek uttered these notorious words,

bred to be the better athlete because, this goes all the way to the Civil War when ... the slave owner would breed his big woman so that he would have a big black kid

not only was he fired by CBS but his entire career was ended. He lived out the rest of his days in infamy generating little to no income. Such was the fate of a white person that was branded with the term of racist.

If the Chicago Sun Times were to hire David Duke it would likely face uncontrollable and intense protests. Their business would grind nearly to a halt and the company would likely go under. Such is the fate of any newspaper hiring a white racist.

Yet, the Chicago Sun Times has absolutely no problem and faces absolutely no criticism for hiring an African American racist in Mary Mitchell. I first noticed the incendiary and racist thoughts of Mary Mitchell in a column that started as such

Black people get it, white people don't, now let's move on

Outside of my own criticism, I didn't pick up on anger from anywhere. Despite the outrageous and racist tone of the column, Mary Mitchell and the Sun Times faced absolutely no criticism. It appears in the world of news, while hiring a white racist is a taboo, an African American racist is perfectly fine.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that this racist has just finished yet another racist column.

This is a sad day for Black America.

At a time when African Americans are on the cusp of watching a barrier come crashing down, up jumps a divisive issue that is being driven by those outside of the black community.

Obviously, Wright's timing for a press conference about his sermons couldn't have been worse. Still, when Obama says he is "offended" by Wright's latest comments -- given in defense against an orchestrated assault on his character and on his ministry -- he's opening up a can of worms.

There is no institution in the black community more respected than the black church. And the notion that white pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in the black church is repulsive to most black people.

Now, let's try an experiment...

This is a sad day for White America.

At a time when Caucasians are on the cusp of watching a barrier come crashing down, up jumps a divisive issue that is being driven by those outside the white community.

...

There is no institution in the white community more respected than the white church and the notion that African American pundits can dictate what is acceptable speech in the white church is repulsive to most white people.

The first quote will likely be viewed as provocative and the second would be shocking and racist. It appears that in America if you are an African American racist with a gift for putting words together you can be a columnist or commentator, while if you switched that around, you would be shunned.

Mitchell used the term "repulsed as part of her diatrobe. I will tell you what repulses me. What repulses me is that a major newspaper in a very large city would legitimize her racism by giving her a regular platform. Furthermore, I found this particular article at Real Clear Politics which gives it even more credibility. What is repulsive to me is that major media outlets choose to legitimize racism by giving it a platform.

Jimmy the Greek uttered one racial thought and his entire career was ended. Mary Mitchell makes those thoughts a career.

The stakes could not be higher. If racism pays, it will encourage more racism. Mary Mitchell will spawn the next generation of African American racists looking to cash in on their racism. She will create more proteges who will continue to spew more of the same filth and continue to poison the waters through their incendiary language. The simple fact of the matter is that society should never stand for a racist no matter their color, and certainly racists should not make racism their profession. The Chicago Sun Times has offered just such an outlet for one and it is unacceptable. Mary Mitchell's racism is no longer in question. The only question is how much longer she will continue to earn a living from it.