Archive for the ‘Opinions and Other Issues’ Category

5 Lies The Gun Lobby Tells You

Sourced from AlterNet.com

Sadly, it’s time for another refresher.
December 14, 2012  |  
 
shutterstock_102088966_1-2012-12-19-19-03.jpg
Photo Credit: © Micha Klootwijk/ Shutterstock.com   
America’s seems to be in for another debate over gun regulation after the slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School left 27 (mostly children) dead. So it’s worth reviewing five made against regulating gun ownership in the United States:
MYTH #1: More guns don’t lead to more murders.  A survey by researchers at the Harvard University School of Public Health found strong statistical support for the idea that, even if you control for poverty levels,  more people die from gun homicides in areas with higher rates of gun ownership . And despite what gun advocates say, countries like Israel and Switzerland  don’t disprove the point .
MYTH #2: The Second Amendment prohibits strict gun control.  While the Supreme Court ruled in  D.C. v. Heller  that bans on handgun ownership were unconstitutional, the ruling gives the state and federal governments a great deal of latitude to regulate that gun ownership as they choose. As the U.S. Second Court of Appeals  put it in a recent ruling  upholding a New York regulation, “The state’s ability to regulate firearms and, for that matter, conduct, is qualitatively different in public than in the home. Heller reinforces this view. In striking D.C.’s handgun ban, the Court stressed that banning usable handguns in the home is a ‘policy choice[]‘ that is ‘off the table,’ but that a variety of other regulatory options remain available, including categorical bans on firearm possession in certain public locations.”
MYTH #3: State-level gun controls haven’t worked.  Scholars Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander  recently studied  state-to-state variation in gun homicide levels. They  found that  “[f]irearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation.” This is backed up by research on  local gun control efforts  and cross-border gun violence .
MYTH #4: We only need better enforcement of the laws we have, not new laws.  In fact, Congress has passed several laws that cripple the ability for current gun regulations to be enforced the way that they’re supposed to. According to researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, a  series of federal laws  referred to as the Tiahrt amendments “limit public access to crime gun trace data, prohibit the use of gun trace data in hearings, pertaining to licensure of gun dealers and litigation against gun dealers, and restrict ATF’s authority to require gun dealers to conduct a physical inventory of their firearms.” Other federal laws “limited the ATF compliance inspections” and grant “broad protections from lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and retail sellers.”
MYTH #5: Sensible gun regulation is prohibitively unpopular.  Not necessarily. As the New Republic’s Amy Sullivan reported after the series of mass shootings this summer, a majority of Americans would prefer both to enforce existing law more strictly and  pass new regulations on guns  when given the option to choose both rather than either/or. Specific gun regulations are also  often more popular than the abstract idea .

COLUMBINE STUDENT’S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER

COLUMBINE STUDENT’S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !!

Guess our national leaders didn’t expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

 
They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript:

 
“Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

 
“The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain’s heart.

 
“In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA – because I don’t believe that they are responsible for my daughter’s death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel’s murder I would be their strongest opponent.

 
I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy — it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

 
> Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
> Your words are empty air,
> You’ve stripped away our heritage,
> You’ve outlawed simple prayer,
> Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
> And precious children die,
> You seek for answers everywhere,
> And ask the question “Why?”,
> You regulate restrictive laws,
> Through legislative creed,
> And yet you fail to understand,
> That God is what we need!

 
“Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation’s history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs — politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

 

“As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA — I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!
My daughter’s death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!” 
- Darrell Scott
Do what the media did not – - let the nation hear this man’s speech. Please send this out to everyone you can.

 
God Bless

Bill Moyers Exposes the Stranglehold the Corporate & Right-Wing Alliance Has on Our Democracy

Sourced from AlterNet.com

wpid-favicons-2012-09-28-13-59.png alternet.org

  1. by BILL MOYERS SEPT. 27, 2012

This week,  Moyers & Company  reports on the most influential corporate-funded political force most of America has  never heard of —  ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council . A national consortium of state politicians and powerful corporations, ALEC presents itself as a “nonpartisan public-private partnership”. But behind that mantra lies a vast network of corporate lobbying and political action aimed to increase corporate profits at public expense without public knowledge. Using interviews, documents, and field reporting, the episode explores ALEC’s self-serving machine at work, acting in a way one Wisconsin politician describes as “a corporate dating service for lonely legislators and corporate special interests.” In state houses around the country, hundreds of pieces of boilerplate ALEC legislation are proposed or enacted that would, among other things, dilute collective bargaining rights, make it harder for some Americans to vote, and limit corporate liability for harm caused to consumers — each accomplished without the public ever knowing who’s behind it. “All of us here are very familiar with ALEC and the influence that ALEC has with many of the [legislative] members,” says Arizona State Senator Steve Farley. “Corporations have the right to present their arguments, but they don’t have the right to do it secretly.” Watch the broadcast on Friday on your local PBS station. 

Visit BillMoyers.com to find your local listings.

Watch a preview from the broadcast : In Wisconsin, Lisa Graves, a former Justice Department attorney now with the Center for Media and Democracy, shares documentation of various ALEC-inspired boilerplate laws, versions of which are showing up in statehouses across the country.

Democracy Now!  premiered the special video report on Thursday. What follows is a transcript of Moyers’ special report on ALEC. 

AMY GOODMAN: We begin our show today with a look at the secretive American Legislative Exchange Council. The organization, often known as just  ALEC, brings together major corporations and state legislators to craft and vote on “model” bills behind closed doors. It’s come under increasing scrutiny for its role in promoting “stand your ground” gun laws, voter suppression bills, union-busting policies and other controversial legislation. The organization’s agenda has sparked so much controversy that 40 major U.S. companies, including Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, Kraft and General Motors, have recently severed ties with  ALEC.

ALEC is the focus of a new documentary by the legendary journalist Bill Moyers titled  The United States of  ALEC. It will air this weekend on  Moyers & Company but is premiering today here on  Democracy Now!

STATE REP. STEVE FARLEY: I’ve often told people that I talk to out on the campaign trail, when they say, “State what?” when I say I’m running for state legislature, I tell them that the decisions that are made here in the legislature are often more important for your everyday life than the decisions the president makes.

JOHN NICHOLS: If you really want to influence the politics of this country, you don’t just give money to presidential campaigns, you don’t just give money to congressional campaign committees. Smart players put their money in the states.

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: ALEC has forged a unique partnership between state legislators and leaders from the corporate and business community. This partnership offers businessmen the extraordinary opportunity to apply their talents to solve our nation’s problems and build on our opportunities.

LISA GRAVES: I was stunned at the notion that politicians and corporate representatives, corporate lobbyists, were actually voting behind closed doors on these changes to the law before they were introduced in statehouses across the country.

HOUSE SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: ALEC has been, I think, a wonderful organization. Not only does it bring like-minded legislators together, but the private sector engagement and partnership in  ALEC is really what I think makes it the organization that it is.

BILL MOYERS: You might have heard the name  ALEC in the news lately.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: The American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, for short.

REPORTER: The American Legislative Exchange Council, or  ALEC.

BILL MOYERS: ALEC is a nationwide consortium of elected state legislators working side by side with some of America’s most powerful corporations. They have an agenda you should know about: a mission to remake America, changing the country by changing its laws one state at a time.  ALEC creates what it calls “model legislation,” pro-corporate laws like this one that its members push in statehouses across the country.  ALEC says close to a thousand bills, based at least in part on its models, are introduced every year, and an average of 200 pass. This has been going on for decades, but somehow  ALECmanaged to remain the most influential, corporate-funded political organization you had never heard of—until a gunshot sounded in the Florida night.

RACHEL MADDOW: Trayvon Martin, unarmed, but for a bag of candy and an iced tea that he was carrying.

BILL MOYERS: You’ll recall that the shooter in Trayvon Martin’s death was protected at first by Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” law. That law was the work of the National Rifle Association. There is its lobbyist standing right beside Governor Jeb Bush when he signed it into law in 2005. Although  ALEC didn’t originate the Florida law, it seized on it for the “stand your ground” model it would circulate in other states. Twenty-four of them have passed a version of it.

RASHAD ROBINSON: How did this law not only get in place in Florida but around the country? And all the fingers kept pointing back to  ALEC.

BILL MOYERS: When civil rights and grassroots groups learned about ALEC’s connection to “stand your ground” laws, they were outraged.

RASHAD ROBINSON: ALEC doesn’t do its work alone; they do it with some of the biggest corporate brands in America.

BILL MOYERS: Before long, corporations were pulling out of  ALEC, including Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, McDonald’s, Mars, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson. Caught in the glare of the national spotlight,  ALEC tried to change the subject.

KAITLYN BUSS: You know, I think that the entire debate needs to be reframed. And really what  ALEC is is a bipartisan association of state legislators. We have, you know, legislators of all political stripes coming together to talk about the most critical issues facing the states and trying to come up with the best solutions to face some of the problems we’re having.

MEGYN KELLY: Right. So, your point is it’s not a partisan organization.

BILL MOYERS: But ALEC is partisan. And then some.

LISA GRAVES: In the spring, I got a call from a person who said that all of the  ALEC bills were available, and was I interested in looking at them. And I said I was.

BILL MOYERS: Lisa Graves, a former Justice Department lawyer, runs the Center for Media Democracy. That’s a nonprofit investigative reporting group in Madison, Wisconsin. In 2011, by way of an  ALECinsider, Graves got her hands on a virtual library of internal  ALECdocuments. She was amazed by its contents: a treasure trove of actual ALEC model bills.

LISA GRAVES: These are the bills that were provided by the whistleblower. That’s just the index.

BILL MOYERS: There were more than 850 of them, 850 boilerplate laws that  ALEC legislators could introduce as their own in any state in the union.

LISA GRAVES: Bills to change the law to make it harder for Americans to vote, those were  ALEC bills. Bills to dramatically change the rights of Americans who are killed or injured by corporations, those were ALEC bills. Bills to make it harder for unions to do their work were ALEC bills. Bills to basically block climate change agreements, those were  ALEC bills. When I looked at them, I was really shocked. I didn’t know how incredibly extensive and deep and far-reaching this effort to rework our laws was.

BILL MOYERS: She and her team begin to plow to ALEC’s documents, as well as public sources, to compile a list of the organizations and people who were or have been  ALEC members. They found hundreds of corporations, from Coca-Cola and Koch Industries to ExxonMobil, Pfizer and Wal-Mart; dozens of right-wing think tanks and foundations; two dozen corporate law firms and lobbying firms; and some thousand state legislators, a few of them Democrats, the majority of them Republican.

STATE REP. MARK POCAN: ALEC is a corporate dating service for lonely legislators and corporate special interests that eventually the relationship culminates with some special interest legislation, and, hopefully, that lives happily ever after as the  ALEC model. Unfortunately, what’s excluded from that equation is the public.

BILL MOYERS: In the Wisconsin Statehouse, Democratic Representative Mark Pocan is trying to expose ALEC’s fingerprints whenever he can. By one count, over a third of Pocan’s fellow Wisconsin lawmakers are  ALEC members.

STATE REP. MARK POCAN: When you look around, especially on the Republican side of the aisle, a lot of members of  ALEC. Front row, ALEC. When you start going down to, you know, the chair of finance and some of the other members, are all  ALEC members—in fact,  ALECco-chair for the state—row by row, you can point out people who have been members of  ALEC over the years.

There’s two main categories they have. One is how to reduce the size of government. And the other half of it is this model legislation that’s in the corporate good—in other words, this profit-driven legislation: how can you open up a new market, how can you privatize something that can open up a market for a company? And between those two divisions, you’re kind of getting to the same end goal, which is really kind of ultimate privatization of everything.

BILL MOYERS: Mark Pocan is something of an expert on  ALEC. In fact, to learn as much as he could, he became a member.

STATE REP. MARK POCAN: What I had realized is if you join  ALECfor a mere $100 as a legislator, you have the full access, like any corporate member.

BILL MOYERS: He also took himself to an  ALEC conference for a firsthand look.

STATE REP. MARK POCAN: Hi. I’m State Representative Mark Pocan, and welcome to my video blog. I’m outside the Marriott on Canal Street in New Orleans at the  ALEC convention, the American Legislative Exchange Council.

That was where you watched the interaction of a room full of lobbyists. You know, free drinks, free cigars, wining, dining. Many people just came from a dinner that was sponsored by some special interest, coming to a party that’s sponsored by a special interest, so they can continue to talk about speci

LISA GRAVES: This is from the New Orleans convention. This includes a number of seminars that they held for legislators, including one called “Warming Up to Climate Change: The Many Benefits of Increased Atmospheric CO2.”

BILL MOYERS: That 2011  ALEC conference, lo and behold, was sponsored by BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Shell, among others. Another of its events featured guns.

LISA GRAVES: This is the  NRA-sponsored shooting event, for legislators and for lobbyists. Free.

BILL MOYERS: There was even one offering free cigars.

LISA GRAVES: Sponsored by Reynolds American, which is one of the biggest tobacco companies in the world, and the Cigar Association of America.

BILL MOYERS: It sounds like lobbying. It looks like lobbying. It smells like lobbying. But  ALEC says it’s not lobbying. In fact,  ALEC operates not as a lobby group but as a nonprofit, a charity. In its filing with the IRS, ALEC says its mission is education, which means it pays no taxes and its corporate members get a tax write-off. Its legislators get a lot, too.

STATE REP. MARK POCAN: In Wisconsin, I can’t take anything of value from a lobbyist. I can’t take a cup of coffee from a lobbyist. At ALEC, it’s just the opposite. You know, you get there, and you’re being wined and dined by corporate interests. I can go down there and be wined and dined for days in order to hear about their special legislation. I mean, the head of Shell Oil flew in on his private jet to come to this conference. The head of one of the largest utility companies in the country was there on a panel, a utility company in 13 states. And here he is presenting to legislators. I mean, they clearly brought in some of the biggest corporate names in special interestdom and had them meeting with legislators, because a lot of business transpires at these events.

AMY GOODMAN: The United States of  ALEC. We will return to Bill Moyers’ special report in a moment.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We turn to part two of  The United States of  ALEC, a special report by Bill Moyers. It’s airing this weekend on  Moyers & Company  but is premiering today here on  Democracy Now!

BILL MOYERS: The most important business happens in what  ALECcalls “task forces.” There are currently eight of them, with a corporate take on every important issue in American life, from health and safety to the environment, to taxation. In  ALEC task forces, elected state officials and corporate representatives close the doors to press and public and together approve the bills that will be sent out to America. But Americans have no idea they come from  ALEC, unless someone like a Mark Pocan exposes it.

STATE REP. MARK POCAN: When I went down to New Orleans to the ALEC convention last August, I remember going to a workshop and hearing a little bit about a bill they did in Florida and some other states, and there was a proposal to provide special needs scholarships. And lo and behold, all of a sudden I come back to Wisconsin, and what gets introduced? Get ready; I know you’re going to have a shocked look on your face. A bill to do just that.

BILL MOYERS: Twenty-six ALEC members in the Wisconsin legislature sponsored that special needs bill, but the real sponsor was ALEC. Pocan knew, because the bill bore a striking resemblance to ALEC’s model. Have a look.

But Pocan isn’t only concerned that  ALEC sneaks bills into the state legislature. The intent behind the bills troubles him, too.

STATE REP. MARK POCAN: Some of their legislation sounds so innocuous, but when you start to read about why they’re doing it, you know there’s a far different reason why something’s coming forward, and that’s important. If the average person knew that a bill like this came from some group like  ALEC, you’ll look at the bill very differently, and you might look at that legislator a little differently about why they introduced it.

This is not about education. This is not about helping kids with special needs. This is about privatization. This is about corporate profits. And this is about dismantling public education.

BILL MOYERS: The bill passed in the Wisconsin House but failed to make it through the Senate. However, in its education report card, ALEC boasts that similar bills have passed in Oklahoma, Louisiana, North Carolina and Ohio. ALEC’s education agenda includes online schooling, as well. Take a careful look, and you’ll find the profit motive there, too.

LISA GRAVES: What you see is corporations that have a direct benefit, whose bottom line directly benefits from these bills, voting on these bills in the  ALEC task force. And so, corporations like Connections Academy, corporations like K12, they have a direct financial interest in advancing this agenda.

BILL MOYERS: Those corporations, Connections Academy and K12, which specialize in online education, can profit handsomely from laws that direct taxpayer money toward businesses like theirs. In 2011, both sat on ALEC’s Education Task Force. But the two companies didn’t just approve the model bill, they helped craft it. The proof is in one of ALEC’s own documents. And there’s more to the story.

STATE SEN. DOLORES GRESHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House Bill 1030 has to do with the establishment of virtual public schools.

BILL MOYERS: Last year, an online schooling bill based on the  ALECmodel turned up in another state where  ALEC has a powerful influence: Tennessee. It was introduced in both the state Senate and House by ALEC members. The bill passed, making private corporations eligible for public money for online education. Then, within weeks, the K12 corporation got what amounted to a no-bid contract to provide online education to any Tennessee student from kindergarten through the eighth grade.

So, let’s review. The  ALEC member corporations helped craft the bill. ALEC legislators introduced it and vote on it. And now there’s a state law on the books that enables one of those corporations to get state money. Game, set, match. But remember, this story isn’t about one company and the education industry and one law in Tennessee; it’s about hundreds of corporations in most every industry influencing lawmakers in state after state, using  ALEC as a front.

Here’s another example. The American Bail Coalition, which represents the bail bond industry, pulls no punches about writing ALEC’s model bills itself. In a newsletter a few years back, the coalition boasted that it had written 12  ALEC model bills fortifying the commercial bail industry. Here’s Jerry Watson, senior legal counsel for the coalition, speaking at an  ALEC meeting in 2007. He has a law to offer.

JERRY WATSON: There is a model bill for you to review, if you might be interested in introducing such a measure.

BILL MOYERS: He’ll even help legislators amend it.

JERRY WATSON: Now, if you don’t like the precise language of these suggested documents, can they be tweaked by your legislative council? Well, absolutely. And will we work with them on that and work with you and your staff on that? Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: All the lawmakers have to do is ring him up.

JERRY WATSON: There is a phone number there for our executive offices in Washington, D.C. We’re prepared to help you and your staff and support this legislation in any way that we can.

BILL MOYERS: And guess what? There’s gold at the end of the rainbow.

JERRY WATSON: But I’m not so crazy as not to know that you’ve already figured out that if I can talk you into doing this bill, my clients are going to make a—some money on the bond premiums.

BILL MOYERS: And corporate interest conflated with the public interest.

JERRY WATSON: But if we can help you save crime victims in your legislative district and generate positive revenue for your state and help solve your prison overcrowding problem, you don’t mind me making a dollar.

BILL MOYERS: ALEC members are seldom as upfront as the American Bail Coalition. In fact, ordinarily, ALEC’s hand is very hard to see at all. But if you know where to look, you’ll often find  ALEC hiding in plain sight.

LISA GRAVES: ALEC has, in addition to its regular vacation resort trips, it also has special, what it calls “boot camps” on particular substantive issues.

BILL MOYERS: In March 2011,  ALEC held one of those boot camps for legislators at the North Carolina Capitol in Raleigh. The subject was so-called tort reform, how to keep the average Joe from successfully suing a corporation for damages. The day after the boot camp, two state representatives presented the draft version of a House bill chock-full of  ALEC priorities. It would, among other things, limit corporate product liability in North Carolina. One of the representatives, Johnathan Rhyne, was quoted in the  Raleigh News [&] Observer  saying of  ALEC, “I really don’t know much about them.” That’s odd, because Rhyne had been listed as a featured speaker at the  ALEC tort reform boot camp. The paper also reported that Rhyne said the bill wasn’t copied from  ALEC model legislation. That, too, is odd, given how the sections covering product liability could have passed as twins.

The bill was controversial. It passed, but only after the product liability sections were taken out of it. But the tort reformers didn’t give up. They were back a year later, this time with a draft bill aimed specifically to limit the liability of drug manufacturers. When the public was allowed to comment before a legislative panel, people who had lost loved ones came to testify against the bill. A son who had lost a father.

SURVIVING SON: You know, my dad’s gone. All I can do is sit here and be a voice for him. He can’t speak anymore.

BILL MOYERS: A grandfather mourning his granddaughter.

SURVIVING GRANDFATHER: If this bill passes, an innocent victim in North Carolina like Brittany could not hold a manufacturer accountable. Everyone needs to be accountable for their actions.

BILL MOYERS: Unmentioned to those in the room,  ALEC was present, too, in the form of a lobbyist with drug manufacturing giant GlaxoSmithKline. His name is John Del Giorno.

JOHN DEL GIORNO: Several of the opposing testifiers today brought up very compelling, sad, empathetic stories.

BILL MOYERS: Not only is Glaxo an  ALEC corporate member, Del Giorno himself is also a vice chairman of ALEC’s national private enterprise board. The North Carolina bill has been tabled for now.

So now you’ve seen how it works for corporations. How about for the politicians?

ANDERSON COOPER: Last night was, as the president finally acknowledged today, a shellacking. Republicans gained control of the House, picking up 60 seats so far.

BILL MOYERS: When all of the returns were counted on election night 2010,  ALEC was a big winner. Eight of the Republican governors elected or re-elected that night had ties to the group.

GOV.-ELECT JOHN KASICH: Guess what? I’m going to be governor of Ohio!

GOV.-ELECT NIKKI HALEY: There’s going to be a lot of news and a lot of observers that say that we made history.

GOV. JAN BREWER: A clean sweep for Republicans!

BILL MOYERS: And a star was born that election night: Wisconsin’s new governor, a son of  ALEC named Scott Walker.

GOV.-ELECT SCOTT WALKER: Wisconsin is open for business!

JOHN NICHOLS: I’ve known Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, for the better part of 20 years. And Scott is a classic career politician. And I don’t say that in a negative way.

BILL MOYERS: Journalist and Wisconsinite John Nichols has tracked Scott Walker’s career since the ’90s, when Walker was a state legislator and then- ALEC member.

JOHN NICHOLS: And in 2010, he ran, not presenting himself as an ALEC alumni or as a ally of big corporations or big business people outside the state; he ran a very down-home campaign.

SCOTT WALKER: This is my lunch. I pack a brown bag each day so I can save some money to spend on, you know, the more important things in life, like sending my kids to college.

BILL MOYERS: Nichols says that despite the folksy image, in the years leading up to Walker’s 2010 campaign, he had become a master political fundraiser.

JOHN NICHOLS: And he began to really forge incredibly close ties with a lot of corporate interests that he had first been introduced to in  ALEC, individuals and groups like the Koch brothers.

BILL MOYERS: David and Charles Koch, the billionaire businessmen behind the vast industrial empire, are also political activists with an agenda. Their companies and foundations have been  ALEC members and funders for years.

JOHN NICHOLS: The Koch brothers were among the two or three largest contributors to Scott Walker’s campaign for governor of Wisconsin. And the Koch brothers get that if you really want to influence the politics of this country, you don’t just give money to presidential campaigns, you don’t just give money to congressional campaign committees. The smart ones, the smart players, put their money in the states.

SCOTT WALKER: Hi. I’m Scott Walker.

JOHN NICHOLS: It’s state government that funds education, social services. And it taxes.

SCOTT WALKER: If you want lower taxes and less government, I’m Scott Walker, and I know how to get the job done.

JOHN NICHOLS: And so, the smart donors can change the whole country without ever going to Washington, without ever having to go through a congressional hearing, without ever having to lobby on Capitol Hill, without ever having to talk to the president.

JUSTICE SHIRLEY ABRAHAMSON: Please raise your right hand and repeat after me.

BILL MOYERS: The new governor moved quickly with a raft of  ALEC-inspired bills. They included one similar to Florida’s “stand your ground.” Another made it easier to carry concealed weapons. There was a resolution opposing the mandated purchase of health insurance. And, of course, there was one limiting corporate liability. The Wisconsin legislature passed a so-called tort reform measure that included parts of eight different  ALEC models. ALEC was elated, praising Walker and the legislature in a press release for their, quote, “immediate attention to reforming the state’s legal system.” But Scott Walker was also shooting for another big  ALEC prize.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER: Now, some have questioned why we have to reform collective bargaining.

BILL MOYERS: Taking away workers’ collective bargaining rights, that had long been an  ALEC goal. A candid video caught Scott Walker talking about it with one of his financial backers, the billionaire businesswoman Diane Hendricks.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER: Well, we’re going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill. The first step is, we’re going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions.

DIANE HENDRICKS: Right.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER: Because you just divide and conquer.

BILL MOYERS: Despite an extraordinary public outcry and after a brief but intense political struggle, Walker’s anti-collective-bargaining measures became state law.

JOHN NICHOLS: It was ALEC’s ideas, ALEC’s values, that permeated the bill and undid almost 50 years—more than 50 years of collective bargaining law in Wisconsin.

BILL MOYERS: But again, remember, this isn’t just about one state. It’s about every state. Take Arizona. It’s practically an  ALECsubsidiary. One report this year found that 49 of the state’s 90 legislators are members. And two-thirds of the Republican leadership are on  ALEC task forces. And, of course, the governor, Jan Brewer, was an  ALEC member, too. So, not surprising, Arizona is among the states passing  ALEC-inspired laws to privatize education at taxpayer expense. And no surprise again, Arizona is also getting  ALEC-like laws to limit corporate liability.

REPORTER: Police will also be able to ask anyone to prove their legal status.

BILL MOYERS: And Arizona, you’ll recall, made news in 2010 with a law allowing police to stop someone for looking Hispanic and detaining them if they weren’t carrying proper papers. So, it probably won’t shock you to learn that Arizona’s immigration law also inspired an  ALECmodel, a version of which was passed in five other states.

STATE REP. STEVE FARLEY: All of us here are very familiar with ALEC and the influence that  ALEC has with many of the members here.

BILL MOYERS: ALEC’s nomination of Arizona proved too much for State Representative Steve Farley.

STATE REP. STEVE FARLEY: I just want to emphasize, it’s fine for corporations to be involved in the process. Corporations have the right to present their arguments. But they don’t have the right to do it secretly. They don’t have the right to lobby people and not register as lobbyists. They don’t have the right to take people away on trips, convince them of it, and send them back here, and then nobody has seen what’s really gone on and how that legislator has gotten that idea and where is it coming from.

Billionaires and Ballot Bandits: Karl Rove and the Republican Dark Art of Election Theft

Sourced from AlterNet.com

The following is an excerpt from Greg Palast’s new book, Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps, including a comic book by Ted Rall and an introduction by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (7 Stories Press, 2012).

Congressman Tim Griffin is a big, BIG supporter of the XL Pipeline. And the Kochs are big, BIG supporters of Congressman Griffin. Koch interests lined up $167,183 for Griffin’s run in 2010. Let me put that in perspective: for $167,183, the average member of Congress would be willing to wash your car—with his tongue.

That kind of money doesn’t come into a GOP candidate’s hands without the helpful hand of Karl Rove.

If you remember, voting-rights attorney Kennedy said Griffin “should be in jail.” A federal prosecutor expressed the same sentiment to me. How Griffin ended up in Congress, not in prison, is the more intriguing story.

It was well after midnight, in the first week of October before the 2004 election, when the e-mails started pouring in.

The chieftains of the George W. Bush reelection campaign were copying me on their most intimate and confidential messages—and Ollie, my research director, pissed me off by waking me in my cheap motel room to tell me this whacky-ass news. I was in the middle of nowhere USA with my election investigation for BBC going nowhere, so I wasn’t in the mood for this bullshit.

But it wasn’t bullshit. It was a miracle. Karl Rove’s right-hand man, Tim Griffin, Bush’s research director (read, smear director), had sent the data for some sick scheme to the chairman of the Bush reelection campaign in Florida, Brett Doster. Griffin, instead of sending copies to GeorgeWBush.com, their internal e-mail domain, sent copies to GeorgeWBush.ORG, to my friend John Wooden’s joke site. Wooden passed them on to us for forensic analysis.

Here was the GOP leadership with their pants around their ankles, exposing their cheat sheets.

Holy Mama! Do I have to believe in God, now?

What we’d been handed proved to be an electronic back door into the darkest corners of a criminal vote-suppression machine.

By the morning, we had booked flights to Washington, DC, and Tallahassee, Florida, while Ms. Badpenny, in charge of our investigations, began the decoding work. We knew there was a scheme afoot, but what exactly was it?

Smoking-gun memos rarely read, “Louie, this is how we cheat the public,” or “Brett, here’s the plan to steal Florida.” If they do say that, they’re fake.

These e-mails’ clues were a bit tougher than most to crack. That pudgy little wad Griffin had written to Doster several e-mails with the cryptic subject line “Caging.xls,” with Excel files attached, and terse messages like “Here’s another list.”

Each was a very selective list of voters, names and addresses. What struck me right off were names like Rodriguez, Washington and Goldberg—typically Hispanic, black and Jewish. Badpenny and the crew mapped the addresses, and sure enough, it was a perfect scattergram of poor, minority neighborhoods and townships with Gone With the Wind names like “Plantation, Florida.” There was also that list of Yiddish names from retirement homes: the GOP was certainly targeting the Elderly of Zion.

But for what?

At the Bush headquarters in Florida’s capital, campaign director Doster agreed to an interview. But when BBC required me to disclose we had his “caging” e-mails, Doster fled like a bunny into his Tallahassee offices and sent out his mouthpiece, Mindy Tucker Fletcher, clutching a supersized cup of Coca-Cola as big as a mortar shell. She brought a flunky to nod at whatever she said, and a sneering list of explanations, beginning with a corker: the “caging” lists, she said, were a compilation of Republican donors.

Really? Including these folks? Here were the Bush-Cheney “donors” who all lived at the State Street Rescue Mission: Page after page of names contained residents of homeless shelters.

Want to try again, Mrs. Tucker Fletcher?

A “caging list,” she explained, was a term of art in the junk mail business referring to returned letters. I knew that. The Republicans, she said, didn’t want to send duplicates to wrong addresses.

You don’t say! So Mindy, you’re telling me that Karl Rove’s top attack dog is now running the mailroom via confidential messages to state party chairmen—for address corrections?

Why don’t I give you one more try, Mrs. Tucker Fletcher. Could these, by chance, be lists used to systematically challenge the registrations of voters of color?

Mindy Tucker Fletcher grinned and said, carefully, “This is not a challenge list. That’s not what it’s SET UP to do.”

Bingo.

You see, we’d already made a couple of visits to experts before stopping by Fortress Bush. After sending the lists to America’s junk mail king Mark Swedlund, who’d helped me on many an undercover investigation, I had a damn good idea what these were—an opinion confirmed, without prompting, by Ion Sancho, Florida’s county elections supervisor, the recognized expert on voting systems—and vote heists. “They couldn’t be anything but challenge lists. And if they are, they’re breaking the law.”

More than one law, actually, especially if the targets have a racial or religious profile. And it would be breaking a consent decree: years earlier, the Republican National Committee was caught challenging black voters en masse at polling stations and had promised, under penalty of perjury, not to do it again.

Now it looked like they were doing it again, but in a most sophisticated way. Bobby Kennedy explained the game: “They send out letters to poor black and Hispanic voters, first class, with instructions to return, don’t forward, if the letter is not deliverable. The returned [“caged”] letter is then used as ‘evidence’ the voter’s listed address is fraudulent, and the Republican functionary then gets the name struck from voter rolls, or the absentee ballot, if mailed in, is not counted.”

Targeting the black, Hispanic and Jewish vote this way is not just icky and racist, it’s against the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which Kennedy’s late father Bobby Sr., the US attorney general, and his uncle, President John Kennedy, helped draft. Bobby Jr., looking at the evidence, suggested hard time for Griffin and Rove.

But who was going to prosecute Griffin and company, anyway? Was the Bush Justice Department going to tell Mr. Griffin to “spread ‘em”? Mr. Griffin, of the Bush campaign? Mr. Griffin, assistant to the senior advisor to President Bush?

The Hysteria Factory

In early 2004, George Bush was not a popular president, what with wars and his billionaires leaving so little for the rest of us. But if malcontents, black folk, Latinos, and Jews lost their registrations, didn’t get to vote, were afraid to vote, then swing states like New Mexico, Ohio and Florida could be flipped.

A massive attack on voter rolls to remove names, to block voters from casting ballots, and challenging votes cast should do it. Millions of votes are made to disappear by stealth or just sheer incompetence, but Americans are too enamored of the television story of their democracy that they don’t see it and won’t hear of it.

The chairman of the US Commission on Civil Rights, Mary Frances Berry, told me, “Elections aren’t stolen in the vote count—they’re stolen in the no count,” a thought perceptive enough to have her removed from the commission by President Bush.

Rove knows that to win in a nation where white voters were becoming the minority, the number of minority “unvotes” simply had to be goosed. Registry purges, ballot rejections, blocked voter drives, ID requirements, you name it: anything to block the voter or their vote was critical to the GOP. If Democrats had “Rock the Vote,” Republicans would need to “Block the Vote.”

Paul Weyrich, cofounder, with $50 million from the Koch brothers, of the Heritage Foundation, while dining with Ronald Reagan, put it bluntly:

“Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome—good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

And his “our” does not include those families in the State Street Rescue Mission.

Now, the best way to steal an election is to accuse the other guy of stealing the election. How else can you get Americans to tolerate the purge of thousands of African Americans from the voter rolls as criminals, to block Hispanic voters at the polls because they don’t have citizenship ID, to throw out mail-in ballots because absentee voters used the wrong color envelope?

The answer: this bonfire of the ballot box—wrongfully purging half a million citizens, not counting 2.7 million ballots, and rejecting 2.9 million registrants—is supposed to stop voter fraud.

“Whether they admit it or not, the Democrats need lawbreakers such as illegal aliens—who are being illegally registered as Democrats—and killers, rapists, and robbers in order to increase their base of far-left voters.”

That’s Mike Baker, Fox News, who spoke with my wingman Ronald Roberts (which isn’t “Ronald’s” real name, but we don’t need every freak we are hunting Googling us).

Baker’s canard of the mama-stabbing Mexican voter wave never stops quacking.

And that was Mindy Tucker Fletcher’s last defense. I asked her, if the voters were not “caged” for the purpose of challenging, would the GOP still use the list to challenge these voters?

Well, of course. “You wouldn’t want someone voting fraudulently, would you?”

No, I wouldn’t, Mindy.

The GOP position is this: If the letters mailed to voters at their registration came back to the cage “undeliverable,” that must mean this schemey voter was using a fake address so they could vote. Or vote twice. Fraud, mass fraud. There were tens of thousands of voters on these lists, so by Republican claims, a tidal wave of criminality.

Who were these fraudulent voters with fake addresses? Al-Qaeda stuffing the ballot box? The Zeta gang from Mexico? Castro’s agents?

Badpenny went sleepless calling every number she could trace, starting with this GOP caging list:

Page after page of felonious voters registered at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville! How evil is that?! Using our own military as a cover for massive vote fraud!

Unless, of course, there was another reason why the seamen and airmen weren’t at home. Badpenny reached one family and asked for the voter.

“Randall’s been posted overseas,” said Mrs. Prausa of her soldier husband.

Oh.

Active military may vote absentee from their US home address. But if GOP functionaries challenge them, their mail-in ballot is rejected—and they don’t even know it.

Go to Iraq, lose your vote. Mission accomplished, Mr. Bush.

Indeed, I went through the lists with experts including Ion Sancho, the elections supervisor. He was getting more and more steamed. Who were the supposed fraudsters? Homeless men who don’t have a name on a bell. Students away at school. Folks who move within their congressional district. And the 20 percent of US voters whose addresses contain typos from entries made by state employees into registry computers.

Every scheme to wipe away the voting rights of a US citizen, every legitimate ballot thrown in the garbage, every legal voter told to scram from the polling station, every diseased means used to defraud the public of the right to vote was justified by the hysterical claim of “VOTE FRAUD”!

But in all fairness, as a journalist, I had to look into the evidence of voter fraud. So I spoke personally with the attorney general of Florida.

The lawman, Bob Butterworth, assured me that if he found an illegal registrant or voter, he would arrest them, jail them. After all, an illegal voter, simply by the act of registering, had committed (another) felony.

I reminded him that Katherine Harris had found over 91,000 illegally registered felons.

How many arrests had he made from her list? “None.” Zero. Bubkiss. Nada.

I don’t get it. Busting them would be easy: After all, we have their addresses on the registrations. And they show up at the polls.

How many cases of vote fraud on that list? “We’ve opened maybe half a dozen cases,” the Florida AG told me.

Six out of 91,000???!!!

And it turns out those six charges were in error and dropped. Fraudulent voters: zero.

And the tens of thousands of caged voters? Hundreds of thousands caged by the GOP nationwide? If they were fraudulent voters, why weren’t the jails filled with these felonious villains?

Because, says Dr. Lorraine Minnite, there is effectively no voter fraud in the US. Minnite, a professor at Rutgers University who actually dug into the crime files, discovered six—six!—convictions of vote fraud a year among 170 million voters.

Here’s your crime wave: Over the entire study period, there were two convictions per year for multiple voting, two noncitizens, and two felons. (They must be the dumbest felons ever, willing to go back to prison just to vote for a school bond.) And that voter ID thief? Doesn’t exist.

The truth is it’s murderously hard to convince folks to register or vote illegally when it’s absurdly easy to get caught and the penalty is long-term prison. Santiago Juarez, who runs voter drives in Mexican American neighborhoods, told me, “How do you organize thousands of people to vote twice? Hell, it’s hard enough getting people to vote once.” Stealing an ID to vote twice ain’t happening.

Professor Minnite summed it up: “The claim of widespread voter fraud is itself a fraud.” In 2012, over five million US citizens will lose their right to vote to prevent a crime committed by 12 individuals.

And the real criminals who are guilty of a couple million counts of violations of the Voting Rights Act, they’re on Fox and PBS or in Congress, aren’t they, Mr. Griffin?

Tears of a Clone

In May 2007, BBC television led the nightly news with my report on new US Attorney Griffin and the “caging” of US soldier voters.

By the next morning, Griffin resigned and turned in his lawman badge.

While the BBC report was, as usual, ignored by US media, it wasn’t ignored by the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman John Conyers reached me in London to tell me he would subpoena Griffin.

Griffin held a truly weird press conference, bellyaching about “that British reporter,” bursting into tears, and, despite the fact that his name was on the e-mails sending out the caging lists, he insisted, “I never heard of ‘caging.’”

Really?

No one believed him. No one but me.

If he didn’t send out caging lists, who did? Who would viciously, criminally, attack the rights of soldiers and homeless and old Jewish grandmas?

“Caging” is a technical term used in the direct mail business. So, who knows the direct mail biz and could use Griffin’s personal computer?

Griffin’s boss, Rove, knows about “caging.” A lot. He became rich as owner of a direct mail company and was, in college, the CREEP computer whiz-kid who first introduced computer database mining in politics for Richard Nixon.

And he’s infamously careful never to use his own computer.

So who used your computer, Tim? And then made you resign as prosecutor, shut up about the facts…and get the Kochs to buy you a seat in Congress?

Conyers told me he had loads of questions about this for Mr. Rove—who simply ignored the congressman’s subpoena.

So we’ll never know if the creep who sent out the caging lists was Karl Rove, his Rove-bot Griffin, or, a third possibility, Griffin’s own gofer, Matt Rhoades.

While Griffin is now an Honorable Congressman (or, at least, a congressman), at the time, his career, following the BBC exposé, appeared to be toast. Indeed, John McCain dumped a high post for Griffin in his 2008 presidential campaign after the caging connection was made public.

But there is redemption. In 2012, Griffin’s gofer, Matt Rhoades, was named director of the Romney presidential campaign.

A Few Good Men (Very Few)

Bobby Kennedy may think that Griffin’s scheme to remove legal voters from the rolls was illegal, but Bush’s Justice Department was not likely to bust one of their own.

Nevertheless, Griffin wasn’t taking any chances. Neither was his boss, deputy chief of staff to the president and consigliere to the Bush reelection campaign, Karl Rove.

They feared there might be honest federal prosecutors. They could cause problems with The Plan to cage and challenge voters in 2004, in 2008, and beyond.

So, a directive came down from Main Justice in Washington to federal prosecutors nationwide: hunt for fraudulent voters. However, the lawmen were not told about an unwritten footnote to the directives: unsuccessful hunters would soon find themselves hunted.

I too was hunting for fraudulent voters—a good journalist should give evil the benefit of the doubt. So I went to New Mexico to bag myself a killer-rapist-illegal-alien-ID-thief voter.

But I was having a helluva time finding even one, despite three million having lost their vote to prevent this terrible crime.

But then, in October 2008, a state legislator in New Mexico, Justine Fox-Young, held up two pieces of paper in the capitol building showing, she said, 28 cases of someone voting with someone else’s name. It wasn’t a crime wave, but a kind of gentle ripple. So I called her and told to her to fax me the evidence. She didn’t. I called again and asked the crimebuster politician, “Justine, you’ve uncovered felony criminals.”

“Oh, yes!”

Cool. So did she turn over these villains to the federal prosecutors?

Uh-huh.

So, did the prosecutor arrest them? Lock ‘em up?

“Not exactly.”

The answer was, not even remotely. I called the federal prosecutor, a rising star in the Republican Party, US Attorney David Iglesias. He found Ms. Fox-Young’s evidence just a load of bollocks, though he didn’t use those words, I’ll admit.

Iglesias hadn’t arrested one single person in the entire state for voter fraud, despite the fact that the GOP campaign to prevent “fraud” in the state had resulted in the rejection of 28,000 voters and ballots, almost all Democrats.

In other words, the guy in charge of enforcing the law had not and would not bust a single person for the crime that justified his party’s pogrom against Hispanic voters all across the Southwest.

I wasn’t the only one to note that Captain Iglesias (he had remained in the Naval Reserve as one of the Navy’s top adjutant generals) was not busting Bad Voters.

Around the same time, I discovered that Allen Weh, chairman of the state Republican Party, and Pat Rogers, the party’s lawyer, complained to the White House about Iglesias failing to cuff these Hispanic voters after sending him 50 names, likely from the caging lists.

In 2008, Iglesias was able to tell me he “ran all over the plateaus of New Mexico with FBI agents” tracking down these fraudulent voters and found nothing but good citizens.

That wouldn’t do for the party apparatchiks.

The Republican Chairman Weh, and his counsel, Pat Rogers, brought in an enforcer from the White House: Karl Rove.

In my line of business I hear a lot that could make you shiver, but what Captain Iglesias told me that day in 2008 was one of the most chilling things I’d ever heard from a US official.

The GOP honchos, state and federal, he said, wanted him to lock up voters no matter the evidence. They wanted him to indict innocent people to justify their vote-blocking laws.

Iglesias told me, “I didn’t help them with their bogus fraud prosecutions.”

Rove’s buddies leaned on Iglesias, but they picked the wrong guy. Captain Iglesias was one of the models for the Tom Cruise character, the crusading military defense lawyer, in the film A Few Good Men. Iglesias told the Rove-bots to stick their phony prosecution demands where the votes don’t shine.

So, President Bush fired Iglesias. And he wasn’t the only one. Seven other US attorneys, good Republicans but ethical ones, were removed by the White House and replaced by pliant Rove-bots.

At first, the US press didn’t notice. Iglesias was officially fired for “absenteeism”—because he was placed by the president on active duty and sent to Bosnia to address war crimes.

The press asked no questions, but one of my fans did when he watched my London broadcast on caging for BBC. Congressman John Conyers has always kept abreast of our investigations for BBC television. Conyers called me, then called hearings. He had plenty of evidence that the firings were illegal.

But the problem, Conyers told me, was that his fellow congressmen wouldn’t go after the real issue, the motive for the firings: suppressing the vote of minority citizens. Conyers, dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, had the problem that while he was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the majority of them were Republicans or other members of the Congressional “White” Caucus.

The committee would concentrate only on the firings as “political,” and a repeat-a-press-release US media covered it that way, never getting to the real motive. And most important, the Bush White House stonewalled Conyers’ subpoena for cage-meister Griffin’s boss, Karl Rove.

Conyers forced Griffin’s cronies at the Justice Department to cough up their files on Iglesias’ firing which included this smoking pistol: Iglesias — Underachiever in very important district. That’s the failure to bust innocent voters.

Absentee landlord. That’s his 40-day assignment for the Navy. Firing reserve officers on active duty is a crime, but hell, that’s nothing compared to the next felony on the list.

Domenici says he doesn’t move cases. This is Republican Senator Pete Domenici who, said Iglesias, woke him up at home to tell Iglesias to speed up the indictment of a Democrat prior to the election.

Oops. He’s telling a United States attorney to indict citizens, and attacking his failure to “move” when the senator tells him too.

I asked the prosecutor if Rove had him removed as punishment for not bringing the fake cases. “If his intent was, ‘look what happened with Iglesias,’ if that was his intent, he’s in big trouble. That is obstruction of justice, one classic example.”

Iglesias was screwing them bad. The captain and eight other prosecutors were getting all precious about bringing bogus cases. That was undermining the GOP’s attempt to obtain new voter ID laws. The failure to find illegal voters put the lie to their campaign to prove the nation’s top voter registration organization, ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), had registered fraudulent voters. Getting ACORN was Republican operative Pat Rogers’ obsession, which he made into a national cause of the GOP and other politicians in the White Caucus as lawyer for the “nonpartisan” American Center for Voting Rights. It should have been called, American Center Against Voting. Everything the group proposed would cut the number of citizens voting by millions.

I wanted to ask Rogers why he brought in Rove and why he had Captain Iglesias gunned down. But Rogers didn’t want to answer my formal request for BBC TV. But I figured he couldn’t pass up the free champagne they would pour at a GOP victory party. At the soiree to which I obtained press credentials under another name, I caught Rogers in half-sip with an unseen microphone that captured his personal reviews of my reporting skills. “He’s an asshole,” he told a crony before greeting me warmly as the cameras rolled.

“Iglesias was not capable in his job.” Which was, apparently, hunting ACORN.

“ACORN hired a collection of people who fraudulently registered persons who are not eligible to vote. ACORN is working for the Democratic Party,” said Rogers. (He wore a flag lapel pin the party handed to all the champagne sippers. They gave me one of the Republican freebie flags. I still have it in the wrapper. Take a look: Made in China.)

Had Rogers unmasked a conspiracy between ACORN and the Democratic Party—covered up from them by US Attorney Iglesias, a Republican? Wow!

“Conspiracy,” said Rogers mysteriously, “is a loose word.” Rogers is fond of loose words. He’d recently held a press conference waving a list of a half-dozen fraudulent voters registered by ACORN. With his full house of illegal voters, Rogers made a huge splash in the papers. Then Iglesias made a total ass out of Rogers, by not busting even one.

What the hell, even a jerk reporter like me will give Rogers a chance. I checked out all six of these ne’er-do-wells, these fugitives from justice. I began at a diner in Cerritos where I tracked Melissa Tais, notorious for allowing another voter with another signature to use her name so she and her confederate could vote twice.

Actually, what she’d done was fill out one registration form at an ACORN table, but never received the receipt. So, following the law’s requirements, she reregistered, this time signing while holding the form in her hand so the signature was a little shaky—resulting in two admittedly different-looking signatures.

So, did she vote twice? No. County officials hauled her into a hearing and it shook her up so much she wouldn’t vote at all. And that’s what they wanted.

But Iglesias wouldn’t play and ACORN continued to register Hispanic and low-income voters until 2009, when Andrew Breitbart (who has since returned to the bosom of Satan) blew up some cockamamie sting which had nothing to do with voting—and put ACORN out of the registration business. (ACORN’s one-time lawyer, Barack Obama, averted his gaze as the media jackals savaged the poor folks’ group, then paid for his pusillanimity in 2010 when Congress flipped color from Blue to Red.)

The US attorney firings occurred just in time for the 2008 election. Iglesias wasn’t alone, of course. Tom Heffelfinger, Republican US attorney for Minnesota, was on the hit list for defending Native American voters from an attack by the GOP’s Minnesota secretary of state. Iglesias called his buddy in Arkansas who was taken down for similar pangs of conscience, but agreed to step aside without a fight so his friend, President Bush, could make his own choice.

And Bush’s choice was…Tim Griffin.

Now, instead of being prosecuted for crimes, Tim became the prosecutor. At Karl Rove’s behest, Tim Griffin was appointed US attorney for Arkansas.

For more Billionaires and Ballot Bandits visit http://www.BallotBandits.org.

Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps campaign history

Sourced from AlterNet.com

The following is an excerpt from Greg Palast’s new book, Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps, including a comic book by Ted Rall and an introduction by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (7 Stories Press, 2012).

Congressman Tim Griffin is a big, BIG supporter of the XL Pipeline. And the Kochs are big, BIG supporters of Congressman Griffin. Koch interests lined up $167,183 for Griffin’s run in 2010. Let me put that in perspective: for $167,183, the average member of Congress would be willing to wash your car—with his tongue.

That kind of money doesn’t come into a GOP candidate’s hands without the helpful hand of Karl Rove.

If you remember, voting-rights attorney Kennedy said Griffin “should be in jail.” A federal prosecutor expressed the same sentiment to me. How Griffin ended up in Congress, not in prison, is the more intriguing story.

It was well after midnight, in the first week of October before the 2004 election, when the e-mails started pouring in.

The chieftains of the George W. Bush reelection campaign were copying me on their most intimate and confidential messages—and Ollie, my research director, pissed me off by waking me in my cheap motel room to tell me this whacky-ass news. I was in the middle of nowhere USA with my election investigation for BBC going nowhere, so I wasn’t in the mood for this bullshit.

But it wasn’t bullshit. It was a miracle. Karl Rove’s right-hand man, Tim Griffin, Bush’s research director (read, smear director), had sent the data for some sick scheme to the chairman of the Bush reelection campaign in Florida, Brett Doster. Griffin, instead of sending copies to GeorgeWBush.com, their internal e-mail domain, sent copies to GeorgeWBush.ORG, to my friend John Wooden’s joke site. Wooden passed them on to us for forensic analysis.

Here was the GOP leadership with their pants around their ankles, exposing their cheat sheets.

Holy Mama! Do I have to believe in God, now?

What we’d been handed proved to be an electronic back door into the darkest corners of a criminal vote-suppression machine.

By the morning, we had booked flights to Washington, DC, and Tallahassee, Florida, while Ms. Badpenny, in charge of our investigations, began the decoding work. We knew there was a scheme afoot, but what exactly was it?

Smoking-gun memos rarely read, “Louie, this is how we cheat the public,” or “Brett, here’s the plan to steal Florida.” If they do say that, they’re fake.

These e-mails’ clues were a bit tougher than most to crack. That pudgy little wad Griffin had written to Doster several e-mails with the cryptic subject line “Caging.xls,” with Excel files attached, and terse messages like “Here’s another list.”

Each was a very selective list of voters, names and addresses. What struck me right off were names like Rodriguez, Washington and Goldberg—typically Hispanic, black and Jewish. Badpenny and the crew mapped the addresses, and sure enough, it was a perfect scattergram of poor, minority neighborhoods and townships with Gone With the Wind names like “Plantation, Florida.” There was also that list of Yiddish names from retirement homes: the GOP was certainly targeting the Elderly of Zion.

But for what?

At the Bush headquarters in Florida’s capital, campaign director Doster agreed to an interview. But when BBC required me to disclose we had his “caging” e-mails, Doster fled like a bunny into his Tallahassee offices and sent out his mouthpiece, Mindy Tucker Fletcher, clutching a supersized cup of Coca-Cola as big as a mortar shell. She brought a flunky to nod at whatever she said, and a sneering list of explanations, beginning with a corker: the “caging” lists, she said, were a compilation of Republican donors.

Really? Including these folks? Here were the Bush-Cheney “donors” who all lived at the State Street Rescue Mission: Page after page of names contained residents of homeless shelters.

Want to try again, Mrs. Tucker Fletcher?

A “caging list,” she explained, was a term of art in the junk mail business referring to returned letters. I knew that. The Republicans, she said, didn’t want to send duplicates to wrong addresses.

You don’t say! So Mindy, you’re telling me that Karl Rove’s top attack dog is now running the mailroom via confidential messages to state party chairmen—for address corrections?

Why don’t I give you one more try, Mrs. Tucker Fletcher. Could these, by chance, be lists used to systematically challenge the registrations of voters of color?

Mindy Tucker Fletcher grinned and said, carefully, “This is not a challenge list. That’s not what it’s SET UP to do.”

Bingo.

You see, we’d already made a couple of visits to experts before stopping by Fortress Bush. After sending the lists to America’s junk mail king Mark Swedlund, who’d helped me on many an undercover investigation, I had a damn good idea what these were—an opinion confirmed, without prompting, by Ion Sancho, Florida’s county elections supervisor, the recognized expert on voting systems—and vote heists. “They couldn’t be anything but challenge lists. And if they are, they’re breaking the law.”

More than one law, actually, especially if the targets have a racial or religious profile. And it would be breaking a consent decree: years earlier, the Republican National Committee was caught challenging black voters en masse at polling stations and had promised, under penalty of perjury, not to do it again.

Now it looked like they were doing it again, but in a most sophisticated way. Bobby Kennedy explained the game: “They send out letters to poor black and Hispanic voters, first class, with instructions to return, don’t forward, if the letter is not deliverable. The returned [“caged”] letter is then used as ‘evidence’ the voter’s listed address is fraudulent, and the Republican functionary then gets the name struck from voter rolls, or the absentee ballot, if mailed in, is not counted.”

Targeting the black, Hispanic and Jewish vote this way is not just icky and racist, it’s against the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which Kennedy’s late father Bobby Sr., the US attorney general, and his uncle, President John Kennedy, helped draft. Bobby Jr., looking at the evidence, suggested hard time for Griffin and Rove.

But who was going to prosecute Griffin and company, anyway? Was the Bush Justice Department going to tell Mr. Griffin to “spread ‘em”? Mr. Griffin, of the Bush campaign? Mr. Griffin, assistant to the senior advisor to President Bush?

The Hysteria Factory

In early 2004, George Bush was not a popular president, what with wars and his billionaires leaving so little for the rest of us. But if malcontents, black folk, Latinos, and Jews lost their registrations, didn’t get to vote, were afraid to vote, then swing states like New Mexico, Ohio and Florida could be flipped.

A massive attack on voter rolls to remove names, to block voters from casting ballots, and challenging votes cast should do it. Millions of votes are made to disappear by stealth or just sheer incompetence, but Americans are too enamored of the television story of their democracy that they don’t see it and won’t hear of it.

The chairman of the US Commission on Civil Rights, Mary Frances Berry, told me, “Elections aren’t stolen in the vote count—they’re stolen in the no count,” a thought perceptive enough to have her removed from the commission by President Bush.

Rove knows that to win in a nation where white voters were becoming the minority, the number of minority “unvotes” simply had to be goosed. Registry purges, ballot rejections, blocked voter drives, ID requirements, you name it: anything to block the voter or their vote was critical to the GOP. If Democrats had “Rock the Vote,” Republicans would need to “Block the Vote.”

Paul Weyrich, cofounder, with $50 million from the Koch brothers, of the Heritage Foundation, while dining with Ronald Reagan, put it bluntly:

“Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome—good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

And his “our” does not include those families in the State Street Rescue Mission.

Now, the best way to steal an election is to accuse the other guy of stealing the election. How else can you get Americans to tolerate the purge of thousands of African Americans from the voter rolls as criminals, to block Hispanic voters at the polls because they don’t have citizenship ID, to throw out mail-in ballots because absentee voters used the wrong color envelope?

The answer: this bonfire of the ballot box—wrongfully purging half a million citizens, not counting 2.7 million ballots, and rejecting 2.9 million registrants—is supposed to stop voter fraud.

“Whether they admit it or not, the Democrats need lawbreakers such as illegal aliens—who are being illegally registered as Democrats—and killers, rapists, and robbers in order to increase their base of far-left voters.”

That’s Mike Baker, Fox News, who spoke with my wingman Ronald Roberts (which isn’t “Ronald’s” real name, but we don’t need every freak we are hunting Googling us).

Baker’s canard of the mama-stabbing Mexican voter wave never stops quacking.

And that was Mindy Tucker Fletcher’s last defense. I asked her, if the voters were not “caged” for the purpose of challenging, would the GOP still use the list to challenge these voters?

Well, of course. “You wouldn’t want someone voting fraudulently, would you?”

No, I wouldn’t, Mindy.

The GOP position is this: If the letters mailed to voters at their registration came back to the cage “undeliverable,” that must mean this schemey voter was using a fake address so they could vote. Or vote twice. Fraud, mass fraud. There were tens of thousands of voters on these lists, so by Republican claims, a tidal wave of criminality.

Who were these fraudulent voters with fake addresses? Al-Qaeda stuffing the ballot box? The Zeta gang from Mexico? Castro’s agents?

Badpenny went sleepless calling every number she could trace, starting with this GOP caging list:

Page after page of felonious voters registered at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville! How evil is that?! Using our own military as a cover for massive vote fraud!

Unless, of course, there was another reason why the seamen and airmen weren’t at home. Badpenny reached one family and asked for the voter.

“Randall’s been posted overseas,” said Mrs. Prausa of her soldier husband.

Oh.

Active military may vote absentee from their US home address. But if GOP functionaries challenge them, their mail-in ballot is rejected—and they don’t even know it.

Go to Iraq, lose your vote. Mission accomplished, Mr. Bush.

Indeed, I went through the lists with experts including Ion Sancho, the elections supervisor. He was getting more and more steamed. Who were the supposed fraudsters? Homeless men who don’t have a name on a bell. Students away at school. Folks who move within their congressional district. And the 20 percent of US voters whose addresses contain typos from entries made by state employees into registry computers.

Every scheme to wipe away the voting rights of a US citizen, every legitimate ballot thrown in the garbage, every legal voter told to scram from the polling station, every diseased means used to defraud the public of the right to vote was justified by the hysterical claim of “VOTE FRAUD”!

But in all fairness, as a journalist, I had to look into the evidence of voter fraud. So I spoke personally with the attorney general of Florida.

The lawman, Bob Butterworth, assured me that if he found an illegal registrant or voter, he would arrest them, jail them. After all, an illegal voter, simply by the act of registering, had committed (another) felony.

I reminded him that Katherine Harris had found over 91,000 illegally registered felons.

How many arrests had he made from her list? “None.” Zero. Bubkiss. Nada.

I don’t get it. Busting them would be easy: After all, we have their addresses on the registrations. And they show up at the polls.

How many cases of vote fraud on that list? “We’ve opened maybe half a dozen cases,” the Florida AG told me.

Six out of 91,000???!!!

And it turns out those six charges were in error and dropped. Fraudulent voters: zero.

And the tens of thousands of caged voters? Hundreds of thousands caged by the GOP nationwide? If they were fraudulent voters, why weren’t the jails filled with these felonious villains?

Because, says Dr. Lorraine Minnite, there is effectively no voter fraud in the US. Minnite, a professor at Rutgers University who actually dug into the crime files, discovered six—six!—convictions of vote fraud a year among 170 million voters.

Here’s your crime wave: Over the entire study period, there were two convictions per year for multiple voting, two noncitizens, and two felons. (They must be the dumbest felons ever, willing to go back to prison just to vote for a school bond.) And that voter ID thief? Doesn’t exist.

The truth is it’s murderously hard to convince folks to register or vote illegally when it’s absurdly easy to get caught and the penalty is long-term prison. Santiago Juarez, who runs voter drives in Mexican American neighborhoods, told me, “How do you organize thousands of people to vote twice? Hell, it’s hard enough getting people to vote once.” Stealing an ID to vote twice ain’t happening.

Professor Minnite summed it up: “The claim of widespread voter fraud is itself a fraud.” In 2012, over five million US citizens will lose their right to vote to prevent a crime committed by 12 individuals.

And the real criminals who are guilty of a couple million counts of violations of the Voting Rights Act, they’re on Fox and PBS or in Congress, aren’t they, Mr. Griffin?

Tears of a Clone

In May 2007, BBC television led the nightly news with my report on new US Attorney Griffin and the “caging” of US soldier voters.

By the next morning, Griffin resigned and turned in his lawman badge.

While the BBC report was, as usual, ignored by US media, it wasn’t ignored by the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman John Conyers reached me in London to tell me he would subpoena Griffin.

Griffin held a truly weird press conference, bellyaching about “that British reporter,” bursting into tears, and, despite the fact that his name was on the e-mails sending out the caging lists, he insisted, “I never heard of ‘caging.’”

Really?

No one believed him. No one but me.

If he didn’t send out caging lists, who did? Who would viciously, criminally, attack the rights of soldiers and homeless and old Jewish grandmas?

“Caging” is a technical term used in the direct mail business. So, who knows the direct mail biz and could use Griffin’s personal computer?

Griffin’s boss, Rove, knows about “caging.” A lot. He became rich as owner of a direct mail company and was, in college, the CREEP computer whiz-kid who first introduced computer database mining in politics for Richard Nixon.

And he’s infamously careful never to use his own computer.

So who used your computer, Tim? And then made you resign as prosecutor, shut up about the facts…and get the Kochs to buy you a seat in Congress?

Conyers told me he had loads of questions about this for Mr. Rove—who simply ignored the congressman’s subpoena.

So we’ll never know if the creep who sent out the caging lists was Karl Rove, his Rove-bot Griffin, or, a third possibility, Griffin’s own gofer, Matt Rhoades.

While Griffin is now an Honorable Congressman (or, at least, a congressman), at the time, his career, following the BBC exposé, appeared to be toast. Indeed, John McCain dumped a high post for Griffin in his 2008 presidential campaign after the caging connection was made public.

But there is redemption. In 2012, Griffin’s gofer, Matt Rhoades, was named director of the Romney presidential campaign.

A Few Good Men (Very Few)

Bobby Kennedy may think that Griffin’s scheme to remove legal voters from the rolls was illegal, but Bush’s Justice Department was not likely to bust one of their own.

Nevertheless, Griffin wasn’t taking any chances. Neither was his boss, deputy chief of staff to the president and consigliere to the Bush reelection campaign, Karl Rove.

They feared there might be honest federal prosecutors. They could cause problems with The Plan to cage and challenge voters in 2004, in 2008, and beyond.

So, a directive came down from Main Justice in Washington to federal prosecutors nationwide: hunt for fraudulent voters. However, the lawmen were not told about an unwritten footnote to the directives: unsuccessful hunters would soon find themselves hunted.

I too was hunting for fraudulent voters—a good journalist should give evil the benefit of the doubt. So I went to New Mexico to bag myself a killer-rapist-illegal-alien-ID-thief voter.

But I was having a helluva time finding even one, despite three million having lost their vote to prevent this terrible crime.

But then, in October 2008, a state legislator in New Mexico, Justine Fox-Young, held up two pieces of paper in the capitol building showing, she said, 28 cases of someone voting with someone else’s name. It wasn’t a crime wave, but a kind of gentle ripple. So I called her and told to her to fax me the evidence. She didn’t. I called again and asked the crimebuster politician, “Justine, you’ve uncovered felony criminals.”

“Oh, yes!”

Cool. So did she turn over these villains to the federal prosecutors?

Uh-huh.

So, did the prosecutor arrest them? Lock ‘em up?

“Not exactly.”

The answer was, not even remotely. I called the federal prosecutor, a rising star in the Republican Party, US Attorney David Iglesias. He found Ms. Fox-Young’s evidence just a load of bollocks, though he didn’t use those words, I’ll admit.

Iglesias hadn’t arrested one single person in the entire state for voter fraud, despite the fact that the GOP campaign to prevent “fraud” in the state had resulted in the rejection of 28,000 voters and ballots, almost all Democrats.

In other words, the guy in charge of enforcing the law had not and would not bust a single person for the crime that justified his party’s pogrom against Hispanic voters all across the Southwest.

I wasn’t the only one to note that Captain Iglesias (he had remained in the Naval Reserve as one of the Navy’s top adjutant generals) was not busting Bad Voters.

Around the same time, I discovered that Allen Weh, chairman of the state Republican Party, and Pat Rogers, the party’s lawyer, complained to the White House about Iglesias failing to cuff these Hispanic voters after sending him 50 names, likely from the caging lists.

In 2008, Iglesias was able to tell me he “ran all over the plateaus of New Mexico with FBI agents” tracking down these fraudulent voters and found nothing but good citizens.

That wouldn’t do for the party apparatchiks.

The Republican Chairman Weh, and his counsel, Pat Rogers, brought in an enforcer from the White House: Karl Rove.

In my line of business I hear a lot that could make you shiver, but what Captain Iglesias told me that day in 2008 was one of the most chilling things I’d ever heard from a US official.

The GOP honchos, state and federal, he said, wanted him to lock up voters no matter the evidence. They wanted him to indict innocent people to justify their vote-blocking laws.

Iglesias told me, “I didn’t help them with their bogus fraud prosecutions.”

Rove’s buddies leaned on Iglesias, but they picked the wrong guy. Captain Iglesias was one of the models for the Tom Cruise character, the crusading military defense lawyer, in the film A Few Good Men. Iglesias told the Rove-bots to stick their phony prosecution demands where the votes don’t shine.

So, President Bush fired Iglesias. And he wasn’t the only one. Seven other US attorneys, good Republicans but ethical ones, were removed by the White House and replaced by pliant Rove-bots.

At first, the US press didn’t notice. Iglesias was officially fired for “absenteeism”—because he was placed by the president on active duty and sent to Bosnia to address war crimes.

The press asked no questions, but one of my fans did when he watched my London broadcast on caging for BBC. Congressman John Conyers has always kept abreast of our investigations for BBC television. Conyers called me, then called hearings. He had plenty of evidence that the firings were illegal.

But the problem, Conyers told me, was that his fellow congressmen wouldn’t go after the real issue, the motive for the firings: suppressing the vote of minority citizens. Conyers, dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, had the problem that while he was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the majority of them were Republicans or other members of the Congressional “White” Caucus.

The committee would concentrate only on the firings as “political,” and a repeat-a-press-release US media covered it that way, never getting to the real motive. And most important, the Bush White House stonewalled Conyers’ subpoena for cage-meister Griffin’s boss, Karl Rove.

Conyers forced Griffin’s cronies at the Justice Department to cough up their files on Iglesias’ firing which included this smoking pistol: Iglesias — Underachiever in very important district. That’s the failure to bust innocent voters.

Absentee landlord. That’s his 40-day assignment for the Navy. Firing reserve officers on active duty is a crime, but hell, that’s nothing compared to the next felony on the list.

Domenici says he doesn’t move cases. This is Republican Senator Pete Domenici who, said Iglesias, woke him up at home to tell Iglesias to speed up the indictment of a Democrat prior to the election.

Oops. He’s telling a United States attorney to indict citizens, and attacking his failure to “move” when the senator tells him too.

I asked the prosecutor if Rove had him removed as punishment for not bringing the fake cases. “If his intent was, ‘look what happened with Iglesias,’ if that was his intent, he’s in big trouble. That is obstruction of justice, one classic example.”

Iglesias was screwing them bad. The captain and eight other prosecutors were getting all precious about bringing bogus cases. That was undermining the GOP’s attempt to obtain new voter ID laws. The failure to find illegal voters put the lie to their campaign to prove the nation’s top voter registration organization, ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), had registered fraudulent voters. Getting ACORN was Republican operative Pat Rogers’ obsession, which he made into a national cause of the GOP and other politicians in the White Caucus as lawyer for the “nonpartisan” American Center for Voting Rights. It should have been called, American Center Against Voting. Everything the group proposed would cut the number of citizens voting by millions.

I wanted to ask Rogers why he brought in Rove and why he had Captain Iglesias gunned down. But Rogers didn’t want to answer my formal request for BBC TV. But I figured he couldn’t pass up the free champagne they would pour at a GOP victory party. At the soiree to which I obtained press credentials under another name, I caught Rogers in half-sip with an unseen microphone that captured his personal reviews of my reporting skills. “He’s an asshole,” he told a crony before greeting me warmly as the cameras rolled.

“Iglesias was not capable in his job.” Which was, apparently, hunting ACORN.

“ACORN hired a collection of people who fraudulently registered persons who are not eligible to vote. ACORN is working for the Democratic Party,” said Rogers. (He wore a flag lapel pin the party handed to all the champagne sippers. They gave me one of the Republican freebie flags. I still have it in the wrapper. Take a look: Made in China.)

Had Rogers unmasked a conspiracy between ACORN and the Democratic Party—covered up from them by US Attorney Iglesias, a Republican? Wow!

“Conspiracy,” said Rogers mysteriously, “is a loose word.” Rogers is fond of loose words. He’d recently held a press conference waving a list of a half-dozen fraudulent voters registered by ACORN. With his full house of illegal voters, Rogers made a huge splash in the papers. Then Iglesias made a total ass out of Rogers, by not busting even one.

What the hell, even a jerk reporter like me will give Rogers a chance. I checked out all six of these ne’er-do-wells, these fugitives from justice. I began at a diner in Cerritos where I tracked Melissa Tais, notorious for allowing another voter with another signature to use her name so she and her confederate could vote twice.

Actually, what she’d done was fill out one registration form at an ACORN table, but never received the receipt. So, following the law’s requirements, she reregistered, this time signing while holding the form in her hand so the signature was a little shaky—resulting in two admittedly different-looking signatures.

So, did she vote twice? No. County officials hauled her into a hearing and it shook her up so much she wouldn’t vote at all. And that’s what they wanted.

But Iglesias wouldn’t play and ACORN continued to register Hispanic and low-income voters until 2009, when Andrew Breitbart (who has since returned to the bosom of Satan) blew up some cockamamie sting which had nothing to do with voting—and put ACORN out of the registration business. (ACORN’s one-time lawyer, Barack Obama, averted his gaze as the media jackals savaged the poor folks’ group, then paid for his pusillanimity in 2010 when Congress flipped color from Blue to Red.)

The US attorney firings occurred just in time for the 2008 election. Iglesias wasn’t alone, of course. Tom Heffelfinger, Republican US attorney for Minnesota, was on the hit list for defending Native American voters from an attack by the GOP’s Minnesota secretary of state. Iglesias called his buddy in Arkansas who was taken down for similar pangs of conscience, but agreed to step aside without a fight so his friend, President Bush, could make his own choice.

And Bush’s choice was…Tim Griffin.

Now, instead of being prosecuted for crimes, Tim became the prosecutor. At Karl Rove’s behest, Tim Griffin was appointed US attorney for Arkansas.

For more Billionaires and Ballot Bandits visit http://www.BallotBandits.org.

Rethinking the Classroom: Obama’s overhaul of public education

Sourced from WashingtonPost.com

By Lyndsey Layton, Published: September 20

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is one in a series of articles examining President Obama’s record.

In 31 / 2 years in office, President Obama has set in motion a broad overhaul of public education from kindergarten through high school, largely bypassing Congress and inducing states to adopt landmark changes that none of his predecessors attempted.

He awarded billions of dollars in stimulus funding to states that agreed to promote charter schools, use student test scores to evaluate teachers and embrace other administration-backed policies. And he has effectively rewritten No Child Left Behind, the federal law passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, by excusing states from its requirements if they adopt his measures.

Under Obama’s framework, teachers with weak ratings tied to student achievement could lose their jobs, while high ratings could mean bigger paychecks. And children in 45 states and the District of Columbia will for the first time follow a set of common standards aimed at raising achievement, with a third-grader in Hawaii expected to know the same things as a third-grader in Maine. One result will be that children at all levels will read less literature and more speeches, journalism and other “informational texts” to prepare for life after graduation.

Obama’s agenda has amplified ideas that have been simmering around the country, including those championed by Republicans, among them the push to give parents more choice about where children attend school and to blast apart a long-standing system that rewarded teachers for longevity but not necessarily effectiveness.

The president has said changes are needed to close the persistent gap between poor and privileged students, drive up high school graduation rates and produce a workforce that can compete globally.

But it is impossible to predict whether his policies, which are years from full implementation, will work. There is little or no research showing that these measures lead to better-educated children or higher graduation rates. Unions and some parents contend that Obama’s approach overemphasizes testing and crowds out the arts and other subjects.

There is wide agreement, however, that the administration has been particularly successful at pushing through its flavor of education policy.

Critics see overreach

“They’ve taken their concept of reform, like it or not, laid it out very directly, put the resources around it and moved to drive state practices,” said Gene Wilhoit, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, a nonpartisan group that represents state education officials.

Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), who chairs the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said he recognizes the effort the administration has poured into education, even as he argues that Obama has overreached.

“They’ve been extraordinarily aggressive and engaged,” he said.

The Obama education agenda, which relies on competition, accountability and other market concepts, has provoked controversy around the country.

Page 2 of 2

Last week, unionized teachers in Chicago walked out of their classrooms for the first time in 25 years in a strike over proposals similar to Obama’s, including revamped teacher evaluations and ending job security based only on seniority.

Civil rights groups also have raised questions about Obama’s proposals, worried that stepping away from No Child Left Behind will ease pressure on states to help poor children perform as well as their wealthier classmates.

Going around Congress

Obama was able to propel change two ways. With states clamoring for relief from No Child Left Behind, and Congress stalled five years over reauthorizing it, the president forged ahead with his agenda rather than waiting for Congress to act.

He used his authority to issue waivers from No Child Left Behind to 33 states.

The administration also leveraged $4.3 billion in stimulus money that Congress approved for education, creating a series of competitive grants known as Race to the Top, pumping to a new level this type of award. In the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, federal officials dangled the stimulus money to persuade struggling states to make big policy shifts.

“They’ve pioneered it,” said Chester E. Finn Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative research group. “Making states compete for a limited pot of money and awarding it to the most serious state is pretty unusual.”

So far, 18 states and the District of Columbia have won grants, but more than half of the states have tried — and each had to adopt policies favored by the Obama administration in order to compete. That led 28 states to change a total of 100 laws or policies, the Education Department reports.

The California legislature, for example, threw out a law that prohibited schools from using student test scores to evaluate teachers.

The administration also made it clear that, to compete, states needed to embrace a new, common set of demanding academic standards or similiar benchmarks.

Massachusetts, home to some of the strongest academic standards in the country, ditched its framework to adopt the common standards in 2010 so it could apply for the grants. The state was awarded $250 million.

Although the standards were written by a consortium of state leaders and the federal government was not involved, some states refused to participate.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) said in a statement that Texas would not compete in Race to the Top because it would be “foolish and irresponsible to place our children’s future in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and special-interest groups thousands of miles away in Washington.”

Undeterred by the state’s resistance, the administration in May announced a round of grants that will be awarded to individual districts. That would allow Houston, for example, to apply even if Texas remained uninterested.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan likes to point out that Race to the Top funding represents less than 1 percent of the $500 billion spent in this country annually for elementary and high school education, but that it has had an outsized impact.

What Mitt Romney Really Represents

Sourced from opednews.com
by ROBERT REICH
It’s not just his giant income or the low tax rates he pays on it. And it’s not just the videotape of him berating almost half of America, or his endless gaffes, or his regressive budget policies.
It’s something that unites all of this, and connects it to the biggest underlying problem America faces — the unprecedented concentration of wealth and power at the very top that’s undermining our economy and destroying our democracy.
Romney just released his 2011 tax returns, showing he paid $1.9 million in taxes on more than $13 million of income last year — for an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent. (He released his 2010 return in January, showing he paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent.)
American has had hugely wealthy presidents before — think of Teddy Roosevelt and his distant cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt; or John F. Kennedy, beneficiary of father Joe’s fortune.
But here’s the difference. These men were champions of the working class and the poor, and were considered traitors to their own class. Teddy Roosevelt railed against the “malefactors of great wealth,” and he busted up the oil and railroad trusts.
FDR thundered against the “economic royalists,” raised taxes on the wealthy, and gave average working people the right to form unions — along with Social Security, unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, and a 40-hour workweek.
But Mitt Romney is not a traitor to his class. He is a sponsor of his class. He wants to cut their taxes by $3.7 trillion over the next decade, and hasn’t even specified what “loopholes” he’d close to make up for this gigantic giveaway.
And he wants to cut benefits that almost everyone else relies on — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and housing assistance.
He’s even a warrior for his class, telling his wealthy followers his job isn’t to worry about the “47 percent” of Americans who won’t vote for him, whom he calls “victims” and he berates for not paying federal incomes taxes and taking federal handouts.
(He mangles these facts, of course. Almost all working Americans pay federal taxes — and the federal taxes that have been rising fastest for most people are Social Security payroll taxes, which aren’t collected on a penny of income over $110,100. Moreover, most of the “47 percent” whom he accuses of taking handouts are on Medicare or Social Security — the biggest “entitlement” programs — which, not incidentally, they paid into during their working lives.)
Money means power. Concentrated wealth at the top means extraordinary power at the top. The reason Romney pays a rate of only 14 percent on $13 million of income in 2011 — a lower rate than many in the middle class — is because he exploits a loophole that allows private equity managers to treat their income as capital gains, taxed at only 15 percent.
And that loophole exists solely because private equity and hedge fund managers have so much political clout — as a result of their huge fortunes and the money they’ve donated to political candidates — that neither party will remove it.
In other words, everything America is learning about Mitt Romney — his tax returns, his years at Bain Capital, the video of his speech to high-end donors in which he belittles half of America, his gaffes, the budget policies he promotes — repeat and reenforce the same underlying reality.
So much wealth and power have accumulated at the top of America that our economy and our democracy are seriously threatened. Romney not only represents this problem. He is the living embodiment of it.

Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters

Sourced from MotherJones.com

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters

When he doesn’t know a camera’s rolling, the GOP candidate shows his disdain for half of America.

—By 

| Mon Sep. 17, 2012 1:00 PM PDT

During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don’t assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

WATCH THE ROMNEY VIDEOS HERE:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/watch-full-secret-video-private-romney-fundraiser

Romney went on: “[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate fundraiser—where he candidly discussed his campaign strategy and foreign policy ideas in stark terms he does not use in public—and has confirmed its authenticity. To protect the confidential source who provided the video, we have blurred some of the image, and we will not identify the date or location of the event, which occurred after Romney had clinched the Republican presidential nomination. [UPDATE: We can now report that this fundraiser was held at the Boca Raton home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder on May 17 and we've removed the blurring from the video. See the original blurred videos here.]

Here is Romney expressing his disdain for Americans who back the president

At the dinner, Romney often stuck to familiar talking points. But there were moments when he went beyond the familiar campaign lines. Describing his family background, he quipped about his father, “Had he been born of Mexican parents, I’d have a better shot of winning this.” Contending that he is a self-made millionaire who earned his own fortune, Romney insisted, “I have inherited nothing.” He remarked, “There is a perception, ‘Oh, we were born with a silver spoon, he never had to earn anything and so forth.’ Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you can have: which is to get born in America.”

Romney told the contributors that “women are open to supporting me,” but that “we are having a much harder time with Hispanic voters, and if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting block has in the past, why, we’re in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation.” When one attendee asked how this group could help Romney sell himself to others, he answered, “Frankly, what I need you to do is to raise millions of dollars.” He added, “The fact that I’m either tied or close to the president…that’s very interesting.”

Asked why he wouldn’t go full-throttle and assail Obama as corrupt, Romney explained the internal thinking of his campaign and revealed that he and his aides, in response to focus-group studies conducted by his consultants, were hesitant to hammer the president too hard out of fear of alienating independents who voted for Obama in 2008:

We speak with voters across the country about their perceptions. Those people I told you—the 5 to 6 or 7 percent that we have to bring onto our side—they all voted for Barack Obama four years ago. So, and by the way, when you say to them, “Do you think Barack Obama is a failure?” they overwhelmingly say no. They like him. But when you say, “Are you disappointed that his policies haven’t worked?” they say yes. And because they voted for him, they don’t want to be told that they were wrong, that he’s a bad guy, that he did bad things, that he’s corrupt. Those people that we have to get, they want to believe they did the right thing, but he just wasn’t up to the task. They love the phrase that he’s “over his head.” But if we’re—but we, but you see, you and I, we spend our day with Republicans. We spend our days with people who agree with us. And these people are people who voted for him and don’t agree with us. And so the things that animate us are not the things that animate them. And the best success I have at speaking with those people is saying, you know, the president has been a disappointment. He told you he’d keep unemployment below 8 percent. Hasn’t been below eight percent since. Fifty percent of kids coming out of school can’t get a job. Fifty percent. Fifty percent of the kids in high school in our 50 largest cities won’t graduate from high school. What’re they gonna do? These are the kinds of things that I can say to that audience that they nod their head and say, “Yeah, I think you’re right.” What he’s going to do, by the way, is try and vilify me as someone who’s been successful, or who’s, you know, closed businesses or laid people off, and is an evil bad guy. And that may work.

(Note: Obama did not promise his policies would keep unemployment under 8 percent, and 50 percent of college graduates are not unemployed.)

To assure the donors that he and his campaign knew what they were doing, Romney boasted about the consultants he had retained, emphasizing that several had worked for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

I have a very good team of extraordinarily experienced, highly successful consultants, a couple of people in particular who have done races around the world. I didn’t realize it. These guys in the US—the Karl Rove equivalents—they do races all over the world: in Armenia, in Africa, in Israel. I mean, they work for Bibi Netanyahu in his race. So they do these races and they see which ads work, and which processes work best, and we have ideas about what we do over the course of the campaign. I’d tell them to you, but I’d have to shoot you.

When one donor said he was disappointed that Romney wasn’t attacking Obama with sufficient intellectual firepower, Romney groused that the campaign trail was no place for high-minded and detail-oriented arguments:

Well, I wrote a book that lays out my view for what has to happen in the country, and people who are fascinated by policy will read the book. We have a website that lays out white papers on a whole series of issues that I care about. I have to tell you, I don’t think this will have a significant impact on my electability. I wish it did. I think our ads will have a much bigger impact. I think the debates will have a big impact…My dad used to say, “Being right early is not good in politics.” And in a setting like this, a highly intellectual subject—discussion on a whole series of important topics typically doesn’t win elections. And there are, there are, there are—for instance, this president won because of “hope and change.”

Romney, who spoke confidently throughout the event and seemed quite at ease with the well-heeled group, insisted that his election in and of itself would lead to economic growth and that the markets would react favorably if his chances seemed good in the fall:

They’ll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I’m going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president’s going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you’re talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We’ll see capital come back and we’ll see—without actually doing anything—we’ll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets reelected, I don’t know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a “Taxageddon,” as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can’t work together, it’s—it really is frightening.

At the dinner, Romney also said that the campaign purposefully was using Ann Romney “sparingly…so that people don’t get tired of her.” And he noted that he had turned down an invitation from Saturday Night Live because such an appearance “has the potential of looking slapstick and not presidential.”

Here was Romney raw and unplugged—sort of unscripted. With this crowd of fellow millionaires, he apparently felt free to utter what he really believes and would never dare say out in the open. He displayed a high degree of disgust for nearly half of his fellow citizens, lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don’t contribute much, if anything, to society, and he indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. Yet Romney explained to his patrons that he could not speak such harsh words about Obama in public, lest he insult those independent voters who sided with Obama in 2008 and whom he desperately needs in this election. These were sentiments not to be shared with the voters; it was inside information, available only to the select few who had paid for the privilege of experiencing the real Romney.

COMING SOON: More from the secret Romney video. (Romneytells his donors he doesn’t believe in a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that resolving this conflict is “almost unthinkable,” and that he would merely “kick the ball down the field.”)

Video production: James West, Adam Serwer, Dana Liebelson, and Erika Eichelberger

Research assistance: James Carter

This story originally contained versions of the videos that were blurred out. You can find those videos, in the order they appear in this post, herehereherehere, and here.

He picked Ryan

Dear Readers,

By choosing Paul Ryan as his running mate, Mitt just made the most radical choice possible.

Paul Ryan is the Tea Party’s darling and architect of the GOP’s plan to destroy Medicare. And while dismantling the nation’s social safety net, he will give even more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires like Mitt Romney.

We only have 86 days until the election. We need to act now– we cannot prevent a GOP takeover of the White House and Senate without you.

Should you care to donate, here is the link: http://dscc.org/supportobama

Thanks for your help,
Harry Reid

Top 5 Worst Things About Paul Ryan’s RecordRyan

Top 5 Worst Things About Paul Ryan’s Record
By Alison McQuade on
August 11, 2012

It’s a big day in presidential politics. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has chosen Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate. The Vice President pick says a lot about a nominee’s legislative priorities, and with Ryan joining Romney on the ticket, we think there are a few things you should know.

1. Paul Ryan authored budget proposals that would end Medicare as we know it. His budget proposal would repeal health care reform, sticking seniors with the bill and leaving their health care at risk. This is especially problematic for women, who make up fifty-six percent of Medicare beneficiaries.

2. Paul Ryan’s budget plan would have cut SNAP grants by 18%. SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) grants, also known as food stamps, has kept 3.9 million Americans (equivalent to the entire population of Oregon), including 1.7 million children, out of poverty, and allowed them to keep their families from going hungry. This plan also would have drastically cut jobs, leaving 174,000 people out of work.

3. Paul Ryan is bad for women. He voted for a bill that would have effectively banned abortion coverage by insurers who received federal or taxpayer funding. This bill, which Ryan favored, would have allowed anyone involved to refuse to perform an abortion for any reason, even if the life of the woman needing the abortion was in danger.

4. Paul Ryan is extremely anti-choice. Paul Ryan voted for the Protect Life Act, which grants hospitals far-reaching powers to deny women abortion care, without any exception for emergency situations. US law currently requires hospitals receiving federal funds to provide emergency care to anyone in need up to the point at which they can be stabilized or transferred, if the original hospital is incapable of providing the care they need. “The misnamed Protect Life Act is about allowing women to die if they need an emergency abortion,” said Meghan Rhoad, women’s rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. “It is a vicious attack on women’s rights and on the most basic right to life.’”

5. Paul Ryan wants to defund Planned Parenthood. This ideological attack would only result in more women losing access to necessary and basic health care. One in five American women have used Planned Parenthood health services.

There you have it. While Mitt Romney parades Paul Ryan around as his pick to be first in the line of succession to the presidency, you now have the facts. Paul Ryan has a long history of voting against affordable health care and women’s health. His legislative priorities leave millions of people at risk of losing their health care and in medical and financial danger. Combined with Mitt Romney’s bad policies, it’s clear: the Romney/Ryan ticket is bad for women and families.

If we want to re-elect President Obama and elect the women who can hold Romney, Ryan, and the rest of the far right accountable, we need you with us. We’ve got a long fight ahead, but I know that there’s no stronger barricade in the War on Women than the EMILY’s List community. Click here to contribute to help our women win in November.

100,000 auto jobs lost under Obama?????

Sourced from WashingtonPost.com?

BY GLENN KESSLER
Updated 2 days ago


(Mary Altaffer/AP)

“We were able to help create over 100,000 jobs. On the president’s watch, about 100,000 jobs were lost in the auto industry and auto dealers and auto manufacturers, so he’s hardly one to point a finger.”

— Mitt Romney, interview on Hot Air, May 16, 2011

The 100,000 jobs is back! The presumptive GOP nominee all but stopped mentioning he created 100,000 in the private sector after we declared in January that claim was untenable and unproven. The biggest problem is that Romney is counting all the jobs added by companies long after he had left the leadership of Bain Capital — and even after Bain’s investment in the companies had ended.

In the Hot Air interview, Romney even made this claim while at the same time arguing thata recent Obama campaign commercial slamming the job losses at a particular Bain investment was unfair because “the steel factory closed down two years after I left Bain Capital. I was no longer there, so that’s hardly something which is on my watch.”  (Technically, Romney had not completely extricated himself from Bain but that’s another story.)

The logic there escapes us. Romney appears to be saying it is okay to count jobs created after he left Bain, but it’s not okay to count jobs lost after he left Bain.

As we have said, Romney “certainly has a good story to tell about knowing how to manage a business, spotting opportunities and understanding high finance.” But if he wants to wall off companies that failed after he stopped managing Bain, he also has to stop counting jobs created after he left Bain.

So Romney gets a “repeat offender” award — our crack graphics staff is still developing the icon — for once again saying he created 100,000 jobs. But let’s also look at his claim that 100,000 jobs were lost in the auto industry “on the president’s watch.” That’s a new one.

The Facts

 The Romney campaign often cites Bureau of Labor Statistics to make its case that the number of overall jobs has declined in Obama’s presidency, so that’s the first place we looked.

The BLS data show that much of the decline in auto industry employment took place in 2008, before Obama became president. Just in 2008, some 254,000 jobs disappeared in vehicle and vehicle parts manufacturing and 211,000 at vehicle dealerships. The numbers are equally grim if you just look at auto manufacturing and dealerships.

But since January 2009, when Obama took office, overall there has been an increase in jobs. The number of jobs hit a low point in November 2009, but then it has slowly inched upward so that Obama can point to the auto industry and says there has been a net gain.

In vehicle and vehicle parts manufacturing, the total number of jobs has increased by 73,000. For dealers, the gain has been nearly 30,000. So, all told, that’s more than 100,000 — instead of a decrease of 100,000 as Romney claims.

It is a little more difficult to isolate the automobile-only numbers because the manufacturing number is not seasonally adjusted. So, in that case, we have to use January-to-January figures. But that also shows a total gain of about 50,000 jobs in the auto industry.

We presented these figures to the Romney campaign and asked how the former Massachusetts governor calculated the 100,000-loss figure. We were first directed to an article that appeared in the Washington Examiner on Thursday — after Romney gave his interview. The article calculated that 112,150 workers at General Motors and Chrysler dealerships lost their jobs as part of the painful restructuring imposed on those companies in exchange for getting additional bailout money.

Certainly, the TARP special inspector-general wrote an interesting report on those dealership cuts, suggesting they were done in a haphazard fashion with little regard for how many jobs would be affected. The report does not calculate how many jobs were lost — it simply says “tens of thousands of dealership jobs were immediately put in jeopardy” — in part because there is a dispute over how to calculate job losses at auto dealerships. (The method used by the Examiner — 50 jobs per dealership — is rejected by GM and other manufacturers as too high for failing dealerships, the report said.)

The report concluded:

At a time when the country was experiencing the worst economic downturn in generations and the Government was asking its taxpayers to support a $787 billion stimulus package designed primarily to preserve jobs, Treasury made a series of decisions that may have substantially contributed to the accelerated shuttering of thousands of small businesses and thereby potentially adding tens of thousands of workers to the already lengthy unemployment rolls — all based on a theory and without sufficient consideration of the decision’s broader economic impact.

Treasury, however, strongly disagreed with the report’s conclusion, saying both companies faced almost certain failure and liquidation, which would have resulted in even bigger job losses. “Today, both GM and Chrysler have emerged as stronger global companies,” Treasury said, despite “deep and painful sacrifices from all stakeholders.”

In any case, Romney’s statement— “On the president’s watch, about 100,000 jobs were lost in the auto industry ”— certainly does not suggest he is only focusing on the job cuts at the dealerships of two auto companies for just a period of months. But the Romney campaign said he was not talking about the entire auto industry.

“I think we are well within our rights to say that ‘on the president’s watch’ refers to when the Obama administration was in control of them,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, senior adviser to Romney. “The point we are making is that just like in private equity, layoffs can occur when restructuring troubled firms. We are not referring to the entire auto industry, foreign and domestic, during Obama’s presidency.”

Fehrnstrom pointed to some numbers to substantiate the 100,000 figure. For instance, GM dropped by 45,000 jobs from Dec. 31, 2008 to Dec. 31, 2011, according to filings at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Chrysler’s numbers are not public anymore, but he also pointed to the decline in dealerships for both companies, which he said would amount to 100,000 even if one assumed 35 employees per dealership.

These are useful statistics, but we have trouble getting past the BLS data, especially when on other occasions, Romney has used “watch” to refer to the entire Obama presidency. Here are two examples—one recent, one near the start of his campaign:

“Under this president’s watch, more Americans have lost their jobs than during any other period since the Depression.”

— Mitt Romney, April 3, 2012

“President Obama has stood watch over the greatest job loss in modern American history, and that, my friends, is one inconvenient truth that will haunt this president throughout history.”

— Mitt Romney, Feb. 11, 2011

So we really believe we have to evaluate his statement against the record of Obama’s presidency.

The Pinocchio Test

 Romney’s remarks make little sense. Not only is his claim of creating 100,000 jobs at Bain untenable, but also his assertion that 100,000 jobs have been lost in the auto industry “on the president’s watch” does not add up.

Yes, there were some painful cuts in the auto industry at the start of Obama’s presidency, largely because tough choices had to be made. One could argue whether those choices were necessary or effective, but the bottom line is clear: No matter how you slice it, jobs overall have grown substantially in the auto industry under Obama. In fact, it is one of the bright spots of today’s economy.

Four Pinocchios

   

(About our rating scale)

Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker

Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .

Track each presidential candidate’s campaign ads

Boehner draws his sword

 Sourced from Washingtonpost.com

By Dana Millbank

John Boehner thinks it’s kind of funny. “It struck me as somewhat comical,” he told reporters Thursday morning, “that, you know, people are looking to me like I’m the guy carrying a sword around town, I’m going to bludgeon someone.”

Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe that’s because your rapier keeps setting off the metal detectors.

The bludgeon Boehner wields is his threat to revive the default standoff of last summer, a showdown that shattered consumer confidence and helped stall the economic recovery.

In a speech Tuesday, Boehner said that “allowing America to default,” while not such a hot idea, would be better than raising the debt ceiling without “dramatic steps to reduce spending.” Added Boehner: “We shouldn’t dread the debt limit. We should welcome it. It’s an action-forcing event in a town that has become infamous for inaction.”

By his own account, Boehner was reprising a speech — and a line in the sand — that he delivered before the last, disastrous standoff. As I watched him defend his position in the House TV studio Thursday morning, I had an uncomfortable thought: Does Boehner wantthe economy to tank?

My instinct says that he does not, that his concern for Americans’ suffering trumps his party’s interests. And yet there’s no denying that more economic trouble would boost Republicans’ political interest. If Boehner goes to the brink and secures new spending cuts, he wins. If he fails, and his brinkmanship sets off a crisis, he still wins, because the resulting drop in confidence will slow the economy and injure the incumbent president.

This possibility is more than theoretical. During the last default showdown, the Conference Board’s consumer confidence index fell precipitously to the lowest level in more than two years. Analysts cited the debt-ceiling standoff as a factor.

Of course, it’s a time-honored tradition to disparage the economy when you’re in the opposition. I covered a hearing in early 2008, before the financial collapse, when Democrats spoke of “hemorrhaging” and “crisis” and then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson complained bitterly that they were trying to talk down the economy. But Boehner goes beyond talking down and approaches the realm of precipitating a crisis.

On Thursday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi complained that the other side is willing to “risk the full faith and credit of the United States. . . . It already can be damaging, just the fact that it’s brought up. I think we should snuff it out immediately.”

House Republicans have strategic reasons for precipitating a fight over the debt. In its absence, they have been debating issues on the Democrats’ turf, such as the Violence Against Women Act (Republicans passed a face-saving alternative to the Democrats’ version) and renewing the Export-Import Bank (93 House Republicans broke with their leaders).

On Thursday, conservatives on Capitol Hill were grumbling over a report by Politico that, if the Supreme Court invalidates the Obamacare health reforms, Republican leaders would attempt to reinstate some of the more popular pieces of the legislation.

Returning the discussion to a debt-limit showdown reunites Republicans. But at what cost? I asked Boehner’s spokesman, Michael Steel, whether the speaker worried that the showdown talk would rattle markets and consumers. “If you go back and read the S&P report” when the U.S. debt was downgraded, he said, “it was the failure to come to a more comprehensive agreement to deal with the deficit and debt that caused the downgrade, not the debate over raising the debt limit.”

True, Standard & Poor’s said that last summer’s budget deal “falls short” of what would stabilize the debt. But the rating agency also noted that the downgrade reflected “our view that the effectiveness, stability and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened.”

Nobody doubts the need to address the debt, but Boehner’s moves won’t dispel worries about stability and predictability. He began his weekly news conference with dire warnings (“disastrous default . . . wet blanket over our economy”). Despite more ominous words, he took issue with the notion that his earlier speech on the debt limit was about “brinkmanship.”

So what was it about? Politico’s Jake Sherman, reminding Boehner of his previous statement that it would be “hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again” on a debt deal, asked what had changed. “I live for hope,” Boehner said with a smile, allowing that he doesn’t “underestimate the difficulty.”

Fox News’ Chad Pergram asked Boehner whether he saw any “realistic” possibility of a vote on the debt limit before the election. “I’m not underestimating the difficulty,” Boehner repeated. “All I’m suggesting is that the conversations could start.”

And so can the panic

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.