Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts

Jul 28, 2023

Biden Adminstration Denies RFK, Jr Secret Service Protection; Says "Not Warranted"

Supporters of the son of Bobby Kennedy are worried
about the safety of RFK, Jr. Today, the Biden administration
denied Secret Service protection
of the presidential
candidate, saying protection is "not warranted."
Update: Democrats caught with their pants down, attempting to blow smoke. DHS
Sec. Mayorkas and POTUS have sole authority to provide Secret Service protection for any reason before120-day mark; as was done for Obama (07), Trump (2016) Biden (2020) and Bernie (16, 20). Only president to play politics with protection, ever, is Joe Biden.

The son of Robert Frances Kennedy has requested Secret Service protection, but the Biden administration denied the request today, saying protection is "not warranted at this time."

Robert Frances Kennedy, Jr. is a candidate for the Democratic Party nominee for the presidency of the United States.

Kennedy broke the news this morning: Writes Kennedy:

Since the assassination of my father in 1968, candidates for president are provided Secret Service protection. But not me. Typical turnaround time for pro forma protection requests from presidential candidates is 14-days.  After 88-days of no response and after several follow-ups by our campaign, the Biden Administration just denied our request. Secretary Mayorkas: "I have determined that Secret Service protection for Robert F Kennedy Jr is not warranted at this time."  Our campaign's request included a 67-page report from the world's leading protection firm, detailing unique and well established security and safety risks aside from commonplace death threats.


Admirers and campaign supporters have long expressed private concern that the son of Bobby Kennedy faces unique and grave threats, earning the enmity of much of corporate America, the military-industrial-intel complex and Democrat Party officialdom which has politicized virtually every arm of federal government..

Biden, who faces lingering questions over his cognitive ability, has offered no comment on this development.

Jul 10, 2022

Wisconsin Attorney General Candidate, Eric Toney, Wages Abuse of Power Against Innocents

Eric Toney, candidate for Wisconsin attorney general, is so
"tough," he prosecutes innocent people.

Madison, Wisconsin — Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney (R) is on a mission.

Toney is using his office of public trust to propel his political candidacy, another in a line of Wisconsin prosecutors acting on whims, lies or political calculations to destroy innocent victims as means of achieving a political perch.

Eric Toney is a Republican Party candidate for attorney general.

Absentee and overseas voting has begun for the Aug. 9 Primary.

When political prosecutors like Toney strike, legal venom is delivered under color of law with the power of the state behind personal malice, absent moral considerations that guide most people.

Matt Mencarini reports in Wisconsin Watch that politician Eric Toney has now prosecuted five people for felony election fraud for making honest mistakes in listing their P.O. Box as a residential address.

In ‘A hammer in search of a nail’: Wisconsin AG candidate prosecutes eligible voters for address snafus, five innocents put down the wrong address.

There is no "intent" which would satify election fraud, as the state statute clearly lays out as the crucial element for a criminal offense. [See 12.13 "Election fraud. ... (b) Falsely procures registration or makes false statements to the municipal clerk, board of election commissioners or any other election official whether or not under oath."]

But Eric Toney gets to score some political points for the Aug. 9 Primary.

Wisconsin voters should reject Eric Toney, this guy is a piece of human garbage.

Nov 19, 2018

Emanuel Cleaver Warns Ocasio-Cortez to Be Silent, Stop 'Humiliating' Herself in Stunning On-air Display of Patriarchy and Condescension

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Kansas, MO) appearing
on the Weekends with Alex Witt show, attacked and
condescended the progressive Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
in open display of patriarchy that is at once pathetic and
destructive, (YouTube, 21:40-minute mark).

Why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can't be silent and just listen to old congressional hands
--- Where is this woman's husband?


National Democratic Party mucks appear primed to listen to their betters — progressives.

But dead-enders remain.

Witness Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Kansas, MO) appearing on the Weekends with Alex Witt show, (MSNBC).

Asked about intentions of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to help with progressive primary challenges against some Democratic incumbents, Cleaver's response is not merely patriarchal and condescending towards Ocasio-Cortez, the 75-year-old Cleaver is pathetic.

Cleaver said Ocasio-Cortez is alone in speaking against corruption and is going to "humiliate" herself, if the youngest member of Congress keeps speaking out against money in politics.

Urging acquiescence to corrupt congressional members, (one of whom Ocasio-Cortez defeated), Cleaver said, "If you've been around Congress for awhile—give advice. If you're just coming to Congress—consider it."

Cleaver is an old man in Congress accruing $six figures annually and building his pension in an attempt to achieve personal financial security while betraying a mobilized base of progressive activists working for change.

Ocasio-Cortez is right on the politics, right on proposed policy of the Justice Democrats, and personally embodies the brilliance, dedication and charisma of a progressive movement during a period of maximum peril.

Cleaver of-course, fawning and long obsequious to corporate power, is a supporter of Hillary Clinton.
This morning, in a profile in The Atlantic, Ocasio-Cortez is paraphrased in the headline: ‘If We Pass Medicare for All, I’m Going to Be Silent as a Lamb.’

Below is a video of Weekends with Alex Witt show.

Cleaver's segment on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez begins at the 21:40-second mark. Watch this:

Oct 22, 2015

Scott Walker's Coup in Plain Sight

Scott Walker's codifying Republican rule through Republican legislation in Wisconsin is unprecedented.

This legislative project was attempted in secret, until Walker backed down last July in his effort to kill Wisconsin's Open Records law, a law he broke (Mal Contends). So Walker is attempting his efforts through Republican legislators in broad daylight (Truthout).

The reaction to this series of Republican power grabs and killing of corruption protection won't be like the firing of Archibald Cox, though it should be.

Walker and the Republican legislators are engineering the destruction of Wisconsin clean government:

John Doe Exemption of Public Misconduct

[Note: Wisconsin owes a note of thanks to Marcus J. Berghahn at Hurley, Burish and Stanton S.C., in Madison for its background work on the John Doe statute. Berghahn notes, "[John Doe] proceedings are also designed to protect innocent citizens from the fallout of frivolous prosecutions. (2, State ex rel. Reimann v. Cir. Ct., 214 Wis. 2d 605, 621, 571 N.W.2d 385, 390 (1997))]

Writes Berghahn:

As the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated in 1889: 'When [the John Doe] statute was first enacted the common-law practice was for the magistrate to issue the warrant on a complaint of mere suspicion, and he was protected in doing so. This was found to be a very unsafe practice. Many arrests were made on groundless suspicion, when the accused were innocent of the crime and there was no testimony whatever against them. This statute was made to protect citizens from arrest and imprisonment on frivolous and groundless suspicion.' [(3) State ex rel. Long v. Keyes, 75 Wis. 288, 294-95, 44 N.W. 13, 15 (1889).]

Readers would not know about the reformist function and roots of the John Doe law from Walker and Attorney General Brad Schimel (R) who routinely trashed the law when bi-partisan Constitutional law enforcement officers uncovered widespread Republican corruption, criminality and misconduct in public office.

Back in 2009, then Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (R) wanted to change the John Doe statute saying fiscal and separation of powers concerns drove his proposal, (Wisconsin DoJ). This was before John Doe I (2010-2013) began, caused by Walker administration stonewalling.

This week, (after documents filed in federal court in 2014 show Scott Walker to be at the center of a criminal scheme), legislative Republicans suddenly discovered a new objection saying the law curbs free speech. This is not credible.

Judges routinely issue gag orders but legislative Republicans have not objected to curbs on free speech as a matter of judicial policy until after Walker and other subjects were questioned in two separate John Doe probes. In fact Republicans never had a problem expressed publicly with the John Doe secrecy codicils until the probe centered around subjects and events concerning Scott Walker.

John Doe at work stopping venal criminality of Scott Walker
and his aides. From left to right: Felon Tim Russell, Scott Walker
and Felon Brian Pierick, Four other Walker associates
were convicted in a Wisconsin John Doe probe (2010-13).
Criminal scandal from John Doe I, such as Walker's long-time aides and appointees embezzling from a military veterans' fund after being personally appointed by Walker (Milwaukee County Executive (2002-10)), and Walker's office running interference are shown in the 1,000s of pages of court documents made public, are enough to destroy Walker politically (WisconsinWatch) in future national campaigns.

Last year a visibly nervous Walker refused  to acknowledge he had used his own email on an illegal system, in violation of Wisconsin's Open Records law that Republicans tried to kill earlier this year before backing down, (Clark, Columbia Journalism Review) (Marley, Stein and Gabler, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

As for Walker, having failed to kill Wisconsin's Open Records law and caught lying about his effort to kill the law, new reports showing he violated it criminally and repeatedly should keep Gov. UnIntimidated's criminal defense attorneys busy the rest of Walker's term, (Mal Contends).

Wisconsin's reformist institutions and citizens should voice their concerns objecting to the GOP assault on representative government before Wisconsin's reputation of great beer, a stellar public university system, clean and open government and achievements in abolitionist, civil rights and progressive movements is displaced by the vague determination that it's all corrupt up there and you can't trust the drinking water; let's to go to Minnesota.

Nov 18, 2014

Wisconsin Speaker Vos Wrong to Condition Legislation to Denial of Speech

Remember the character of Scott Walker
and his contemptible band of bigots
Corruption just one ugly aspect of the Republican Party of Wisconsin

Wisconsin Assembly Robin Vos (R-Rochester) publically warned Marc Lasry, co-owner of the Milwaukee Bucks, that his public meeting with President Obama in late October and the fact that owners of the Bucks have contributed money to Democrats make legislation supporting a new Bucks sports arena a "hard sell" in the gerrymandered Republican-controlled legislature.

Vos also chastised Lasry that this type of political expression is "probably not the wisest thing to do," adding vaguely that these Bucks owners need to be "a lot smarter in their technique."

One Wisconsin Now noted last week: "Wisconsin state statute 19.45(13) prohibits tying political campaign contributions to legislative action or inaction. One Wisconsin Now formally requested the District Attorneys of Milwaukee and Racine Counties to investigate the matter. A violation of this state statute is a Class I felony."

This is a no-brainer.

And this ugly form of political behavior of the Republican Party that apparently believes itself beyond the rule of law ought to be slapped down immediately.

As for the lightweight that sits in the Wisconsin governor's office: No public comment of course.

What Vos and the Republican party don't like about Lasry is that he is Democratic, loves Milwaukee and is Jewish.

This is the nature of the Wisconsin Republican party and it is past time that Wisconsin comes to grips with the fact that Wisconsin Republicans are mostly corrupt, dangerous, racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic hicks.

What makes Vos different is that he openly voiced the internalized corrupt nature of the Party.

It is only behind the scenes that the vile bigotry of the Party is openly expressed.

Recall the secret Scott Walker emails with racist, anti-Semitic slurs uncovered just nine months ago:
"Besides being black, Jewish, disabled a fairy with a Mexican boyfriend, a drug addict, HIV positive, bald, orphaned, unemployed, an invalid with one hand and having a bad heart, I live in a crappy neighborhood ... ." (The Progressive)

Nov 8, 2014

Fed Judge's Ruling on Dark Money Moves to State Court Under Cloud

The Wisconsin Governmental Accountability Board (GAB), Wisconsin's election board, and John Doe officials have effectively acceded to a corrupt federal judge's ruling that was expected to be overturned in federal appellate court in a bizarre legal move yesterday.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa (corrupted in service to the Koch brothers, Federalist Society, the Bradley Center; nominally of the Eastern District of Wisconsin) issued an ruling in mid-October declaring Wisconsin's campaign finance regulations—prohibiting coordination among political candidates and dark money 'issue' groups—violate the First Amendment and henceforth are unenforceable.

The case is Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates, Inc., v. Thomas Barland (Case No. 14-C-1222).

Randa faced a judicial slap-down and possible ethical investigations in federal appellate court so now all parties have decided to cover up for Randa by moving the case to state court.

The GAB and John Doe officials have reached an agreement with Citizens ... moving the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) and narrowing Randa's injunction of Wisconsin campaign finance law under Randa's novel and contrived theory of the First Amendment.

Partisan Republicans enjoy a four-to-three majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which has lost legitimacy as an impartial judicial body.

When the rightwing group, Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates, filed its suit in early October, it gamed the court paperwork so Randa would hear the case, which happened and Randa subsequently fast-tracked the case, instead of waiting until after Election Day (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

"Judge Randa first made news in May when he issued an extraordinary ruling halting the criminal campaign finance investigation into Governor Scott Walker's campaign, declaring that candidates and 'dark money' nonprofits have a First Amendment right to coordinate over ads that don't expressly tell viewers how to vote (and ordering the destruction of evidence). That ruling was reversed by a unanimous decision from the 7th Circuit in September, with conservative jurist Frank Easterbrook calling Randa's decision 'imprudent,' 'unnecessary,' and an 'abuse of discretion,'" notes Brendan Fischer of PR Watch.

Randa's October 14 ruling devastating Wisconsin's campaign finance regulations was issued just weeks before the November 4 election in a clear violation of the Purcell doctrine employed by courts as a guiding principle that election law is not changed close to an election, and certainly not before voting had already begun as is the case in Wisconsin where 1,000s of absentee votes were already cast when Randa issued his ruling in mid October.

The effect of the ruling was to legalize coordination among candidates and dark money, allowing Scott Walker's campaign some three weeks to conspire with whomever it chose.

Randa's ruling, not coincidentally, also would absolve Scott Walker of apparent crimes as indicated by documents released in the John Doe probe that show Walker is suspected to have been at the center of a massive "criminal scheme" Marley, Bice and Glauber, (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

Oct 17, 2014

Report: Judge Shopping Confirmed by Special Interest-in-GOP-Campaigns Group

"When a conservative group filed a lawsuit over campaign finance laws earlier this month, its lawyers filled out court paperwork in a way that all but guaranteed they got a judge (Rudolph Randa) who has already ruled groups and candidates can work closely together."

The plan worked. On Tuesday, two weeks after Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates filed its suit, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa issued an order limiting how campaign finance laws could be enforced, opening the door for groups and candidates to team up in the weeks before the Nov. 4 election," reports Patrick Marley in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Sleazy pay-as-you-go politics filed with a corrupt federal judge whom the special interests knew would rule their way, the Scott Walker way.

This is what Wisconsin is up against. Never give up.

Oct 14, 2014

Judge Rudolph Randa Stands Naked and Corrupt for Scott Walker

Update II: Group gamed filing federal lawsuit to be assigned to Rudolph Randa. (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel)

Update: Two other points. Randa has ignored the Pursell principle and changed Wisconsin election law less than three weeks before Election Day. Secondly, through Randa's two rulings against Wisconsin campaign finance law enforcement, Randa has given Scott Walker an arguable defense if the John Doe Probe is allowed to proceed with its investigation though Scott Walker knows what he did is illegal. A federal judge declared what Scott Walker and others did is not illegal, so how can John Doe prosecutors find Walker, for example, guilty of breaking finance law when Randa has imposed ambiguity in the law that will be read against the state in a criminal prosecution.
---
An obscure rightwing group, Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates (CRG), has filed a complaint in federal court based upon a discredited view of the First Amendment to halt virtually all Wisconsin campaign finance law.

That's good enough for U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa who issued a preliminary injunction "before the GAB (Government Accountability Board) and (Milwaukee County District Attorney John T. Chisholm) had even spoken with the attorney assigned to represent them," notes Brendan Fischer at PR Watch. Nor had the GAB and Chisholm's attorney even filed a brief before Randa ruled.

The federal case is Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates v. Barland et al.

Randa wants to engineer the law to work for political allies and specifically shield Scott Walker from getting criminally charged or politically embarrassed by facts of the ongoing John Doe probe.

Randa heard CRG's complaint and issued a ruling today in this naked attempt to protect Scott Walker in what will likely raise corruption and misconduct questions before the supervising Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit after a likely reversal.

"The general election is only three weeks away. Any further delay threatens to negate the effectiveness of CRG’s requested relief," writes Randa.

"Randa issued his latest order even though those who are being sued didn't have an attorney until Monday. Because the lawyer was only recently hired, he has not submitted a brief to the judge explaining his clients' views on campaign finance laws or why they believe they are valid," notes Patrick Marley in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Randa had already made up his mind.

This is typical Randa, using his position on the federal bench to benefit Scott Walker less than three weeks before Election Day by blocking "enforcement of a Wisconsin election law that's at the center of an investigation into Gov. Scott Walker's 2012 recall campaign and more than two dozen conservative groups." (AP)

Wisconsin law enforcement has more than reasonable doubt to believe that Scott Walker is part of a criminal collaboration scheme that Randa is declaring no longer to be criminal, using this case, Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates v. Barland et al to issue this bizarre ruling today.

"U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa on Tuesday barred state election officials and Milwaukee's top prosecutor from enforcing their interpretation of campaign finance laws limiting the ability of candidates and purportedly independent groups from collaborating," writes Patrick Marley in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. "Earlier this year, Randa expressed similar skepticism toward campaign finance laws and halted an investigation into collaboration between Gov. Scott Walker's campaign and groups backing him. That ruling was thrown out three weeks ago by an appeals court that took Randa to task for his decision, in part because the panel said the case belonged in state — not federal — court."

Randa's earlier campaign finance decision was overturned in September in O'Keefe and Club for Growth, Inc v. Chisholm and Schmitz, with Judge Frank Easterbrook writing for a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that included Judges Diane Wood and William Bauer, "No opinion issued by the Supreme Court, or by any court of appeals, establishes ('clearly' or otherwise) that the First Amendment forbids regulation of coordination between campaign committees and issue-advocacy groups ... ."

Knocked down hard by the appellate court, Randa is apparently not guided by the appellate court's admonitions or its orders. Easterbrook called September ruling "imprudent," "unnecessary," and "an abuse of discretion." (Fischer, PR Watch)

Overturning Randa's decision in O'Keefe and Club for Growth, Inc., Easterbrook wrote, "Until the district court's opinion in this case, neither a state nor a federal court had held that Wisconsin's (or any other state's) regulation of coordinated fundraising and issue advocacy violates the First Amendment. ...It is not possible to treat as 'bad faith' a criminal investigation that reflects (the U.S. Supreme Court's) interpretation of the First Amendment."

This appellate opinion is inconvenient to Randa's political agenda, and could hurt Scott Walker if more evidence of what Scott Walker did goes public.

Randa just thinks up the results of cases and rules, throwing in an opinion at the end.

Critics and most jurists call this "results-oriented" jurisprudence.

Other people call it corruption.

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, corruption at its worst, also got in the act.

"In a surprising move, Wisconsin's Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen reversed his office's position on the scope of Wisconsin campaign finance law, and declined to represent the GAB and Chisholm in the lawsuit. In a letter to the GAB -- the agency tasked with interpreting and enforcing Wisconsin campaign finance law -- Assistant Deputy Attorney General Dan Lennington called the agency's interpretation of Wisconsin campaign finance law 'tenuous,'" notes Fischer.

Mar 7, 2013

GOP Scams Are Bad Politics, You Know

Fun in Florida in March for Scott Walker
at $5,000 per-person fundraiser
When former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson finally acceded to GOP pleas to run for the U.S. Senate in 2012, many GOP politicos were pleased.

The race between Thompson and now Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) became a toss-up, instead lean-Democratic race.

Wisconsin, with a Democratic ticket that included Baldwin, President Obama and many other progressive forces mobilized voters, and easily beat the national voter turn-out of 58 percent with Wisconsin's turnout at 70 percent, near the top of the nation.

Wisconsin GOP forces of course want that 70-percent figure lower.

Baldwin decisively beat Thompson, 51 percent to 45 percent.

Baldwin won her race with a campaign that stressed her long career of public service; and a long career on the part of Thompson who morphed dramatically into a tool for huge-moneyed, anti-public interests.

"Tommy Thompson: He's not for you anymore," became the defining theme of the campaign.

Thompson had in so many words turned: Corrupt and hypocritical ... there's Thompson and his black limo in D.C., living it up as a lobbyist and making $Millions.

It's no stretch to see that the national Republican Party, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan and the Wisconsin Republican Party are equally corrupt.

Tammy Baldwin - (In These Times; Dec. 28, 1992)
- One month after first being elected to
the Wisconsin State Assembly. -
In the 2012 US Senate race, Baldwin hammered
GOP champ, Tommy Thompson as corrupt
Look for this message to get through.
Take Scott Walker.

In rejecting $4 billion in federal Medicaid money, Scott Walker actually said: "I care too much about the people of this state not to empower them to control their own destiny." (Stein. Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Feb. 13, 2013)

Okay then, Scott Walker.

You will be rejecting all tax-payer-financed money paying for your family health plan, your pension, meals, transportation and your housing.

Yes? We're sure you don't want to disempower yourself with all this public assistance.

Retroactively, we can assume, you will be paying back public money to the state of Wisconsin and Milwaukee County, for the past 20 years, correct? And not from your campaign fund; we'll take it from you checking account, please.

Oct 26, 2011

Assembly Votes Down Resolution on Gallery Dressware with Information

Ejected for holding camera
- Party-line vote on resolution in state Assembly says no message on your clothes, no expression on your dressware -

Think silently wearing a shirt with the First Amendment text while sitting in the Assembly Gallery is your right? Silently holding a copy of the U.S. or Wisconsin constitutions is your right?

No, say Assembly Republicans. This is not hyperbole. The GOP claims it has the power to eject you, and they have done just that with 10-15 armed police acting under orders of the Sergeant of Arms and the GOP leadership.

Crazy time with these Republicans.

Emily Mills reports:

Toward the end of the Assembly's floor session Tuesday night, a resolution introduced by Reps. Mark Pocan and Chris Taylor to suspend a rule forbidding anyone sitting in the gallery from having or holding signs was voted down on a party-line vote of 35-57. ... many Democratic representatives wore buttons during the session displaying the text of the First Amendment.
The Republicans believe whatever assembly rules or interpretation of rules they make outweigh the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions, and all statutes. The police, reportedly often reluctantly, follow along with Republican orders.

Oct 24, 2011

Wisconsin Republicans Order Forceful Removal of Citizens for Wearing First Amendment Shirts

Update: See What is Happening in Fitzwalkerstan IS ILLEGAL! and Bill would allow police to arrest people for violating administrative codes at the Capitol, i.e. shirt with the Bill of Rights visable, ala Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (99-1408) 532 U.S. 318 (2001).

Madison, Wisconsin—This is the life of citizens under the Republican Party rule: Armed officers ejecting citizens from public meetings.

And this is Republican rule not representation, having people silently sitting in the state assembly gallery forcefully removed as some 10 capitol police banish Wisconsin citizens to repeat: For wearing shirts!

What are Republicans afraid of?

Will any Republican object? Do they even pretend to believe in liberty?

Now, Republicans are ordering that they not be filmed. Watch and listen below. Republicans believe citizens are "guests" and not citizens.

Wisconsin State Statue 19.90 - Whenever a governmental body hold a meeting in open session, the body shall make make a reasonable effort to accommodate any person desiring to record, film or photograph the meeting.The Republican state assembly says: No.
From Debi Johnson-Champ:
Representative Frederick Kessler, (D-Milwaukee) from the 12th District, took to the floor and calmly but emphatically placed on the record:
'Mr. Speaker I just noticed that moments ago another person was removed from the Gallery for wearing a sign. And I have to say, in my opinion, the First Amendment is pretty absolute. The right to petition the government is a freedom that’s guaranteed by our First Amendment. And I’m deeply troubled when I see people being removed from the gallery for not speaking but merely wearing a sign. Those are First Amendment rights that are absolute, they’re absolute in the context of petitioning the government and I strongly object to people being removed from the Gallery because they are wearing items that express political opinion. Thank you Mister Speaker.'
Representative Terese Bereau, (D-Madison), District 76, then took the floor and questioned the need of “10 officers at taxpayers’ expense” to escort quiet spectators out of the Gallery for wearing t-shirts with messages taped on them, when many visitors are allowed to remain in the Gallery with t-shirts containing printed messages on them.
Perhaps one of the most interesting, if not bizarre, confrontations took place between a woman and two officers that informed the woman that she would have to either remove her t-shirt or leave the Gallery. She demonstrated that she had not used tape but had sewn the top of the message onto her t-shirt and the befuddled officers left without any additional action being taken.

She pondered the idea that a piece of string was the only difference between her and the ones that were removed. One has to ponder what the hell is happening in Wisconsin on almost every given day under the Walker administration.


Oct 6, 2011

Reuters: Execution by Secret White House Committee

Anwar al-Awlaki, the White House and President Barack Obama.
 - Image: Muhammad ud-Deen/iStockphoto: P_Wei/AP -


Would you trust a country and political culture that imprisons the largest proportion of its citizens, will not renounce torture, and aids and abets the terror state of Israel to make a prudent, secret call on political assassinations of American citizens? Democratic Party Loyalists say: Trust us.

The Obama administration's refusal to hold the Bush-Cheney regime accountable for myriad crimes looks less like a political calculation and more like a policy agreement, to state what should be obvious now with this latest revelation.

By Glenn Greenwald

Here is what the Democratic President has created and implemented, and what many party loyalists explicitly endorse (when there’s a Democrat in the White House) — from Reuters:
American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions . . . . There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council . . . . Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate. . . . The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process. . . .

Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing. The process involves “going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president” . . . .Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described. They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC “principals,” meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval . . . But one official said Obama would be notified of the principals’ decision. If he objected, the decision would be nullified, the official said.
So a panel operating out of the White House — that meets in total secrecy, with no known law or rules governing what it can do or how it operates — is empowered to place American citizens on a list to be killed by the CIA, which (by some process nobody knows) eventually makes its way to the President, who is the final Decider. It is difficult to describe the level of warped authoritarianism necessary to cause someone to lend their support to a twisted Star Chamber like that; I genuinely wonder whether the Good Democrats doing so actually first convince themselves that if this were the Bush White House’s hit list, or if it becomes Rick Perry’s, they would be supportive just the same. Seriously: if you’re willing to endorse having White House functionaries meet in secret — with no known guidelines, no oversight, no transparency — and compile lists of American citizens to be killed by the CIA without due process, what aren’t you willing to support?

Of all the things I’ve seen over the past several years, easily one of the most repellent has been the number of people — especially journalists — who are running around definitively asserting that Awlaki had an “operational role” in Terrorist plots and had “taken up arms” against the U.S. even though they have no idea whether that’s actually true (Politico‘s Roger Simon: “U.S. citizen living overseas and plotting the death of American citizens from, let’s say, Yemen, you can say hello to our little friends, the 100-lb. Hellfires”; Josh Marshall: Awlaki was “a key leader of an international terrorist group, organizing and inspiring terrorist attacks within the US” ). Just consider how even the anonymous government officials who spoke to Reuters in order to defend the Awlaki killing characterize the “evidence” they have to support that claim:
The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks.

But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki’s hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy.

For instance, one plot in which authorities have said Awlaki was involved Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner on Christmas Day 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underpants.

There is no doubt Abdulmutallab was an admirer or follower of Awlaki, since he admitted that to U.S. investigators. . . . But at the time the White House was considering putting Awlaki on the U.S. target list, intelligence connecting Awlaki specifically to Abdulmutallab and his alleged bomb plot was partial. Officials said at the time the United States had voice intercepts involving a phone known to have been used by Awlaki and someone who they believed, but were not positive, was Abdulmutallab.
Someone spoke to someone on “a phone known to have been used by Awlaki”: maybe it was Abdulmutallab, maybe it wasn’t. Maybe it was Awlaki, maybe it wasn’t. Who knows? Who cares? Some officials “believed” it may have involved those two, so it’s time to kill Awlaki. Remember, Good Democrats hate the death penalty because they think it’s so terribly barbaric to execute people whose guilt is in doubt (even if, unlike Awlaki, they’ve enjoyed an indictment and full jury trial, lawyers, the right to examine evidence and to confront witnesses, multiple appeals, and habeas petitions). There’s also this:
Awlaki was also implicated in a case in which a British Airways employee was imprisoned for plotting to blow up a U.S.-bound plane. E-mails retrieved by authorities from the employee’s computer showed what an investigator described as ” operational contact” between Britain and Yemen.

Authorities believe the contacts were mainly between the U.K.-based suspect and his brother. But there was a strong suspicion Awlaki was at the brother’s side when the messages were dispatched.
There was a “strong suspicion” — not that Awlaki participated in this email plotting, but that he was “at the side” of someone who did. Who needs “beyond a reasonable doubt’? That is so pre-9/11. ”A strong suspicion” that he may have been next to someone plotting an attack: that’s the McCarthyite standard Democratic Party loyalists are holding up to justify the due-process-free execution of their fellow citizen by a secret, lawless White House “panel.”

What’s crucial to keep in mind is that nobody can see this “evidence” which these anonymous government officials are claiming exists. It’s in their exclusive possession. As a result, they’re able to characterize it however they want, to present it in the best possible light to support their pro-assassination position, and to prevent any detection of its flaws. As any lawyer will tell you, anyone can make a case for anything when they’re in exclusive possession of all the relevant evidence and are the only side from whom one is hearing; all evidence becomes less compelling when it’s subjected to adversarial scrutiny. Yet even given all those highly favorable pro-government conditions here, it’s obvious — even these officials admit — that the evidence is “partial,” “patchy,” based on “suspicions” rather than knowledge.

But no matter. Officials in the Obama White House and then the President decreed in secret that Awlaki should die. So the U.S. Government killed him. Republicans who always cheer acts of violence against Muslims are joined by Democrats who reflexively cheer what this Democratic President does, and now this death panel for U.S. citizens — operating with no known rules, transparency, or oversight — is entrenched as bipartisan consensus and a permanent fixture of American political life. I’m sure this will never be abused: unrestrained power exercised in secret has a very noble history in the U.S. (Reuters says that the only American they could confirm on the hit list is Awlaki, though Dana Priest reported last year that either three or four Americans were on a hit list).

Anyway, look over there: wasn’t it outrageous how George Bush imprisoned people without any due process and tried to seize unrestrained power, and isn’t it horrifying what a barbaric death cult Republicans are for favoring executions even when there’s doubt about guilt? Even for those deeply cynical about American political culture: wouldn’t you have thought a few years ago that having the President create a White House panel to place Americans on a CIA hit list — in secret, without a shred of due process — would be a bridge too far?

UPDATE: I don’t think it’s dispositive of the question here — because the U.S. Government isn’t permitted to murder fugitives who aren’t violently resisting apprehension and, in any event, Awlaki was never a fugitive since he was never indicted by the U.S. for anything — but Robert Farley persuasively highlights the baselessness of the excuse that Awlaki could not have been apprehended (and he also documents how dubious, uncertain and filled with doubt is the case against Awlaki generally).

Whistleblowers Charge VA Loan Fraud-Sue 13 lenders

By Jann Swanson
Three law firms are seeking participants in a class action law suit seeking damages from 13 lenders for alleged fraudagainst borrowers seeking Veterans Administration (VA) home loans. The suit charges that the lenders charged fees for their loans which were unallowable under VA mortgage rules, an action that technically, according to the suit, invalidated the VA guarantee.

The suit, U.S. ex rel, Victor E. Bibby & Brian J. Donnelly v the defendants listed below, was originally filed in 2006 by two "whistleblowers" who were also mortgage brokers. The suit was refiled by the three law firms in the U.S. District Court for the Northern Division of Georgia this past June and is brought as a qui tam lawsuit, a civil proceeding that is used by whistleblowers to help the government stop many kinds of fraud such as Medicare or defense contractor fraud, and recover monies that have been stolen from the U.S. Treasury and taxpayers. In a qui tam suit a whistleblower can win large rewards representing a portion of the civil recovery.

Listed as defendants are Wells Fargo Bank, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase Bank, GMAC Mortgage, CitiMortgage, Suntrust Mortgage, Washington Mutual Bank, PNC Bank (which acquired National City Mortgage Co.), Countrywide Home Loans, Mortgage Investors Corp., First Tennessee Bank (which acquired First Horizon Home Loan Corp.), Irwin Mortgage Corp. and New Freedom Mortgage Corp.

The premise for the suit rests on a VA rule that certain fees typical to a real estate transaction i.e. attorneys' fees or settlement closing fees are not allowed in closing a VA loan for the purpose of refinancing. The defendants allegedly charged these fees but disguised them as allowable fee entries on HUD settlement statements. For example, the lender might charge a settlement fee of $400, but rather than entering that amount on the line provided in the statement where it would be disallowed it might be bundled into the fee for a title search, increasing what would normally be an allowable $150 charge to $550.

Read full article here: Mortgagenewsdaily

Sep 23, 2011

Santorum: Gay Soldiers Will Cause Many to Leave U.S. Mil

Active-service troop, Stephen Hill, booed by GOP audience

GOP tests the bottom in striking anti-American display of fanaticism and hate

By Igor Volsky

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) doubled down on his commitment to reinstating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell during an appearance on Fox & Friends this morning, telling co-host Gretchen Carlson that the nation hasn’t “even begun seeing the consequences” of repeal.



Perhaps projecting his own feelings towards LGBT people, the former Pennsylvania senator said he worried that soldiers will feel “uncomfortable” and “odd” around openly gay servicemembers:
The night Republicans booed a deployed, U.S. soldier
SANTORUM: The man and women who sign up for the military are now going to be placed in very difficult and uncomfortable personal situations, very close quarter situations…We got to recruit people who would want to do this and now you’re going to put them in a very odd and uncomfortable environment. A lot of people, I believe are going to leave a lot of people aren’t going to join who otherwise would have joined, and that’s going to hurt our ratings, it’s going to hurt our ability to defend this country, and we shouldn’t be playing social experimentation….There is no role for playing sexual experimentation games in the United States military.
During last night’s GOP presidential debate in Orlando, Florida, Santorum told Stephen Hill — a gay soldier who served in Iraq — that “any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military,” as the audience booed Hill’s service. Santorum wasn’t asked about and didn’t address the reaction.

Sep 20, 2011

Repeal Day - Don't Ask, Don't Tell Ended

As some of the estimated 49,000
active-duty gay troops come
forward when the law barring gays
from serving openly goes ends,
a Military Times poll shows tolerance
of open service continues to rise.
John McCain, the religious right and bigots of all stripes quake in moral terror at the thought that equality, civil rights and duty ought drive service in the U.S. military
The Department of Defense has a special website, laudable, and almost comical on answering questions arising from the historic repeal reflecting the ignorance and cowardice of so many Americans turning their backs on their fellows. You don't stand for the rights of your fellow Americans, what do you stand for?

"Repeal Day Memo" reads the top sub-head, an example of how ridiculous are so many in the American Evangelical, Dominionist movement who read today's headlines in horror.



President Barack Obama
"As of September 20th, service members will no longer be forced to hide who they are in order to serve our country. Our military will no longer be deprived of the talents and skills of patriotic Americans just because they happen to be gay or lesbian."
President of the United States
July 22, 2011

Secretary Leon E. Panetta
"All men and women who serve this nation in uniform -- no matter their race, color, creed, religion, or sexual orientation -- do so with great dignity, bravery, and dedication. As secretary of defense, I am committed to promoting an environment free from personal, social, or institutional barriers that prevent service members from rising to the highest level of responsibility that their talents and capabilities warrant."
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta
July 22, 2011

Navy Adm. Mike Mullen
“My confidence in our ability to accomplish this work rests primarily on the fact that our people are capable, well-led and thoroughly professional. I have never served with finer men and women. They will, I am certain, carry out repeal and continue to serve this country with the same high standards and dignity that have defined the U.S. military throughout our history.”

Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff
July 22, 2011

Sep 17, 2011

Wisconsin GOP Targets Madison City Police, Citizens

GOP's nightmare

Wisconsin's counter-offensive against GOP-Tea Party attacks on the working class has provoked the Wisconsin Republican Party to declare political war against anyone, including now the city of Madison police who remain committed to the First Amendment and Article 1 rights of Wisconsinites protesting the Koch brothers and the GOP

The echos of the pioneering civil rights activist and Madison Police Chief David Couper [Marine, Chief of Police in Madison from 1972-1993] live on in current Madison Police Chief Noble Wray to the consternation of the GOP.

The GOP cannot stand any challenge to what it views as its authority over the public. No protests. Close the capitol. Police must enforce the will of the Party.

People assemble and make their voices known. Nein, nein, nein!

To understand the GOP mind, consider the reaction to Wisconsinites gathering together to express their discontent with the Scott Walker regime this year:

GOP Locks Capitol Down, U.S. Rep Obey (1969-2011) denied entry into capitol



Contra the Madison police and Dane County Sheriff's office who refused to be Walker's palace guard, Wisconsin capitol police chief, Charles Tubbs, dishonored his office, catering to the Department of Administration Walker lackeys in closing the capitol on orders form the Party.

After Scott Walker "dropped the bomb" on Wisconsin citizens, a stark image from March is of a Wisconsin legislator [Nick Milroy (D-South Grange)] being tackled to the ground for trying to get to his office as Walker unlawfully closed down the capitol.



Republicans are so hostile to the idea of a democratic republic that a judge had to order the Wisconsin capitol open to the public in early March.

Other examples of GOP hostility to democracy abound today.

U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan’s office threatened constituents with arrest and investigation.

Now, Wisconsin Republicans are declaring open war on Madison police leadership with a racial slap at Police Chief Noble Wray.

Chief Noble Wray told a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter that questions about his department's conduct during the protests constitute "almost a slap in the face."

As John Peterson writes, "The myth of violence, vandalism and thuggery during the protests is the lie their pushing, repeating and burning into the mind of Wisconsinites who weren’t there. It’s like George W. Bush said, 'catapulting the propaganda.'"

There is a clear choice, and the fight against anti-democratic forces is worth joining.

Sep 15, 2011

Rick Perry Bashes President Obama in Israeli Newspaper

Jews as seen by the religious right
Rick Perry is bidding for the political support of rightwing American Jewry by publishing an anti-Obama screed in the Jerusalem Post, attempting as well to fracture the Democratic Party coalition in which some 80 percent of Jews vote Democratic.

Attacking a sitting American president vis a vis Israel in this manner is an un-American pursuit no matter, as John Aravosis writes, it's simply Perry playing for votes:
Actually, Perry is trying to tick off American Jews and turn them against Obama. Of course, Republican religious zealots like Perry are only bff with Israel because they need Israel (to burn, actually) in order for the Second Coming of Christ to happen. Yeah, the far right running the Republican party don't often mention that fact - that Israel needs to exist so 2/3 of all Jews worldwide can die a horrible death in order to welcome Jesus back - when they're touting their support for Israel's right to exist.

If Perry is such a supporter of Israel, ask him if Jews are going to hell.
Perry doesn't care about Jews one way or another beyond the fact that the right is looking to chip away at President Obama's political support.

But the half-baked maneuver won't play out any better than Sarah Palin's wearing a Star of David pin suddenly convinced a multitude of Jews to get behind her campaign-like thing.

Republican strategists are hot on the topic for now, in their ignorance not realizing that progressive American Jews subscribe to ethical principles and not mythical notions of raciology or Old Testament metaphysics.

In Jonathan S. Tobin piece in Commentary published on 9/11, Tobin signaled Perry's move writing:
Though the Democrats are still in a relatively strong position vis-à-vis Jews, they know Obama is a weak incumbent who has already lost the trust of this community. Their only hope to extend their winning streak among Jews is to demonize their Republican foes.
How do you demonize a bunch of religious fanatics who think Jews are consigned to "rivers of blood"?

Tobin and Perry don't address the question.

Neither are serious writers on the topic, merely representative of the American rightwing.

Let's hope the question of Rick Perry, a presidential candidate, making common cause with those attacking a sitting American president in a foreign newspaper is addressed.

In the mean time it bears noting that Obama’s policy toward Israel is disappointing in that Israeli human rights violations have continued; an American citizen was murdered by Israel in international waters and Obama has not been sufficiently humanistic in challenging the Likud [and neo-fascist] parties' militarism, bigotry and massacres in the occupied territories

Rick Perry's Execution of the Innocent Is a Moral Disqualification

Rick Perry - so tough he killed an innocent man
Update: BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court Grants Stay of Execution to Duane Edward Buck
The personal inadequacies of Rick Perry that drove him to preside over the killing of an innocent man, launching a cover up in 2008 by firing members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission in possession of and about to make public evidence demonstrating that there is no scientific basis for claiming the executed man committed a crime [the evidence in fact exonerated the execution victim, Cameron Todd Willingham] provoked a significant reaction in Rick Perry: Kill more people.

Message: I am so tough.

"At the end of the day I am always going to be erring on the side of life," said Perry in defence of his impenetrable position on another issue, mandatory HPV vaccinations.

Why?
But for the innocent man Cameron Todd Willingham, Perry did not err on the side of life; he knowingly presided over the execution, and fired the government officials who would scientifically establish Rick Perry as what he is: Co-conspirator in the state murder of Cameron Todd Willingham.

In most countries this would be a disqualification for high elected office.

In Texas capital punishment of the innocent or guilty is practically a prerequisite for elected high office as in the case of Rick Perry's 234 executions committed during his tenure, pandering to the crude bloodlust of many Americans and what Amanda Marcotte calls the "mean-spirited ignorance that rules Texas politics."

Erwin Knoll, the former editor of The Progressive Magazine, wrote once in calling for non-violence from the African National Congress (with whom Knoll made common cause as the ANC fought US-Israeli-supported Apartheid in South Africa) that violence deafens the ears and blinds the eyes to the suffering of others.

Yes, violence does accomplish sensory, cognitive and human dullness.

But don't look for network and cable infotainment shows to carry screaming headlines on why Rick Perry is stonewalling the American people on killing an innocent man. There is no popular demand.

And there are few in American government as Illinois Gov. George H. Ryan who in an inspiring moral stand "in January of 2000, after 13 people sentenced to death row were found to have been wrongfully convicted ... took the unprecedented step of declaring a moratorium on executions. ... Gov. Ryan said, 'Until I can be sure, with moral certainty, that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate.'" [Stop Capital Punishment Now]

No such human mettle exists in Rick Perry, who parades his piety and religiosity hand-in-hand with his corruption and unrepentant killing of an innocent.
---
By Amanda Marcotte

When Rick Perry threw his hat into the ring for the Republican presidential nomination, it set off such a collective cringe among liberal Texans that it likely scored on the Richter scale. Being a native Texan with basic respect for modern civilisation means living in a constant state of low-grade humiliation, as the state's size provides an uninterrupted stream of news stories highlighting the cranks and Bible-thumpers who win state and local offices – but a presidential campaign means exponentially expanding the amount of national and international attention paid to the streak of mean-spirited ignorance that rules Texas politics. With Rick Perry, this means a whole lot more coverage of the fact that Texas is the "killingest" state in the entire union, having executed more than four times as many prisoners as the next contender in this gruesome contest.

Of course, we of the non-barbaric sort do hope that all this attention paid to Rick Perry's willingness to execute anyone on death row – no matter how obviously screwed over by an imperfect and often unjust judicial system – could somehow provoke enough national shame that we actually do away with the death penalty. Which we really need to do, not because we have any great love for vicious murderers, but because the death penalty is a known destroyer of a fair and sober-minded justice system.

Once you have the right to kill people, the voters start expecting semi-regular bloodshed as proof that you're doing your job, creating incentives for prosecutors and politicians to cut corners to get those voter-pleasing cadaver numbers up. Each new generation of prosecutors and politicians feels pressure to "best" their predecessor in the number of executions carried out, lest they face accusations of being soft on crime. Which explains why they soon find themselves where Rick Perry stands, having executed 234 people, many of whom had highly corrupt trials and at least one of whom is most likely innocent.

For those who haven't read the tale of Cameron Todd Willingham, I implore you to read the New Yorker article recounting the case of a man executed for killing his three children based on shoddy evidence and prosecutorial willingness to introduce Willingham's love of Iron Maiden and Led Zeppelin as evidence in order to stoke the prejudices of a Bible Belt jury that was high on fundamentalist tall tales about the Satanic influence of rock music. When presented with an opportunity to spare Willingham's life, Perry declined, and in 2004, Willingham was executed by lethal injection. His case has come to symbolise the circus atmosphere around capital murder cases, and the way that the eagerness to see someone pay the ultimate price for the loss of innocent human life causes law enforcement and politicians to make a mockery out of the idea of justice.

Since Rick Perry, by his own admission, has never lost sleep over the execution of a likely innocent man, you can bet justice doesn't stand a chance when it comes to cases where the fact of homicide is indisputable. The public's desire to get blood for blood – especially if they can view the accused as an outsider – turns concerns about due process to dust for anyone whose job depends on a high conviction rate. Subsequently, death penalty cases where the prosecution won a clean conviction without relying on shoddy evidence or a jury's unfair prejudices are the rare gems in a sea of corruption. The case of Duane Buck, scheduled to be executed this week, demonstrates how the death penalty is more about hustling prisoners to the execution chamber to score points with the public than it is securing just and safe outcomes.

Even hyper-conservative Senator John Cornyn, once Texas's attorney general, wanted Buck's case reviewed, due to a prosecutorial witness's claim that Buck was more likely to be violent in the future because he's black. That someone's race was overtly invoked as a reason to kill him during trial should be indicator enough that the death penalty has meaning for the public beyond alleviating concerns about violent crime. But evidence of racism invoked during the trial probably won't bother Perry: if he had a conscience about signing off on overtly unfair executions, it probably stopped bothering him somewhere much earlier in his run of 234 executions as Texas governor.

The death penalty is wrong not because murderers deserve better, but because the death penalty appeals to the worst instincts of humanity. We see innocent people die, and our lizard brains want to believe that it won't be right until someone pays for blood with blood. That desire starts to overrule all other priorities. Our desire for a fair trial system and our desire to treat people equally despite racial differences are the first to go. But given enough time, we're even willing to send a man to the death chambers for what appears to have been an accident. Three small children are dead, and we want someone to pay, no matter the innocence of the someone we select.

Perry's willingness to execute a man who was almost certainly innocent comes uncomfortably close to regressing to the days of human sacrifice. Sacrificing an innocent man won't prevent other houses from accidentally catching fire and killing the innocent people inside, but it's clear that Perry will not hesitate to pander to voters who cling to hopes that periodic blood-letting will somehow save us all.

- Amanda Marcotte co-writes the blog Pandagon. She is the author of It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments.