Showing posts with label Republican Dirty Tricks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican Dirty Tricks. Show all posts
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Newt Gingrich may have sunk to a new low, but the commenter here sure does him one better
Newt Gingrich's overtly racist comments during this election season reach new lows in uncivil discourse. Between Gingrich and Santorum, the US electorate is getting far more information than it needs about the sick slimy underbelly of the Republican Party.
~Via
http://www.theroot.com/buzz/newt-gingrich-sinks-new-low#comments
At his Field Negro blog, Wayne Bennett accuses Newt Gingrich of fearmongering in his attack on President Obama for apologizing to Afghans for the inadvertent burning of the Quran. Such talk only fuels anti-Muslim sentiments, Bennett says.
What Newt did today was low even by his lousy standards.
He hastily called a news conference to politicize the deaths of two American soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan. Newt used the killing of those poor soldiers to score cheap political brownie points with his base.
And here's our commenter, Mr. Friedo Watermellow
And here is my reply:
Friedo Watermello, your racist white supremacist views tell us all we need to know about how hard you work. After all, it was you white guys who had slaves build the White House.
~Via
http://www.theroot.com/buzz/newt-gingrich-sinks-new-low#comments
At his Field Negro blog, Wayne Bennett accuses Newt Gingrich of fearmongering in his attack on President Obama for apologizing to Afghans for the inadvertent burning of the Quran. Such talk only fuels anti-Muslim sentiments, Bennett says.
What Newt did today was low even by his lousy standards.
He hastily called a news conference to politicize the deaths of two American soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan. Newt used the killing of those poor soldiers to score cheap political brownie points with his base.
And here's our commenter, Mr. Friedo Watermellow
Newt is right on target.
Wayne Bennet your mentallity isn't American what so ever.
You like Obama because he's black and that's the only reason, unless your a total moron.
Your kind see the glass half empty.
We Americans have the greatest country on Earth because we worked hard for it, unlike you and Obama we don't have the beggar mentallity and we don't have to appologize to every nation that doesn't like our policies.
The terrorist used the Koran to make notes in for other terrorist and this POS president appologizes to these low life terrorist.
And here is my reply:
Friedo Watermello, your racist white supremacist views tell us all we need to know about how hard you work. After all, it was you white guys who had slaves build the White House.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Two Cheers for the Endangered Species Act
by Olivia LaRosa, February 5, 2012
I wish to make certain that it is clear to you that I was completely in love with the Endangered Species Act since its passage when I was a young mother. I thought I knew what the Endangered Species Act meant. I saw it as a means to protect our critical biosystems. I see a biosystem as a natural long-term self-perpetuating synergy among the lifeforms who share an area.
The ESA meant of course, that if a species' population begins to decline to dangerous levels, scientists were alerted that something was not well in that biosystem. Thus alerted, they could investigate the biome for harmful agents that might hurt humans, other animals, plants and microbes in the system.
It turns out that I was in error.
The Endangered Species Act has been turned into a political football. Right-wingers, who seem to think that everything belongs to them unless proven otherwise, mock the process by pretending that it is about the critter named in ESA documents rather than that critter's entire habitat.
I wish to make certain that it is clear to you that I was completely in love with the Endangered Species Act since its passage when I was a young mother. I thought I knew what the Endangered Species Act meant. I saw it as a means to protect our critical biosystems. I see a biosystem as a natural long-term self-perpetuating synergy among the lifeforms who share an area.
The ESA meant of course, that if a species' population begins to decline to dangerous levels, scientists were alerted that something was not well in that biosystem. Thus alerted, they could investigate the biome for harmful agents that might hurt humans, other animals, plants and microbes in the system.
It turns out that I was in error.
The Endangered Species Act has been turned into a political football. Right-wingers, who seem to think that everything belongs to them unless proven otherwise, mock the process by pretending that it is about the critter named in ESA documents rather than that critter's entire habitat.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
On Scaling Back the Confirmation Wars
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/scaling-back-the-senate-confirmation-wars/2012/02/02/gIQAvXuCqQ_print.html
Olivia's comment: These battles seem to have begun in earnest during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Robert Bork, a right-wing authoritarian fanatic. People with such narrow minds do not belong in high government posts. Since then the Republicans have turned confirmations into a blood sport. What their actions say is that: when we are in control, we can appoint any old nutcase we want. Plus, no matter who is in control, our job is to make sure that effective leaders will not be appointed. Therefore, it's a trifecta! * As a right-wing politician, you have another trifecta! You can pander to your corporate masters, score cheap political points with your base, and enhance your argument that government does not work by making it unworkable.George W. Bush after 911:
(If audio clip does not play automatically, click here to listen) | ||||||
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
We Knew Ward Connerly was a Liar; He is also a Thief
Affirmative-Action Foe Is Facing Allegations of Financial Misdeeds
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: January 17, 2012
WASHINGTON — Ward Connerly, the black businessman who has been the face of the movement to end affirmative action for nearly two decades, is facing accusations from a prominent former ally that he has mismanaged — and exploited for his own benefit — donations to that cause made by fellow conservatives.
Multimedia
Related
Times Topic: Ward Connerly
Moreover, a group Mr. Connerly founded to advance government policies that are race and gender neutral, the Sacramento-basedAmerican Civil Rights Institute, is under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service and by the attorney general of California, according to documents and interviews.
Mr. Connerly has faced accusations of profiteering before, as supporters of affirmative action highlighted his salary in an effort to discredit his cause. But this time, the allegations are more detailed and come from another significant movement figure: Jennifer Gratz, the named plaintiff in a landmark 2003 Supreme Court case that struck down a race-based admissions policy at the University of Michigan.
After she won that case, Mr. Connerly hired Ms. Gratz to conduct research and run campaigns supporting anti-affirmative action ballot initiatives. She resigned last September and, through her lawyer, sent the group’s board a five-page letter, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.
“For years, Ms. Gratz was aware of the allegations that Mr. Connerly received excessive compensation,” it said. “She presumed that the issue was politically motivated and raised solely by opponents of the organization’s mission. It has come to her attention, however, that there may be some merit to the allegations of financial impropriety.”
Interviewed by phone and e-mail, Mr. Connerly, 72, acknowledged that his group had had financial difficulties, but said its board had not responded to the letter because “90 percent” of it was false. He portrayed Ms. Gratz as a “disgruntled former employee” trying to “besmirch me personally” because she wanted to replace him.
The letter was written by Ms. Gratz’s lawyer, Robert N. Driscoll, a former deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights in the administration of George W. Bush. In a statement, through him, she said: “I thought it was important to make sure all board members were aware of what was going on even if doing so was unfortunate, sad and uncomfortable and even though it meant that I had to resign from a position within a cause that I will always hold near and dear.”
The dispute is alarming allies.
“I’m sorry to hear this because I’m a great admirer of both of them,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, which also opposes affirmative action. “She is a courageous, smart person — and Ward is also a courageous, smart person.”
A businessman and a former University of California regent, Mr. Connerly rose to fame in 1996 as the backer of a successful ballot initiative barring public institutions in California from taking race or gender into account. He later founded the institute and a related advocacy group and continued to call for “colorblind government” in matters like contracting and college admissions.
Ms. Gratz’s letter alleges a series of financial irregularities, starting with Mr. Connerly’s pay.
Late last summer, the institute belatedly filed disclosure forms for tax years ending in June2008, 2009, and 2010. (The I.R.S. that summer had revoked the tax-exempt status of its related advocacy group for failing to file such forms.) They showed that his annual pay was between $1.2 million and $1.5 million each year — more than half its revenue.
Because charitable donations are tax deductible, according to I.R.S. rules no employee may get excessive compensation. Two other nonprofit groups opposing affirmative action, the Center for Equal Opportunity and the Center for Individual Rights, pay their leaders about $144,000 and $250,000, respectively.
Mr. Connerly said that “every penny which I receive is directly related to our mission,” and that he used some of his salary to pay others for research and legal work. He also said the group had reduced his pay to $850,000.
One reason Mr. Connerly has been a particularly effective advocate is that he is black. Mr. Clegg said there were “few people who can do or would do what he does,” adding that it is hard to set a salary on a job that requires enduring racially charged name-calling from fellow blacks.
A major financial supporter is the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Its president, Michael W. Grebe, said he was “very comfortable” that its donations to Mr. Connerly’s group were “being spent for public education programs.”
“He’s very effective,” Mr. Grebe said.
Ms. Gratz’s letter contends that the group has been “in financial crisis since March 2010” in part because of Mr. Connerly’s salary and legal fees related to the tax investigations, and has “ceased almost entirely” doing projects furthering its mission since June 2011.
Her letter also says the group has had trouble making payroll and “knowingly” under-reported what it paid employees on payroll tax forms — “irregularities” that “partly result from disruptions in revenue” but that “also appear to be designed to facilitate Mr. Connerly’s high salary.”
Mr. Connerly denied such allegations as “speculation and conjecture,” saying Ms. Gratz was not privy to administrative details. He also said educational activities by him and his group were “instrumental” in passing an anti-affirmative action initiative in Arizona in November 2010, and in laying the groundwork for a vote on a similar measure in Oklahoma set for fall 2012.
Ms. Gratz’s letter said five of the group’s eight employees “are family members” or have “personal or nonprofessional relationships with Mr. Connerly,” and raised questions about its “contracts for services and leases.”
For example, the letter said, the group contracted with a former longtime employee of Mr. Connerly’s profit-making firm to create a report on Oklahoma, for up to 120 hours at $60 an hour; it “consisted mainly of printouts from Wikipedia.”
While the letter did not explain its reference to “leases,” the group’s recent tax filings show that its rent tripled, to just under $70,000, after it moved to a different building about four years ago. Records show a group employee purchased the building in February 2008 for about $444,000.
Mr. Connerly said hiring people he knew was appropriate, given his group’s “controversial” mission. He also said he had instructed the employee to find new offices because they needed more room, and he approved the arrangement she had made.
Despite his salary, Mr. Connerly acknowledged that he had had financial difficulties; public records show that in 2010 and 2011, several hundred thousand dollars in liens for unpaid taxes were leveled against him. He said he was working on paying what he owed. In addition, a disclosure form filed with the IRS says the institute discovered last year that Mr. Connerly had submitted “unsubstantiated” business expenses from his credit card and cellphone bills. He had paid back $10,000 as of September, but still owed about $24,000.
Ms. Gratz was once Mr. Connerly’s defender. In 2008, when anti-affirmative action initiatives were on the ballot in Colorado and Nebraska, a liberal group ran ads portraying him as supporting such measures so he could pocket “nonprofit slush funds.”
Ms. Gratz made a video denouncing the ads as character assassination. But, her letter said, she subsequently realized that Mr. Connerly’s group had “not been adequate stewards of the resources the donors entrusted to the organization,” adding that she “will cooperate with any government investigation.”
Sunday, January 8, 2012
America’s Unlevel Field-Krugman
My comments on:
You will notice that most Right-wingers cannot have a rational discussion of the issues because everything they say is nothing more than a parroting of talking points. You can never have a conversation with them.
There seems to be a mistaken notion that memorizing some batty phrases is the same as thoughtful discourse.
There seems to be another mistaken notion that you have to have some kind of blind allegiance to your political party. This blind allegiance means that you are moral because you don't need any proof of their true intent.
Religious people claim not to require proof for their faith. Fine.
But politics is not religion. You can change your opinions based on facts and logic and still not condemn yourself to eternal damnation. I did. You can do it too.
America’s Unlevel Field
Paul Krugman
Mitt is just regurgitating right-wing mythology that was discredited decades ago. The Right does not believe that it does anything to create a level playing field. That rhetoric is just pablum for the true-believers.You will notice that most Right-wingers cannot have a rational discussion of the issues because everything they say is nothing more than a parroting of talking points. You can never have a conversation with them.
There seems to be a mistaken notion that memorizing some batty phrases is the same as thoughtful discourse.
There seems to be another mistaken notion that you have to have some kind of blind allegiance to your political party. This blind allegiance means that you are moral because you don't need any proof of their true intent.
Religious people claim not to require proof for their faith. Fine.
But politics is not religion. You can change your opinions based on facts and logic and still not condemn yourself to eternal damnation. I did. You can do it too.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Republican Attacks Have Racist Undertones - NYTimes.com
Republican Attacks Have Racist Undertones - NYTimes.com:
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Many commenters are working really hard to deny the hard evidence of race-hate in the Republican Party. My right-wing relatives send me malicious mendacious racist smears all the time.
The most recent was a rant based on a fictional incident claiming Obama had done something that did not "support the troops." It was headed:
What do we have to do to get this n***** out of office?
In case you don't yet get it, people find this term derogatory dehumanizing racism.
Monday, December 19, 2011
The bat-shoot crazy GOP
The other problem is the Dem Party itself. We have many Dems, a few recently voted into office, who also agree on the conservative/business side. I swear the former GOP candidates that do not want to be known as part of the "bat-s*** crazy" GOP, so they sign up, and run as Democrats.
Connecticut Democrats Turn Cold Shoulder on Problematic Candidate
How Ayn Rand Seduced Generations of Young Men and Helped Make the U.S. Into a Selfish, Greedy Nation
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/153454
By Bruce E. Levine, AlterNet
Posted on December 15, 2011, Printed on December 19, 2011
Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society....To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil.— Gore Vidal, 1961
Only rarely in U.S. history do writers transform us to become a more caring or less caring nation. In the 1850s, Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896) was a strong force in making the United States a more humane nation, one that would abolish slavery of African Americans. A century later, Ayn Rand (1905-1982) helped make the United States into one of the most uncaring nations in the industrialized world, a neo-Dickensian society where healthcare is only for those who can afford it, and where young people are coerced into huge student-loan debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.
Rand’s impact has been widespread and deep. At the iceberg’s visible tip is the influence she’s had over major political figures who have shaped American society. In the 1950s, Ayn Rand read aloud drafts of what was later to become Atlas Shrugged to her “Collective,” Rand’s ironic nickname for her inner circle of young individualists, which included Alan Greenspan, who would serve as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board from 1987 to 2006.
In 1966, Ronald Reagan wrote in a personal letter, “Am an admirer of Ayn Rand.” Today, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) credits Rand for inspiring him to go into politics, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) calls Atlas Shrugged his “foundation book.” Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says Ayn Rand had a major influence on him, and his son Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is an even bigger fan. A short list of other Rand fans includes Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; Christopher Cox, chairman of the Security and Exchange Commission in George W. Bush’s second administration; and former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford.
But Rand’s impact on U.S. society and culture goes even deeper.
The Seduction of Nathan Blumenthal
Ayn Rand’s books such as The Virtue of Selfishness and her philosophy that celebrates self-interest and disdains altruism may well be, as Vidal assessed, “nearly perfect in its immorality.” But is Vidal right about evil? Charles Manson, who himself did not kill anyone, is the personification of evil for many of us because of his psychological success at exploiting the vulnerabilities of young people and seducing them to murder. What should we call Ayn Rand’s psychological ability to exploit the vulnerabilities of millions of young people so as to influence them not to care about anyone besides themselves?
While Greenspan (tagged “A.G.” by Rand) was the most famous name that would emerge from Rand’s Collective, the second most well-known name to emerge from the Collective was Nathaniel Branden, psychotherapist, author and “self-esteem” advocate. Before he was Nathaniel Branden, he was Nathan Blumenthal, a 14-year-old who read Rand’s The Fountainhead again and again. He later would say, “I felt hypnotized.” He describes how Rand gave him a sense that he could be powerful, that he could be a hero. He wrote one letter to his idol Rand, then a second. To his amazement, she telephoned him, and at age 20, Nathan received an invitation to Ayn Rand’s home. Shortly after, Nathan Blumenthal announced to the world that he was incorporating Rand in his new name: Nathaniel Branden. And in 1955, with Rand approaching her 50th birthday and Branden his 25th, and both in dissatisfying marriages, Ayn bedded Nathaniel.
What followed sounds straight out of Hollywood, but Rand was straight out of Hollywood, having worked for Cecil B. DeMille. Rand convened a meeting with Nathaniel, his wife Barbara (also a Collective member), and Rand’s own husband Frank. To Branden's astonishment, Rand convinced both spouses that a time-structured affair—she and Branden were to have one afternoon and one evening a week together—was “reasonable.” Within the Collective, Rand is purported to have never lost an argument. On his trysts at Rand’s New York City apartment, Branden would sometimes shake hands with Frank before he exited. Later, all discovered that Rand’s sweet but passive husband would leave for a bar, where he began his self-destructive affair with alcohol.
By 1964, the 34-year-old Nathaniel Branden had grown tired of the now 59-year-old Ayn Rand. Still sexually dissatisfied in his marriage to Barbara and afraid to end his affair with Rand, Branden began sleeping with a married 24-year-old model, Patrecia Scott. Rand, now “the woman scorned,” called Branden to appear before the Collective, whose nickname had by now lost its irony for both Barbara and Branden. Rand’s justice was swift. She humiliated Branden and then put a curse on him: “If you have one ounce of morality left in you, an ounce of psychological health—you'll be impotent for the next twenty years! And if you achieve potency sooner, you'll know it’s a sign of still worse moral degradation!”
Rand completed the evening with two welt-producing slaps across Branden’s face. Finally, in a move that Stalin and Hitler would have admired, Rand also expelled poor Barbara from the Collective, declaring her treasonous because Barbara, preoccupied by her own extramarital affair, had neglected to fill Rand in soon enough on Branden's extra-extra-marital betrayal. (If anyone doubts Alan Greenspan’s political savvy, keep in mind that he somehow stayed in Rand’s good graces even though he, fixed up by Branden with Patrecia’s twin sister, had double-dated with the outlaws.)
After being banished by Rand, Nathaniel Branden was worried that he might be assassinated by other members of the Collective, so he moved from New York to Los Angeles, where Rand fans were less fanatical. Branden established a lucrative psychotherapy practice and authored approximately 20 books, 10 of them with either “Self” or “Self-Esteem” in the title. Rand and Branden never reconciled, but he remains an admirer of her philosophy of self-interest.
Ayn Rand’s personal life was consistent with her philosophy of not giving a shit about anybody but herself. Rand was an ardent two-pack-a-day smoker, and when questioned about the dangers of smoking, she loved to light up with a defiant flourish and then scold her young questioners on the “unscientific and irrational nature of the statistical evidence.” After an x-ray showed that she had lung cancer, Rand quit smoking and had surgery for her cancer. Collective members explained to her that many people still smoked because they respected her and her assessment of the evidence; and that since she no longer smoked, she ought to tell them. They told her that she needn’t mention her lung cancer, that she could simply say she had reconsidered the evidence. Rand refused.
How Rand’s Philosophy Seduced Young Minds
When I was a kid, my reading included comic books and Rand’s The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. There wasn’t much difference between the comic books and Rand’s novels in terms of the simplicity of the heroes. What was different was that unlike Superman or Batman, Rand made selfishness heroic, and she made caring about others weakness.
Rand said, “Capitalism and altruism are incompatible....The choice is clear-cut: either a new morality of rational self-interest, with its consequences of freedom, justice, progress and man’s happiness on earth—or the primordial morality of altruism, with its consequences of slavery, brute force, stagnant terror and sacrificial furnaces.” For many young people, hearing that it is “moral” to care only about oneself can be intoxicating, and some get addicted to this idea for life.
I have known several people, professionally and socially, whose lives have been changed by those close to them who became infatuated with Ayn Rand. A common theme is something like this: “My ex-husband wasn’t a bad guy until he started reading Ayn Rand. Then he became a completely selfish jerk who destroyed our family, and our children no longer even talk to him.”
To wow her young admirers, Rand would often tell a story of how a smart-aleck book salesman had once challenged her to explain her philosophy while standing on one leg. She replied: “Metaphysics—objective reality. Epistemology—reason. Ethics—self-interest. Politics—capitalism.” How did that philosophy capture young minds?
Metaphysics—objective reality. Rand offered a narcotic for confused young people: complete certainty and a relief from their anxiety. Rand believed that an “objective reality” existed, and she knew exactly what that objective reality was. It included skyscrapers, industries, railroads, and ideas—at least her ideas. Rand’s objective reality did not include anxiety or sadness. Nor did it include much humor, at least the kind where one pokes fun at oneself. Rand assured her Collective that objective reality did not include Beethoven’s, Rembrandt’s, and Shakespeare’s realities—they were too gloomy and too tragic, basically buzzkillers. Rand preferred Mickey Spillane and, towards the end of her life, “Charlie's Angels.”
Epistemology—reason. Rand’s kind of reason was a “cool-tool” to control the universe. Rand demonized Plato, and her youthful Collective members were taught to despise him. If Rand really believed that the Socratic Method described by Plato of discovering accurate definitions and clear thinking did not qualify as “reason,” why then did she regularly attempt it with her Collective? Also oddly, while Rand mocked dark moods and despair, her “reasoning” directed that Collective members should admire Dostoyevsky, whose novels are filled with dark moods and despair. A demagogue, in addition to hypnotic glibness, must also be intellectually inconsistent, sometimes boldly so. This eliminates challenges to authority by weeding out clear-thinking young people from the flock.
Ethics—self-interest. For Rand, all altruists were manipulators. What could be more seductive to kids who discerned the motives of martyr parents, Christian missionaries and U.S. foreign aiders? Her champions, Nathaniel Branden still among them, feel that Rand’s view of “self-interest” has been horribly misrepresented. For them, self-interest is her hero architect Howard Roark turning down a commission because he couldn’t do it exactly his way. Some of Rand’s novel heroes did have integrity, however, for Rand there is no struggle to discover the distinction between true integrity and childish vanity. Rand’s integrity was her vanity, and it consisted of getting as much money and control as possible, copulating with whomever she wanted regardless of who would get hurt, and her always being right. To equate one’s selfishness, vanity, and egotism with one’s integrity liberates young people from the struggle to distinguish integrity from selfishness, vanity, and egotism.
Politics—capitalism. While Rand often disparaged Soviet totalitarian collectivism, she had little to say about corporate totalitarian collectivism, as she conveniently neglected the reality that giant U.S. corporations, like the Soviet Union, do not exactly celebrate individualism, freedom, or courage. Rand was clever and hypocritical enough to know that you don’t get rich in the United States talking about compliance and conformity within corporate America. Rather, Rand gave lectures titled: “America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business.” So, young careerist corporatists could embrace Rand’s self-styled “radical capitalism” and feel radical — radical without risk.
Rand’s Legacy
In recent years, we have entered a phase where it is apparently okay for major political figures to publicly embrace Rand despite her contempt for Christianity. In contrast, during Ayn Rand’s life, her philosophy that celebrated self-interest was a private pleasure for the 1 percent but she was a public embarrassment for them. They used her books to congratulate themselves on the morality of their selfishness, but they publicly steered clear of Rand because of her views on religion and God. Rand, for example, had stated on national television, “I am against God. I don’t approve of religion. It is a sign of a psychological weakness. I regard it as an evil.”
Actually, again inconsistent, Rand did have a God. It was herself. She said:
I am done with the monster of “we,” the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame. And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: “I.”
While Harriet Beecher Stowe shamed Americans about the United State’s dehumanization of African Americans and slavery, Ayn Rand removed Americans’ guilt for being selfish and uncaring about anyone except themselves. Not only did Rand make it “moral” for the wealthy not to pay their fair share of taxes, she “liberated” millions of other Americans from caring about the suffering of others, even the suffering of their own children.
The good news is that I’ve seen ex-Rand fans grasp the damage that Rand’s philosophy has done to their lives and to then exorcize it from their psyche. Can the United States as a nation do the same thing?
>Bruce E. Levine is a clinical psychologist and author of Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite (Chelsea Green, 2011). His Web site is www.brucelevine.net.
© 2011 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/153454/
Friday, December 16, 2011
Romney’s missing hard drives raise questions over government records
Romney’s missing hard drives raise questions over government records
This is a near-automatic post from other sites to my Blogger account. I intend to use this facility for fast-breaking news.
This is a near-automatic post from other sites to my Blogger account. I intend to use this facility for fast-breaking news.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Crosshairs
From: Rep. Alan Grayson
To: rlgreenfield1@verizon.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:51 AM
Subject: Gabby Was Right, Palin Is Wrong
Dear Rl,
When I opened my web browser yesterday, at yahoo.com, there was Sarah Palin,
smiling at me.
"Oh, God," I said to myself, "what has she done now?"
The headline was "Palin Defends 'Blood Libel'". That's interesting, I
thought. What else might Palin be defending? Cannibalism, maybe?
Well, it turned out to be a report on Palin's disjointed remarks on Sean
Hannity's show, regarding the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. I then
watched the report. Let me summarize it for you:
Palin: I am so misunderstood.
Hannity: I am so misunderstood.
Palin: I am so misunderstood.
But there was one person who seemed to understand Sarah Palin quite well.
Gabby Giffords, herself, during the health care debate. Discussing threats
against Democratic Members of Congress. After the door to her office was
shattered. This is what Gabby said:
"You know, for example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing
is the way that she has depicted it is the crosshairs of a gun-sight over
our district. When people do that, they've got to realize that there are
consequences to that action."
And here is Palin's blithe response, on Hannity's show: "That map wasn't an
original graphic."
What is that remark supposed to be, Sarah? An exculpanation?
Even before I heard earlier Palin's whining about "misguided
finger-pointing" and "irresponsible statements from people who are
apportioning blame," I thought about this:
Palin came to my district, and told her people to "take me out."
Palin told people again and again, "don't retreat, reload."
The day before the health care vote, one of my five-year-old twins received
a telephone death threat intended for me.
A right-wing commentator offered anyone $100 to punch me in the nose.
We received so many threats of violence from teabaggers that we started a
file.
And the day before Gabby was shot, I received a postcard saying "you better
get some personal protection. You could very well be getting your ass kicked
soon."
Cause and effect. As Gabby put it, "there are consequences."
Of course, I wasn't the only target of these threats.
Gabby's tea party opponent held fundraisers in which he invited contributors
to fire an automatic weapon.
Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's opponent conducted target practice on
her initials.
Democrat Ron Klein's opponent told his supporters to make sure that Klein
was "afraid to leave his house."
Democrat Frank Kratovil was hung in effigy.
Democrat Tom Perriello was burned in effigy. And the gas line to his brother's
house was cut.
Democrat Emanuel Cleaver - a minister - was spat on.
Democrat Russ Carnahan had a coffin left at his home.
I could go on, but you get the point. Cause and effect. "There are
consequences."
And the Republicans? The shot supposedly fired at Republican Eric Cantor's
office was quickly exposed as a hoax.
As I observed on MSNBC last week, there has been a stream of violence and
threats of violence by the right wing against Democrats. Gabby warned
against it, and then became a terrible victim of it. Palin has instigated
it, and then tried to pretend that it doesn't exist.
What do I think? I think that Gabby said it best: "We can't stand for this."
We have to stand against it.
Courage,
Alan Grayson
To: rlgreenfield1@verizon.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:51 AM
Subject: Gabby Was Right, Palin Is Wrong
Dear Rl,
When I opened my web browser yesterday, at yahoo.com, there was Sarah Palin,
smiling at me.
"Oh, God," I said to myself, "what has she done now?"
The headline was "Palin Defends 'Blood Libel'". That's interesting, I
thought. What else might Palin be defending? Cannibalism, maybe?
Well, it turned out to be a report on Palin's disjointed remarks on Sean
Hannity's show, regarding the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. I then
watched the report. Let me summarize it for you:
Palin: I am so misunderstood.
Hannity: I am so misunderstood.
Palin: I am so misunderstood.
But there was one person who seemed to understand Sarah Palin quite well.
Gabby Giffords, herself, during the health care debate. Discussing threats
against Democratic Members of Congress. After the door to her office was
shattered. This is what Gabby said:
"You know, for example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing
is the way that she has depicted it is the crosshairs of a gun-sight over
our district. When people do that, they've got to realize that there are
consequences to that action."
And here is Palin's blithe response, on Hannity's show: "That map wasn't an
original graphic."
What is that remark supposed to be, Sarah? An exculpanation?
Even before I heard earlier Palin's whining about "misguided
finger-pointing" and "irresponsible statements from people who are
apportioning blame," I thought about this:
Palin came to my district, and told her people to "take me out."
Palin told people again and again, "don't retreat, reload."
The day before the health care vote, one of my five-year-old twins received
a telephone death threat intended for me.
A right-wing commentator offered anyone $100 to punch me in the nose.
We received so many threats of violence from teabaggers that we started a
file.
And the day before Gabby was shot, I received a postcard saying "you better
get some personal protection. You could very well be getting your ass kicked
soon."
Cause and effect. As Gabby put it, "there are consequences."
Of course, I wasn't the only target of these threats.
Gabby's tea party opponent held fundraisers in which he invited contributors
to fire an automatic weapon.
Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's opponent conducted target practice on
her initials.
Democrat Ron Klein's opponent told his supporters to make sure that Klein
was "afraid to leave his house."
Democrat Frank Kratovil was hung in effigy.
Democrat Tom Perriello was burned in effigy. And the gas line to his brother's
house was cut.
Democrat Emanuel Cleaver - a minister - was spat on.
Democrat Russ Carnahan had a coffin left at his home.
I could go on, but you get the point. Cause and effect. "There are
consequences."
And the Republicans? The shot supposedly fired at Republican Eric Cantor's
office was quickly exposed as a hoax.
As I observed on MSNBC last week, there has been a stream of violence and
threats of violence by the right wing against Democrats. Gabby warned
against it, and then became a terrible victim of it. Palin has instigated
it, and then tried to pretend that it doesn't exist.
What do I think? I think that Gabby said it best: "We can't stand for this."
We have to stand against it.
Courage,
Alan Grayson
Thursday, January 20, 2011
More Examples of Republicans Encouraging Bodily Harm to Democrats
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-the-crying-shame-of-john-boehner-20110105?page=4
Another Ohio Democrat, Steve Driehaus, clashed repeatedly with Boehner before losing his seat in the midterm elections. After Boehner suggested that by voting for Obamacare, Driehaus "may be a dead man" and "can't go home to the west side of Cincinnati" because "the Catholics will run him out of town," Driehaus began receiving death threats, and a right-wing website published directions to his house. Driehaus says he approached Boehner on the floor and confronted him.
"I didn't think it was funny at all," Driehaus says. "I've got three little kids and a wife. I said to him, 'John, this is bullshit, and way out of bounds. For you to say something like that is wildly irresponsible.'"
Driehaus is quick to point out that he doesn't think Boehner meant to urge anyone to violence. "But it's not about what he intended — it's about how the least rational person in my district takes it. We run into some crazy people in this line of work."
Driehaus says Boehner was "taken aback" when confronted on the floor, but never actually said he was sorry: "He said something along the lines of, 'You know that's not what I meant.' But he didn't apologize."
Another Ohio Democrat, Steve Driehaus, clashed repeatedly with Boehner before losing his seat in the midterm elections. After Boehner suggested that by voting for Obamacare, Driehaus "may be a dead man" and "can't go home to the west side of Cincinnati" because "the Catholics will run him out of town," Driehaus began receiving death threats, and a right-wing website published directions to his house. Driehaus says he approached Boehner on the floor and confronted him.
"I didn't think it was funny at all," Driehaus says. "I've got three little kids and a wife. I said to him, 'John, this is bullshit, and way out of bounds. For you to say something like that is wildly irresponsible.'"
Driehaus is quick to point out that he doesn't think Boehner meant to urge anyone to violence. "But it's not about what he intended — it's about how the least rational person in my district takes it. We run into some crazy people in this line of work."
Driehaus says Boehner was "taken aback" when confronted on the floor, but never actually said he was sorry: "He said something along the lines of, 'You know that's not what I meant.' But he didn't apologize."
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Social Science Palooka
David Brooks seems sneaky. He writes like a rational human being, but always throws in a "whammy" that tends to discredit the assumed thrust of his article. This is what some people call "polemics."
His facile conclusions never fail to disappoint. This December 7, 2010 column in the New York Times is no exception.
Social Science Palooza
Ask any Republican or other member of the right wing what he thinks about the social sciences. You will receive either a blank stare, or a sneer. So, when David Brooks wrote an article about the social sciences, I wondered why.
The first thing I learned is that he finds such studies "bizarrely interesting." Which indicates to me, a social scientist, that he finds it difficult to grasp the scientific methods used to conduct these studies. Results based on the Scientific Method are not bizarre.
When I review social science studies, I always verify the underlying data before I apply it to new information. It doesn't take long. Really. It's a non-starter when the person writing the article quotes himself or the organization who paid him to write the article as far as maintaining objectivity.
This observation will explain what I mean. "For an article in The Review of Economics and Statistics, Mark Duggan, Randi Hjalmarsson and Brian Jacob investigated whether gun shows increase crime rates. They identified 3,400 gun shows in Texas and California and looked at crime rates for the areas around the shows for the following month. They found no relationship between gun shows and crime in either state."
Hypothesis: Gun shows increase crime rates.
Underlying science: Economics and Statistics
The problem: 1. Statisticians always allow for a margin of error in their analysis. 2. Therefore, the statement that "no relationship between gun shows and crime" could not be based in fact. 3. Because there HAS to be a variation in the data, just because we are human beings and inconstant. Therefore, Brooks should have stated the margin of error. 4. And, crimes that occur around gun shows are not always violent, and can involve fraud or misrepresentation.
For example, one of my friends bought a gun at a gun show, to be delivered later. He paid his money, but the gun never came. It took research and a trip to the town where the gun dealer lived to involve the police for my friend to get his gun months later. That counts, eh?
So, when one of these rational-sounding people cannot come up with a rational explanation for normal phenomena, one must assume that they are just a few bricks shy of a load. Or perhaps just Social Science Palookas.
His facile conclusions never fail to disappoint. This December 7, 2010 column in the New York Times is no exception.
Social Science Palooza
Ask any Republican or other member of the right wing what he thinks about the social sciences. You will receive either a blank stare, or a sneer. So, when David Brooks wrote an article about the social sciences, I wondered why.
The first thing I learned is that he finds such studies "bizarrely interesting." Which indicates to me, a social scientist, that he finds it difficult to grasp the scientific methods used to conduct these studies. Results based on the Scientific Method are not bizarre.
When I review social science studies, I always verify the underlying data before I apply it to new information. It doesn't take long. Really. It's a non-starter when the person writing the article quotes himself or the organization who paid him to write the article as far as maintaining objectivity.
This observation will explain what I mean. "For an article in The Review of Economics and Statistics, Mark Duggan, Randi Hjalmarsson and Brian Jacob investigated whether gun shows increase crime rates. They identified 3,400 gun shows in Texas and California and looked at crime rates for the areas around the shows for the following month. They found no relationship between gun shows and crime in either state."
Hypothesis: Gun shows increase crime rates.
Underlying science: Economics and Statistics
The problem: 1. Statisticians always allow for a margin of error in their analysis. 2. Therefore, the statement that "no relationship between gun shows and crime" could not be based in fact. 3. Because there HAS to be a variation in the data, just because we are human beings and inconstant. Therefore, Brooks should have stated the margin of error. 4. And, crimes that occur around gun shows are not always violent, and can involve fraud or misrepresentation.
For example, one of my friends bought a gun at a gun show, to be delivered later. He paid his money, but the gun never came. It took research and a trip to the town where the gun dealer lived to involve the police for my friend to get his gun months later. That counts, eh?
So, when one of these rational-sounding people cannot come up with a rational explanation for normal phenomena, one must assume that they are just a few bricks shy of a load. Or perhaps just Social Science Palookas.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
The criminal cover-up of Ohio's stolen 2004 election sinks to the fraudulent, the absurd, the pathetic
by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
August 2, 2007
The illegal destruction of federally protected 2004 election materials by 56 of 88 Ohio counties has become a fraudulent "dog ate my homework" farce of absurd justifications and criminal coverups.
The mass elimination of the critical evidence that could definitively prove or disprove the presumption that the 2004 election was stolen has all the markings of a Rovian crime perpetrated to hide another one. Indeed, under Ohio law, that's precisely what must be presumed here.
But what makes the situation downright pathetic is that Ohio's new Democratic Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, has publicly stated she sees "no evidence" of intentional destruction in the disappearance in more than 60% of the state's counties of the ballots from the 2004 presidential election.
So once again, as did Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, the Democrats seem poised to cave to the on-going GOP coup that has redefined America, and that now involves the criminal destruction of contested evidence in one of the most controversial vote counts in US history.
Ironically, in Florida, under Jeb Bush, the ballot records from the 2000 election in all but one of the state's counties were successfully preserved. They are now stored in a state repository in Tallahassee. An unofficial recount conducted by the national media concluded that Al Gore rightfully carried Florida, and thus the presidency, in 2000.
A parallel preservation was ordained by federal and state law for the election records from Ohio 2004, where a similar examination has been viewed as inevitable.
But a series of excuses that range from the lame to the pathetic to the obviously criminal have left us shocked---shocked!---to learn that despite the protection of established federal law, a federal court order, long-standing Ohio laws, two directives from the Ohio Secretary of State's office, and legal notification letters from plaintiff's attorneys to hold the evidence, a precise recount of Ohio's stolen 2004 election may no longer be possible.
In short, Brunner has informed us that 56 of Ohio's 88 counties have mostly "inadvertently" destroyed all or some of their records from the 2004 presidential election.
Are we surprised?
Wait 'til you hear how these mostly Republican directors say it happened!
The materials were under legal protection "from birth" on November 4, 2004, shielded by national law, acknowledged by Brunner, by Ohio Revised Coded 3505.31, then by a federal court decision in the now-legendary King-Lincoln-Bronzeville lawsuit (in which we are attorney and plaintiff).
The Ohio Revised Code specifically states that in presidential elections "the board shall carefully preserve all ballots prepared and provided by it for use in that election, whether used or unused, for twenty-two months after the day of the election." In this case, that would have been through September 2, 2006.
These records were also essential to reconstructing a credible recount that was most pointedly stifled by then-Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell. Brunner blamed the destruction of documents on Blackwell, "…for not giving counties clear instructions and for not notifying them quickly enough about U.S. District Judge Algenon L. Marbley's September 7, 2006 order," according to the conservative Columbus Dispatch.
But many of the ballots were destroyed soon after the election in a series of events whose descriptions grow stranger and more implausible by the day.
In October 25, 2004, just prior to the election, Blackwell issued directive 2004-43, reminding all county election officials of the federal 22-month holding period for presidential ballots. That meant all election-related materials would be under federal protection until September 2, 2006.
On August 23, 2006, plaintiff's attorneys in the King-Lincoln-Bronzeville case hand-delivered a letter to the Secretary of State's office and faxed notices to all 88 county Board of Elections offices that the ballots were to be evidence in the forthcoming civil rights suit against Blackwell.
On August 31, 2006 that suit was filed in Marbley's federal court in Columbus. The AP reported that same day that Blackwell "has signaled his willingness to keep ballots from the contentious 2004 election beyond their scheduled September 3 destruction date in response to activists who plan to sue him in federal court today."
Ohio laws also require that noticed---for election-related materials and other public records---be offered to the Ohio Historical Society and other public repositories before they are destroyed. Public record forms must be filed and Ohio law requires a Certificate of Destruction. Nonetheless, Blackwell erroneously told the Dispatch the next day that he was "willing to ask the boards not to destroy ballots, but the decision ultimately is a local one."
But under applicable law, the decision was definitely not "a local one." Indeed, Judge Marbley ordered all of Ohio's 88 counties to "…preserve all ballots from the 2004 presidential election on paper or in any other format, including electronic data, unless and until such time otherwise instructed by this court." Thus anyone destroying such records, from Election Day until the time you read this, may have broken various federal or state laws, and be in contempt of a federal court order.
King-Lincoln alleges a wide range of civil rights violations perpetrated by Blackwell and many of Ohio's 88 county boards of elections based on race, economic status, political inclination, wrongful denial of absentee ballots (as in Harvey's case) and more.
Here are some of the stories the counties are telling about the destruction of their ballots: (View the original state documents in a 19.5MB PDF)
Hancock County says it "received verbal directions" from Secretary of State Blackwell's office that unused and soiled ballots "did not have to be retained and these items were destroyed."
But any election audit requires a complete set of used and unused ballots to ensure that the unused ballots weren't stuffed illegally into the ballot box. The law refers specifically to "all" ballots.
Putnam County apparently understood this all too clearly. That's why they informed Brunner that "all unused ballots were destroyed for security purposes."
In Warren County, on Election Day, the board of elections declared a Level 10 Homeland Security alert for which neither the Homeland Security Agency nor the FBI has any documentation or explanation. The alert served as cover for moving the vote count to an isolated warehouse, away from the media. Bush emerged from Warren County with a huge majority, far in excess of what he received in 2000.
Some twenty-two thousand officially unused ballots from Warren County are now mysteriously missing.
Warren County Board of Elections Director Michael E. Moore has written Brunner, stating that, in complete defiance of the law, "They were not accidentally destroyed. They were destroyed pursuant to standard practices that had been used by the Board of Elections for many years in Warren County regarding unused punch card ballots." Moore notes that "The unused ballots were destroyed 60 days after the 2004 election."
Warren, along with neighboring Clermont and Butler counties, provided Bush with more than his entire 118,775 winning margin in Ohio 2004. Thus these three counties were singled out for allegations of fraud in the election contest case Moss v. Bush (though only after surviving the first-ever Congressional challenge to a state's entire Electoral College delegation). The allegations of fraud on a level that could have decided the presidency were thus never tested in court…and now the evidence has been destroyed.
Clermont County "could not locate" the unused ballots, according to Mike Keeley, Board of Elections Director.
Butler County cannot provide the "2004 General Election Ballot Pages." Director Betty McGary says that "at no time was anyone specifically instructed to discard these items. Our staff unintentionally discarded boxes containing Ballot Pages as requested in Directive 2007-07 due to unclear and misinterpreted instructions." For complex reasons having to do with Ohio's precinct ballot rotation law, the ballots from Butler County cannot be recounted with the "Ballot Pages" missing. The pages match the punches to the candidates.
Holmes County BOE Director Lisa Welch wrote Brunner that "a shelving unit collapsed in the Board of Elections storeroom on the morning of Friday, April 7, 2006. That shelving unit held the voted ballots, stubs, soiled and defaced ballot envelopes, and ballot accounting charts from the 2004 General Election. The shelves and stored items collapsed onto a side table holding a working coffee maker. The carafe on the coffee maker was full at the time of the incident. Many of the stored items had to be destroyed due to the broken glass and hot coffee. The ballot pages and unused ballots were stored on a neighboring shelf and were not damaged."
Holmes County was rendered infamous by Karl Rove's legendary spin claiming there was an unprecedented massive turnout of homophobic old order Amish voted for Bush and against gay marriage. (It is well-known that the Amish as a community rarely vote).
Allen County "labeled all voted ballots and placed [them] in our vault for the required 22 months of storage," according to Keith Cunningham, Director. Cunningham distinguished himself as a pro-Bush and Rove mouthpiece when he testified at then-Congressman (now-felon) Bob Ney's cursory March 2005 hearing into the 2004 Ohio election.
Cunningham told the Secretary of State that in the "…latter part of 2004 and into 2005… [we] began to experience problems with storm water migrating and subsequently penetrating our primary storage areas including our vault." He told Free Press reporter Paddy Shaffer that the vault had been flooding for "six years," and he had to put the 2004 presidential ballots on the floor because he needed the shelf space.
Cunningham added that: "As a result of these events, much of what was stored in our vault, including the 2004 general election ballots, were compromised by water damage and subsequently destroyed on or about August 20, 2006. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Allen County Health Department the boxes displaying mold or mildew were set aside to be discarded. Unfortunately, the contractor hired to remove the damaged boxes also accidentally removed the undamaged boxes as well," stated Cunningham, who did manage to save 498 write-in ballots.
The Health Department records recommended destruction or isolation as a solution.
Guernsey County's ballots suffered a similar twisted fate. According to BOE Director Jacqueline Newhart, "The unused ballots as well as the punch card ballot pages were destroyed in error" because "the county maintenance worker, when collecting trash, picked up the boxes" that contained them.
In allegedly mobbed up Mahoning County, the board of elections has blamed environmentalists for inadvertently destroying the ballots. Apparently the "Mahoning County Green Team picked up all recyclables in the storage room for disposal pursuant to the retention schedule," according to Director Thomas McCabe. As a result, some 115, 936 ballots "were accidentally disposed of on Friday, March 23 of 2007."
Down in Hamilton County (Cincinnati), home of the Taft family dynasty, the unvoted and soiled ballots were "inadvertently shredded between January 19th and 26th of '06."
Perhaps the most egregious case of ballot destruction, and easiest to criminally prosecute, is Director Steve Harsman's in Montgomery County. Researcher Richard Hayes Phillips reported in the Free Press that, "…the Board was eager to destroy them [the ballots]. The employees who handled the ballots for me brought up the subject themselves."
Harsman conceded that the "Ohio Revised Code" required a 22-month "retention schedule." Yet, he argues that since the "Certificate of Destruction" had already been "prepared" prior to his receiving the order from Judge Marbley that he had the right to destroy the ballots.
"We literally ran out of space to prepare, stage, and retain material for these elections. It was imperative that we process the 2004 materials for destruction under the guidelines of the 22-month retention. Therefore, all materials were properly destroyed in a timely manner and we were unable to comply due to these circumstances. We did not receive formal notice from the courts prior to preparing the certification of destruction," Harman wrote.
Thus Harman admits to openly defying a federal court order and destroying evidence because he wasn't notified "prior to preparing the certification of destruction."
But Judge Marbley pointed out in his opinion and order of September 11, 2006 in support of his order of September 7, that the Ohio Revised Code 3501.16 makes it a fourth degree felony for, among other things, willfully or negligently violating election laws as a director of a board of elections.
The original story of the ballots being saved for litigation and history made the pages of the New York Times. But the blatant and bizarre destruction of Ohio's 2004 ballots has been relegated to the back page of the Columbus Dispatch Metro & State section. The brief article by Mark Niquette ran below the fold and the weather map, and above an ad for Window World and the Ohio State Medical Center.
Matt Damschroder, the Franklin County (Columbus) Board of Election Director and former Chair of the Republican Party, assured the Dispatch that the "counties did nothing intentionally wrong." Damschroder is the President of the Ohio Association of Election Officials and was suspended without pay for a month after he accepted a $10,000 check from a Diebold representative in his office, made out to the GOP on the day the bidding for e-voting machines opened.
His job was in jeopardy until Board of Elections President Bill Anthony, Chair of the Franklin County Democratic Party, intervened to save Damschroder from firing.
King-Lincoln-Bronzeville Attorney Cliff Arnebeck stated that "The nature and scope of the cover-up can tell a lot about the nature and scope of the crime. Destruction of relevant documents can create a presumption that such evidence would have helped the other side in litigation."
Arnebeck also said White House advisor Karl Rove "has had the keys to the US Justice Department for some time. No wonder FBI investigations requested by US Rep. John Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee went nowhere. He also used those keys to scuttle two years of work by the IRS and FBI of financial corruption at the Ohio Statehouse."
Overall this blatant destruction of evidence only reinforces the widespread belief that the 2004 election was stolen. The loss of ballot materials in a few isolated counties might be an understandable random event. But for more than 60% of the state's BOEs to have destroyed ballots or ballot materials amidst a series of bizarre, absurd explanations is a joke.
America has been robbed of its history here. The public has a right to know the true outcome of the 2004 election, and to have its laws about preservation of critical records honored.
Under evidence laws, the destruction of material that serves as evidence in a lawsuit is presumed to be fraudulent action by the destroyer.
But the Bush-Rove-Blackwell regime is about nothing if not contempt for the law. And its assault on the documents that could show what really happened in Ohio's contested 2004 election seems yet another obvious confirmation that it was, in fact, stolen.
--
Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman's HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008, available at freepress.org (where this article first appeared) along with the FITRAKIS FILES. HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE US is at www.solartopia.org.
August 2, 2007
The illegal destruction of federally protected 2004 election materials by 56 of 88 Ohio counties has become a fraudulent "dog ate my homework" farce of absurd justifications and criminal coverups.
The mass elimination of the critical evidence that could definitively prove or disprove the presumption that the 2004 election was stolen has all the markings of a Rovian crime perpetrated to hide another one. Indeed, under Ohio law, that's precisely what must be presumed here.
But what makes the situation downright pathetic is that Ohio's new Democratic Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, has publicly stated she sees "no evidence" of intentional destruction in the disappearance in more than 60% of the state's counties of the ballots from the 2004 presidential election.
So once again, as did Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, the Democrats seem poised to cave to the on-going GOP coup that has redefined America, and that now involves the criminal destruction of contested evidence in one of the most controversial vote counts in US history.
Ironically, in Florida, under Jeb Bush, the ballot records from the 2000 election in all but one of the state's counties were successfully preserved. They are now stored in a state repository in Tallahassee. An unofficial recount conducted by the national media concluded that Al Gore rightfully carried Florida, and thus the presidency, in 2000.
A parallel preservation was ordained by federal and state law for the election records from Ohio 2004, where a similar examination has been viewed as inevitable.
But a series of excuses that range from the lame to the pathetic to the obviously criminal have left us shocked---shocked!---to learn that despite the protection of established federal law, a federal court order, long-standing Ohio laws, two directives from the Ohio Secretary of State's office, and legal notification letters from plaintiff's attorneys to hold the evidence, a precise recount of Ohio's stolen 2004 election may no longer be possible.
In short, Brunner has informed us that 56 of Ohio's 88 counties have mostly "inadvertently" destroyed all or some of their records from the 2004 presidential election.
Are we surprised?
Wait 'til you hear how these mostly Republican directors say it happened!
The materials were under legal protection "from birth" on November 4, 2004, shielded by national law, acknowledged by Brunner, by Ohio Revised Coded 3505.31, then by a federal court decision in the now-legendary King-Lincoln-Bronzeville lawsuit (in which we are attorney and plaintiff).
The Ohio Revised Code specifically states that in presidential elections "the board shall carefully preserve all ballots prepared and provided by it for use in that election, whether used or unused, for twenty-two months after the day of the election." In this case, that would have been through September 2, 2006.
These records were also essential to reconstructing a credible recount that was most pointedly stifled by then-Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell. Brunner blamed the destruction of documents on Blackwell, "…for not giving counties clear instructions and for not notifying them quickly enough about U.S. District Judge Algenon L. Marbley's September 7, 2006 order," according to the conservative Columbus Dispatch.
But many of the ballots were destroyed soon after the election in a series of events whose descriptions grow stranger and more implausible by the day.
In October 25, 2004, just prior to the election, Blackwell issued directive 2004-43, reminding all county election officials of the federal 22-month holding period for presidential ballots. That meant all election-related materials would be under federal protection until September 2, 2006.
On August 23, 2006, plaintiff's attorneys in the King-Lincoln-Bronzeville case hand-delivered a letter to the Secretary of State's office and faxed notices to all 88 county Board of Elections offices that the ballots were to be evidence in the forthcoming civil rights suit against Blackwell.
On August 31, 2006 that suit was filed in Marbley's federal court in Columbus. The AP reported that same day that Blackwell "has signaled his willingness to keep ballots from the contentious 2004 election beyond their scheduled September 3 destruction date in response to activists who plan to sue him in federal court today."
Ohio laws also require that noticed---for election-related materials and other public records---be offered to the Ohio Historical Society and other public repositories before they are destroyed. Public record forms must be filed and Ohio law requires a Certificate of Destruction. Nonetheless, Blackwell erroneously told the Dispatch the next day that he was "willing to ask the boards not to destroy ballots, but the decision ultimately is a local one."
But under applicable law, the decision was definitely not "a local one." Indeed, Judge Marbley ordered all of Ohio's 88 counties to "…preserve all ballots from the 2004 presidential election on paper or in any other format, including electronic data, unless and until such time otherwise instructed by this court." Thus anyone destroying such records, from Election Day until the time you read this, may have broken various federal or state laws, and be in contempt of a federal court order.
King-Lincoln alleges a wide range of civil rights violations perpetrated by Blackwell and many of Ohio's 88 county boards of elections based on race, economic status, political inclination, wrongful denial of absentee ballots (as in Harvey's case) and more.
Here are some of the stories the counties are telling about the destruction of their ballots: (View the original state documents in a 19.5MB PDF)
Hancock County says it "received verbal directions" from Secretary of State Blackwell's office that unused and soiled ballots "did not have to be retained and these items were destroyed."
But any election audit requires a complete set of used and unused ballots to ensure that the unused ballots weren't stuffed illegally into the ballot box. The law refers specifically to "all" ballots.
Putnam County apparently understood this all too clearly. That's why they informed Brunner that "all unused ballots were destroyed for security purposes."
In Warren County, on Election Day, the board of elections declared a Level 10 Homeland Security alert for which neither the Homeland Security Agency nor the FBI has any documentation or explanation. The alert served as cover for moving the vote count to an isolated warehouse, away from the media. Bush emerged from Warren County with a huge majority, far in excess of what he received in 2000.
Some twenty-two thousand officially unused ballots from Warren County are now mysteriously missing.
Warren County Board of Elections Director Michael E. Moore has written Brunner, stating that, in complete defiance of the law, "They were not accidentally destroyed. They were destroyed pursuant to standard practices that had been used by the Board of Elections for many years in Warren County regarding unused punch card ballots." Moore notes that "The unused ballots were destroyed 60 days after the 2004 election."
Warren, along with neighboring Clermont and Butler counties, provided Bush with more than his entire 118,775 winning margin in Ohio 2004. Thus these three counties were singled out for allegations of fraud in the election contest case Moss v. Bush (though only after surviving the first-ever Congressional challenge to a state's entire Electoral College delegation). The allegations of fraud on a level that could have decided the presidency were thus never tested in court…and now the evidence has been destroyed.
Clermont County "could not locate" the unused ballots, according to Mike Keeley, Board of Elections Director.
Butler County cannot provide the "2004 General Election Ballot Pages." Director Betty McGary says that "at no time was anyone specifically instructed to discard these items. Our staff unintentionally discarded boxes containing Ballot Pages as requested in Directive 2007-07 due to unclear and misinterpreted instructions." For complex reasons having to do with Ohio's precinct ballot rotation law, the ballots from Butler County cannot be recounted with the "Ballot Pages" missing. The pages match the punches to the candidates.
Holmes County BOE Director Lisa Welch wrote Brunner that "a shelving unit collapsed in the Board of Elections storeroom on the morning of Friday, April 7, 2006. That shelving unit held the voted ballots, stubs, soiled and defaced ballot envelopes, and ballot accounting charts from the 2004 General Election. The shelves and stored items collapsed onto a side table holding a working coffee maker. The carafe on the coffee maker was full at the time of the incident. Many of the stored items had to be destroyed due to the broken glass and hot coffee. The ballot pages and unused ballots were stored on a neighboring shelf and were not damaged."
Holmes County was rendered infamous by Karl Rove's legendary spin claiming there was an unprecedented massive turnout of homophobic old order Amish voted for Bush and against gay marriage. (It is well-known that the Amish as a community rarely vote).
Allen County "labeled all voted ballots and placed [them] in our vault for the required 22 months of storage," according to Keith Cunningham, Director. Cunningham distinguished himself as a pro-Bush and Rove mouthpiece when he testified at then-Congressman (now-felon) Bob Ney's cursory March 2005 hearing into the 2004 Ohio election.
Cunningham told the Secretary of State that in the "…latter part of 2004 and into 2005… [we] began to experience problems with storm water migrating and subsequently penetrating our primary storage areas including our vault." He told Free Press reporter Paddy Shaffer that the vault had been flooding for "six years," and he had to put the 2004 presidential ballots on the floor because he needed the shelf space.
Cunningham added that: "As a result of these events, much of what was stored in our vault, including the 2004 general election ballots, were compromised by water damage and subsequently destroyed on or about August 20, 2006. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Allen County Health Department the boxes displaying mold or mildew were set aside to be discarded. Unfortunately, the contractor hired to remove the damaged boxes also accidentally removed the undamaged boxes as well," stated Cunningham, who did manage to save 498 write-in ballots.
The Health Department records recommended destruction or isolation as a solution.
Guernsey County's ballots suffered a similar twisted fate. According to BOE Director Jacqueline Newhart, "The unused ballots as well as the punch card ballot pages were destroyed in error" because "the county maintenance worker, when collecting trash, picked up the boxes" that contained them.
In allegedly mobbed up Mahoning County, the board of elections has blamed environmentalists for inadvertently destroying the ballots. Apparently the "Mahoning County Green Team picked up all recyclables in the storage room for disposal pursuant to the retention schedule," according to Director Thomas McCabe. As a result, some 115, 936 ballots "were accidentally disposed of on Friday, March 23 of 2007."
Down in Hamilton County (Cincinnati), home of the Taft family dynasty, the unvoted and soiled ballots were "inadvertently shredded between January 19th and 26th of '06."
Perhaps the most egregious case of ballot destruction, and easiest to criminally prosecute, is Director Steve Harsman's in Montgomery County. Researcher Richard Hayes Phillips reported in the Free Press that, "…the Board was eager to destroy them [the ballots]. The employees who handled the ballots for me brought up the subject themselves."
Harsman conceded that the "Ohio Revised Code" required a 22-month "retention schedule." Yet, he argues that since the "Certificate of Destruction" had already been "prepared" prior to his receiving the order from Judge Marbley that he had the right to destroy the ballots.
"We literally ran out of space to prepare, stage, and retain material for these elections. It was imperative that we process the 2004 materials for destruction under the guidelines of the 22-month retention. Therefore, all materials were properly destroyed in a timely manner and we were unable to comply due to these circumstances. We did not receive formal notice from the courts prior to preparing the certification of destruction," Harman wrote.
Thus Harman admits to openly defying a federal court order and destroying evidence because he wasn't notified "prior to preparing the certification of destruction."
But Judge Marbley pointed out in his opinion and order of September 11, 2006 in support of his order of September 7, that the Ohio Revised Code 3501.16 makes it a fourth degree felony for, among other things, willfully or negligently violating election laws as a director of a board of elections.
The original story of the ballots being saved for litigation and history made the pages of the New York Times. But the blatant and bizarre destruction of Ohio's 2004 ballots has been relegated to the back page of the Columbus Dispatch Metro & State section. The brief article by Mark Niquette ran below the fold and the weather map, and above an ad for Window World and the Ohio State Medical Center.
Matt Damschroder, the Franklin County (Columbus) Board of Election Director and former Chair of the Republican Party, assured the Dispatch that the "counties did nothing intentionally wrong." Damschroder is the President of the Ohio Association of Election Officials and was suspended without pay for a month after he accepted a $10,000 check from a Diebold representative in his office, made out to the GOP on the day the bidding for e-voting machines opened.
His job was in jeopardy until Board of Elections President Bill Anthony, Chair of the Franklin County Democratic Party, intervened to save Damschroder from firing.
King-Lincoln-Bronzeville Attorney Cliff Arnebeck stated that "The nature and scope of the cover-up can tell a lot about the nature and scope of the crime. Destruction of relevant documents can create a presumption that such evidence would have helped the other side in litigation."
Arnebeck also said White House advisor Karl Rove "has had the keys to the US Justice Department for some time. No wonder FBI investigations requested by US Rep. John Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee went nowhere. He also used those keys to scuttle two years of work by the IRS and FBI of financial corruption at the Ohio Statehouse."
Overall this blatant destruction of evidence only reinforces the widespread belief that the 2004 election was stolen. The loss of ballot materials in a few isolated counties might be an understandable random event. But for more than 60% of the state's BOEs to have destroyed ballots or ballot materials amidst a series of bizarre, absurd explanations is a joke.
America has been robbed of its history here. The public has a right to know the true outcome of the 2004 election, and to have its laws about preservation of critical records honored.
Under evidence laws, the destruction of material that serves as evidence in a lawsuit is presumed to be fraudulent action by the destroyer.
But the Bush-Rove-Blackwell regime is about nothing if not contempt for the law. And its assault on the documents that could show what really happened in Ohio's contested 2004 election seems yet another obvious confirmation that it was, in fact, stolen.
--
Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman's HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008, available at freepress.org (where this article first appeared) along with the FITRAKIS FILES. HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE US is at www.solartopia.org.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Bush's Cyber Election Hit Squad
Read this along with the next article, Behind the Firewall.
The GOP’s Cyber Election Hit Squad
by Steven Rosenfeld and Bob Fitrakis
April 22, 2007
Did the most powerful Republicans in America have the computer capacity, software skills and electronic infrastructure in place on Election Night 2004 to tamper with the Ohio results to ensure George W. Bush’s re-election?
The answer appears to be yes. There is more than ample documentation to show that on Election Night 2004, Ohio’s “official” Secretary of State website – which gave the world the presidential election results – was redirected from an Ohio government server to a group of servers that contain scores of Republican web sites, including the secret White House e-mail accounts that have emerged in the scandal surrounding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s firing of eight federal prosecutors.
Recent revelations have documented that the Republican National Committee (RNC) ran a secret White House e-mail system for Karl Rove and dozens of White House staffers. This high-tech system used to count and report the 2004 presidential vote– from server-hosting contracts, to software-writing services, to remote-access capability, to the actual server usage logs themselves – must be added to the growing congressional investigations.
Numerous tech-savvy bloggers, starting with the online investigative consortium epluribusmedia.org and their November 2006 article cross-posted by contributor luaptifer to Dailykos, and Joseph Cannon’s blog at Cannonfire.blogspot.com, outed the RNC tech network. That web-hosting firm is SMARTech Corp. of Chattanooga, TN, operating out of the basement in the old Pioneer Bank building. The firm hosts scores of Republican websites, including georgewbush.com, gop.com and rnc.org.
The software created for the Ohio secretary of state’s Election Night 2004 website was created by GovTech Solutions, a firm co-founded by longtime GOP computing guru Mike Connell. He also redesigned the Bush campaign’s website in 2000 and told “Inside Business” magazine in 1999, “I wouldn’t be where I am today without the Bush campaign and the Bush family because the Bushes truly are about family and I’m loyal to my network.”
Read more...
Also read: http://fraudbusterbob.com/blog/2007/04/26/are-roves-missing-e-mails-the-smoking-guns-of-the-stolen-2004-election
...and then something went wrong with his airplane... ~Deb
The GOP’s Cyber Election Hit Squad
by Steven Rosenfeld and Bob Fitrakis
April 22, 2007
Did the most powerful Republicans in America have the computer capacity, software skills and electronic infrastructure in place on Election Night 2004 to tamper with the Ohio results to ensure George W. Bush’s re-election?
The answer appears to be yes. There is more than ample documentation to show that on Election Night 2004, Ohio’s “official” Secretary of State website – which gave the world the presidential election results – was redirected from an Ohio government server to a group of servers that contain scores of Republican web sites, including the secret White House e-mail accounts that have emerged in the scandal surrounding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s firing of eight federal prosecutors.
Recent revelations have documented that the Republican National Committee (RNC) ran a secret White House e-mail system for Karl Rove and dozens of White House staffers. This high-tech system used to count and report the 2004 presidential vote– from server-hosting contracts, to software-writing services, to remote-access capability, to the actual server usage logs themselves – must be added to the growing congressional investigations.
Numerous tech-savvy bloggers, starting with the online investigative consortium epluribusmedia.org and their November 2006 article cross-posted by contributor luaptifer to Dailykos, and Joseph Cannon’s blog at Cannonfire.blogspot.com, outed the RNC tech network. That web-hosting firm is SMARTech Corp. of Chattanooga, TN, operating out of the basement in the old Pioneer Bank building. The firm hosts scores of Republican websites, including georgewbush.com, gop.com and rnc.org.
The software created for the Ohio secretary of state’s Election Night 2004 website was created by GovTech Solutions, a firm co-founded by longtime GOP computing guru Mike Connell. He also redesigned the Bush campaign’s website in 2000 and told “Inside Business” magazine in 1999, “I wouldn’t be where I am today without the Bush campaign and the Bush family because the Bushes truly are about family and I’m loyal to my network.”
Read more...
Also read: http://fraudbusterbob.com/blog/2007/04/26/are-roves-missing-e-mails-the-smoking-guns-of-the-stolen-2004-election
...and then something went wrong with his airplane... ~Deb
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Was Carol Lam Targeting The White House Prior To Her Firing?
Poster's note:
Really no coverage on this in MSM (main stream media)
Oringinal Article at:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/19/carol-lam-white-house/
Referring to the Bush administration’s purge of former San Diego-based U.S. attorney Carol Lam, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) questioned recently on the Senate floor whether she was let go because she was “about to investigate other people who were politically powerful.”
The media reports this morning that among Lam’s politically powerful targets were former CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo and then-House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA). But there is evidence to believe that the White House may also have been on Lam’s target list. Here are the connections:
– Washington D.C. defense contractor Mitchell Wade pled guilty last February to paying then-California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham more than $1 million in bribes.
– Wade’s company MZM Inc. received its first federal contract from the White House. The contract, which ran from July 15 to August 15, 2002, stipulated that Wade be paid $140,000 to “provide office furniture and computers for Vice President Dick Cheney.”
– Two weeks later, on August 30, 2002, Wade purchased a yacht for $140,000 for Duke Cunningham. The boat’s name was later changed to the “Duke-Stir.” Said one party to the sale: “I knew then that somebody was going to go to jail for that…Duke looked at the boat, and Wade bought it — all in one day. Then they got on the boat and floated away.”
– According to Cunningham’s sentencing memorandum, the purchase price of the boat had been negotiated through a third-party earlier that summer, around the same time the White House contract was signed.
To recap, the White House awarded a one-month, $140,000 contract to an individual who never held a federal contract. Two weeks after he got paid, that same contractor used a cashier’s check for exactly that amount to buy a boat for a now-imprisoned congressman at a price that the congressman had pre-negotiated.
That should raise questions about the White House’s involvement.
UPDATE: Perhaps this was the “real problem” Sampson was referring to:
Filed under: Ethics
Posted by Faiz March 19, 2007 1:52 pm
Permalink | Comment (217)
Really no coverage on this in MSM (main stream media)
Oringinal Article at:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/19/carol-lam-white-house/
Referring to the Bush administration’s purge of former San Diego-based U.S. attorney Carol Lam, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) questioned recently on the Senate floor whether she was let go because she was “about to investigate other people who were politically powerful.”
The media reports this morning that among Lam’s politically powerful targets were former CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo and then-House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA). But there is evidence to believe that the White House may also have been on Lam’s target list. Here are the connections:
– Washington D.C. defense contractor Mitchell Wade pled guilty last February to paying then-California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham more than $1 million in bribes.
– Wade’s company MZM Inc. received its first federal contract from the White House. The contract, which ran from July 15 to August 15, 2002, stipulated that Wade be paid $140,000 to “provide office furniture and computers for Vice President Dick Cheney.”
– Two weeks later, on August 30, 2002, Wade purchased a yacht for $140,000 for Duke Cunningham. The boat’s name was later changed to the “Duke-Stir.” Said one party to the sale: “I knew then that somebody was going to go to jail for that…Duke looked at the boat, and Wade bought it — all in one day. Then they got on the boat and floated away.”
– According to Cunningham’s sentencing memorandum, the purchase price of the boat had been negotiated through a third-party earlier that summer, around the same time the White House contract was signed.
To recap, the White House awarded a one-month, $140,000 contract to an individual who never held a federal contract. Two weeks after he got paid, that same contractor used a cashier’s check for exactly that amount to buy a boat for a now-imprisoned congressman at a price that the congressman had pre-negotiated.
That should raise questions about the White House’s involvement.
UPDATE: Perhaps this was the “real problem” Sampson was referring to:
Filed under: Ethics
Posted by Faiz March 19, 2007 1:52 pm
Permalink | Comment (217)
Monday, March 19, 2007
US Military Enlistment Form
I am sure that those right wing trolls who assiduously defend the occupation of Iraq will sign right up to join the military! Here's a link to the form.
http://www.hqda.army.mil/ocll/DOC/Presentation_Slides/Enlistment%20Re%20enlistment%20Forms.pdf
I already have a list of candidates!
bluegonewild
gumbomaker aka blistering cajun
dianak7c
fullrestore2008
fierce carrot
theo in 2007
j9 soup
drones_onandon
ulysses_s_grant aka tecumseh_sherman aka jubal_a_early aka salmon_p_chase
tom dashel
fhcgamer844
These IDs are trolls and should not be fed.
http://www.hqda.army.mil/ocll/DOC/Presentation_Slides/Enlistment%20Re%20enlistment%20Forms.pdf
I already have a list of candidates!
bluegonewild
gumbomaker aka blistering cajun
dianak7c
fullrestore2008
fierce carrot
theo in 2007
j9 soup
drones_onandon
ulysses_s_grant aka tecumseh_sherman aka jubal_a_early aka salmon_p_chase
tom dashel
fhcgamer844
These IDs are trolls and should not be fed.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
The Grassroots of the "Moral" Party
A well-documented and horrifying website, Armchair Subversive, catalogues the extensive list of sexual predators in the Republican Party. No similar list exists for members of the Democratic Party.
The proud and perverted found at Armchair Subversive include Republicans at all levels of the party.
My question is: why are these people put into positions of power over others in the Republican Party? What mentality drives that kind of self-delusion?
This week, we were subjected to another confession of immorality by the former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich, while at the head of the pack regarding Clinton's impeachment, was himself having an extramarital affair while holding an office two heartbeats from the Presidency.
Newt is on his third marriage, by the way. He is a serial adulterer.
The proud and perverted found at Armchair Subversive include Republicans at all levels of the party.
My question is: why are these people put into positions of power over others in the Republican Party? What mentality drives that kind of self-delusion?
This week, we were subjected to another confession of immorality by the former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich, while at the head of the pack regarding Clinton's impeachment, was himself having an extramarital affair while holding an office two heartbeats from the Presidency.
Newt is on his third marriage, by the way. He is a serial adulterer.
The Grassroots of the "Moral" Party
A horrifyingly well-documented website, Armchair Subversive, catalogues the extensive list of sexual predators in the Republican Party. No similar list exists for members of the Democratic Party.
That site disappeared a couple of year ago. Someone else put up the information here and here
Armchair Subversive which includes Republicans at all levels of the party.
My question is: why are these people put into positions of power over others in the Republican Party? What mentality drives that kind of self-delusion?
This week, we were subjected to another confession of immorality by the former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich, while at the head of the pack regarding Clinton's impeachment, was himself having an extramarital affair while holding an office two heartbeats from the Presidency.
Newt is on his third marriage, by the way. He is a serial adulterer.
That site disappeared a couple of year ago. Someone else put up the information here and here
Armchair Subversive which includes Republicans at all levels of the party.
My question is: why are these people put into positions of power over others in the Republican Party? What mentality drives that kind of self-delusion?
This week, we were subjected to another confession of immorality by the former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich, while at the head of the pack regarding Clinton's impeachment, was himself having an extramarital affair while holding an office two heartbeats from the Presidency.
Newt is on his third marriage, by the way. He is a serial adulterer.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Republican Dirty Tricks #1
The College Republicans, working to make hate fashionable every day, are at it again! At NYU, they are playing a game called "Find the Illegal Immigrant".
The College Republicans and Young Republicans represent the Brown Shirts, the shock troops, of the fascist takeover of America. I wish I were kidding. Take a look at an article I wrote two years ago (under a pseudonym...I ain't that dumb!), during John Roberts' confirmation process.
How the Federalists and College Republicans Operate
The College Republicans and Young Republicans represent the Brown Shirts, the shock troops, of the fascist takeover of America. I wish I were kidding. Take a look at an article I wrote two years ago (under a pseudonym...I ain't that dumb!), during John Roberts' confirmation process.
How the Federalists and College Republicans Operate
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)