Monday, December 30, 2013

Benghazi - The Facts are in - Republicans Enter "Ignore the Facts" Mode

The reality in Benghazi was Different, and Murkier, than either the YouTube Video Scenario, or the Republicans Claim that it was a Planned Attack by Al-Qaeda Suggests

Photo by NY Times
  Let's be real, we all know that politicians sometimes stretch the truth to say the least. Sometimes they out right lie, which has always disturbed me as far as why they are allowed to use the media to say things they know are false willingly, and without consequence. Both the Republican and Democratic parties often issue "talking points" for there members and surrogates to use whether it be for a campaign, or for a current issue they expect the media to inquire about. Benghazi was one of such incidents that the Republicans were relentless on. They viciously attacked The President, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice after she went on that Sunday's news magazine shows. The attacks were premature, in that the facts were not known when the Romney campaign made a crucial error in attacking the President for not protecting the Benghazi embassy while events were evolving. Fox News video from May 23, 2013 They made it a political issue when in fact it was a national security issue that was still unfolding. The republicans held numerous hearings and the attacks continued relentlessly and were still going on up to the time of the NT Times article came out on Saturday. At that point House Intelligence Committee chairman Darrell Issa and those advising him decided he was to go on the Sunday news shows and use their new talking points on how to deal with the new facts, ignore them. Double down on what they had been accusing the White House and the Democrats of, that being everything from cover-ups to negligence to lying about what happened. At this point, after a extensive investigation facts are finally clear, but that won't stop the Republicans in the least, from making up whatever they think should be taken from what actually happened.
 

 "A Deadly Mix in Benghazi" by David D. Kirkpatrick, in the New York Times, December 28, 2013, reveals the actual FACTS about what happened. This has caused House Intelligence Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA49) and other Republicans to enter the "Ignore The Facts" mode.

 Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

 Fifteen months after Mr. Steven's death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.

 One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.

 The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

 The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs. Read the entire article

 Yesterday, in an article "Darrell Issa and Mike Rogers Still Think Al-Qaeda is Involved" by The Wire - The Sunday Grind by Conner Simpson, Darrell Issa and Mike Rogers started delivering the Republicans response and talking points. What they did was to ignore the facts, refuse to acknowledge the truth, and out right lie, about what happened in Benghazi and how they handled it. The article said: The New York Times reported local militias were responsible for the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed three Americans, that Al Qaeda played no role, and that anger was stoked by an anti-Muslim Youtube video. Darrell Issa and Mike Rogers are still convinced Al Qaeda was behind the attack. Darrell's response was to deny that it wasn't Al-Qaeda and that it had nothing to do with the video. It really disturbs me when these politicians just decide to ignore the truth, even after it's widely known, and to use the media to just make up whatever suits them as to what did, or didn't happen in a given circumstance.

 Mike Rogers said on Fox News Sunday that the Times report doesn't square with intelligence reports he has seen on the attack. "I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that," Rogers said, referring to the notion anger over the video fueled the attacks. Host Chris Wallace asked the House Intelligence Committee chairman whether he thinks the report was designed to wash Hillary Clinton's hands of any responsibility. “I find the timing odd,” Rogers said. “I don’t want to speculate on why they might do it.” Really?!

 I guess this is there world and we're just living in it. The talking points and "preferred" version of the Republican Party have always been 1) The attack was conducted by Al-Qaeda, 2) The Obama White House tried to cover-up that fact prior to the election, and 3) there was no connection to an American-made video that had sparked riots earlier that day in Egypt. But now we know, thanks to David Kirkpatrick, the author of the NY Times article that that is simply no way the case. The author says "The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive Air Power and Logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi, and contrary to claims by some members of Congress it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-Made video denigrating Islam."

That should be the end of the conspiracy right? Ooh no, the Republicans want to continue with their version of what happened and tie it to a Hillary Clinton run for President. Why not, just ignore the truth and make it up as you go along. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) on MSNBC Live today said the report is "accurate" and said "many months ago we (the Congress) got a classified briefing that this report seems to be clearly in line with," and went on to say that "unfortunately some of my Republican colleagues seem to be hell-bent on using this tragedy to further their political ends, they were wrong and as this article shows, they are wrong now." 

When Representative Eliot was asked was he surprised by what Darrell Issa said on the Sunday news shows yesterday, he said no, because I've heard him before, he has known he was wrong then, and he knows he is wrong now."  He said Hillary was an excellent Secretary of State and there was a commission that made recommendations as to Benghazi, she not only implemented them but added to them, so it never happens again. He said, in response to "will the Republicans try to use their version to slow Hillary down should she run for President?" "I think intelligent people can come to intelligent conclusions."

I'm not looking forward to all the lies and just plain garbage that is sure to come.


Saturday, December 28, 2013

Still Wondering Why CEO's Haven't Gone To Jail Over The Financial Crisis?

The Absolute Best Article Ever On "Why No CEO's Are Being Prosecuted For Causing The Financial Crisis Goes To DailyKos

Thanks to notionscapital.wordpress.com
 Below are parts of an article that is based on a Federal Judge, Judge Jed S. Rakoff who is a sitting Judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York--the nerve center of the financial world. I was so taken by the facts and courage of this Judge I had to share the story here in m y blog. I long thought that the main reason that no CEO's were being prosecuted for causing the financial crisis because as I remember the SEC actually had desks inside some of the financial institutions supposedly to be auditing them in real time, yet all the fraud went on right beneath their noses. The bottom line being that government officials responsible for protecting the public were either the most incompetent, inept, and stupid, people ever to hold the positions they did, or, were guilty of being part of the fraud that almost brought down the world economy through greed. The financial crisis deemed "The Great Recession" stole from American people their homes, their net worth, their retirement savings, their 401k's, almost everything. We know that the people who have the money have the power by way of influence, because they give politicians money through campaigns and many other ways. We may even suspect that officials actions are bought from time-to-time, but we will probably never see what this Judge believes would be best thing for us, a deterrent. A deterrent created by sending a few of these Chief Executive Officers (CEO's,) Chief Financial Officers (CFO's,) Chief Operating Officers (COO's,) or at least some Principles in the firms, to prison, for enough time that other CEO's and the like would never want to do anything like they did leading up to 2008-2009. Prison meaning an actual prison, not a country club is an important part of creating that deterrent. See the  excerpts below, and there is a link to the DailyKos article at end of which I think you may chose to use. Also I highly recommend you utilize the "essay" link I've put in the second paragraph. I offer my best compliments to Dartagnan of the DailyKos for a great article.

Reprinted excerpts from DailyKos - Why No CEO's Were Prosecuted For Causing The Financial Crisis - December 25, 2013:

"If you prosecute a CEO or other senior executive and send him or her to jail for committing a crime, the deterrent effect in my view vastly outweighs even the best compliance program you can put in place."

It's unusual for a Federal Judge to weigh in on specific matters that could conceivably come before his Bench.  It's even more unusual when those matters involve politically sensitive issues of national policy. A hard-hitting essay published recently in The New York Review Of Books by a 70-year old active United States District Judge has raised eyebrows for doing just that.

Judge Jed S. Rakoff sits for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York--the nerve center of the financial world.  A Clinton appointee and former Federal prosecutor, he stunned the SEC in 2011 by rejecting a proposed 285 million dollar settlement between the U.S. and Citigroup in a case where Citigroup had been accused of misleading investors through the sale and packaging of collateralized debt obligations.  Rakoff's rationale for rejecting that settlement--which he characterized as "pocket change"--was that Citigroup was not required to admit culpability.  The SEC changed its position on this practice after this ruling. 

His essay, linked above, suggests several reasons and leads to at least one unsettling conclusion: that the Justice Department believes governmental officials' actions tacitly if not directly abetted and enabled the crisis to the point where prosecuting corporate CEO's would simply end up implicating the U.S. government.

 But if, by contrast, the Great Recession was in material part the product of intentional fraud, the failure to prosecute those responsible must be judged one of the more egregious failures of the criminal justice system in many years. Indeed, it would stand in striking contrast to the increased success that federal prosecutors have had over the past fifty years or so in bringing to justice even the highest-level figures who orchestrated mammoth frauds. READ MORE

[T]he stated opinion of those government entities asked to examine the financial crisis overall is not that no fraud was committed. Quite the contrary. For example, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, in its final report, uses variants of the word “fraud” no fewer than 157 times in describing what led to the crisis, concluding that there was a “systemic breakdown,” not just in accountability, but also in ethical behavior.

As the commission found, the signs of fraud were everywhere to be seen...


 Rakoff then systematically dissects the Justice Department's three predominant excuses for their failure to prosecute individuals who undoubtedly fostered the conditions that led to the financial meltdown of 2008. The first--the difficulty of proving intent (an essential element to prove fraud), he finds weak.  Judge Rakoff believes that given the scale of the abuse the Justice Department would be capable of eliciting enough evidence to prove conscious disregard, or "willful blindness" on the part of corporate CEO's and officers whose companies engaged in these transactions.  In a Federal criminal trial for fraud, conscious disregard can and does qualify as "intent."
The second excuse, that proof of "reliance" would be difficult since the parties to these transactions were sophisticated investors--he dismisses fairly out of hand. The criminal standard for fraud requires no such proof, and he explains why.
Finally, the Justice Department--specifically Attorney General Eric Holder--has raised the possibility that such prosecutions might result in economic harm to the country.  Rakoff believes that for a Federal official charged with enforcing the law this position--the "too big to jail" position-- is disturbing, to say the least.  He notes that Holder recalibrated his remarks and said they had been misconstrued, but in any event this leads Rakoff to his central point--that this concern evaporates if individuals are targeted, rather than institutions.
Rakoff believes that the high-profile prosecution of individual CEO's would have a far greater deterrent effect than do the prosecutions of the companies they work for. So if Justice's excuses are hollow, what is the real reason these prosecutions haven't occurred?  Rakoff tacks off the familiar justifications: First, because agents who could have worked the cases were transferred to anti-terrorism duty after 9/11; second, that the SEC operates under a very limited budget, limited even more by Congressional Republicans; and finally that the potential cases were parceled out to assistant US Attorneys with a greater personal interest in prosecuting "run-of-the-mill" financial fraud such as insider trading because of their immediate payoff.
None of these explanations is particularly satisfactory to him given the scope of the harm done. This brings him to to his second, more alarming point--that the government's own role in fostering the events that led to the crisis has had a chilling effect on prosecutors:
...Even before the start of the housing boom, it was the government, in the form of Congress, that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, thus allowing certain banks that had previously viewed mortgages as a source of interest income to become instead deeply involved in securitizing pools of mortgages in order to obtain the much greater profits available from trading. It was the government, in the form of both the executive and the legislature, that encouraged deregulation, thus weakening the power and oversight not only of the SEC but also of such diverse banking overseers as the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, both in the Treasury Department. It was the government, in the form of the Federal Reserve, that kept interest rates low, in part to encourage mortgages...[.].
If you read that paragraph carefully you'll notice that--fair or not--no one escapes blame. From the start to the finish, the U.S. government has had its hands in the financial mess, and it was again the U.S. government--recall, for example, the near unanimity between the outgoing Bush and incoming Obama Administrations on TARP-- who readily forgave and immediately bailed out most of the very entities directly responsible for the disaster in the first place.
[W]hat I am suggesting is that the government was deeply involved, from beginning to end, in helping create the conditions that could lead to such fraud, and that this would give a prudent prosecutor pause in deciding whether to indict a CEO who might, with some justice, claim that he was only doing what he fairly believed the government wanted him to do.
And that, my friends, is as good a reason as any why you have seen no prosecutions of high level private financial firm CEOs in connection with their actions leading up to the meltdown. While Rakoff won't come out and say it, the implication is clear--if the elements are there to establish fraud, then the prosecutor's job is to prosecute. But who to prosecute when the CEO starts attributing his actions to the government?  And implicating "the government" always means naming names--from Rubin to Gramm to Clinton to Reagan, and everyone in between. Finally, Rakoff criticizes the trend by the Justice Department towards punishing companies as opposed to the folks who run them, a trend he describes as unfortunate, leading to a familiar dance that looks like this:
Early in the investigation, you invite in counsel to the company and explain to him or her why you suspect fraud. He or she responds by assuring you that the company wants to cooperate and do the right thing, and to that end the company has hired a former assistant US attorney, now a partner at a respected law firm, to do an internal investigation...[.] Six months later the company’s counsel returns, with a detailed report showing that mistakes were made but that the company is now intent on correcting them. You and the company then agree that the company will enter into a deferred prosecution agreement [requiring fines and future compliance requirements]... You are happy because you believe that you have helped prevent future crimes; the company is happy because it has avoided a devastating indictment; and perhaps the happiest of all are the executives, or former executives, who actually committed the underlying misconduct, for they are left untouched.
The fact that this is coming from a Judge who has a history of creating heartburn for the Justice Department simply bolsters its credibility. 

Stanford Law Professor Pam Karlan is Now Our Best Offense Against the Bogus Voter ID Laws - Good Job Prez

The Dept. of Justice Calls in the Big Guns to Combat Voter ID Laws

Photo by www.acslaw.org

 It’s difficult to exaggerate the prominence Stanford Law Professor Pam Karlan enjoys within the progressive legal community. Karlan is one of the most active members of the Supreme Court bar — among other things, she co-authored the brief that convinced the justices to strike down the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act last June. She is a former litigator for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and she is among the most widely regarded voting rights experts in the nation. If President Obama had shown more courage in the early years of his presidency, or if Senate Democrats had deployed the nuclear option sooner, she would be a federal appellate judge today. Many Court watchers, including myself, would choose her if we could place only one person on the Supreme Court.

 So when the Justice Department revealed on Friday that Karlan would become the nation’s top voting rights attorney, it was as if Marsellus Wallace called up the many voters being disenfranchised in states like Texas and North Carolina, and told them that he’s sending The Wolf. READ MORE from ThinkProgress

States That Have Enacted Voter ID Laws Since Republicans Gained Many Governorships and Control of State Legislatures in 2011

 Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin all passed new voter ID laws in their 2011, 2012, or 2013 legislative sessions.  For each state, this memorandum provides: a brief description of the substance of the new law; its effective date; the types of photo IDs accepted; exceptions to the ID requirement, if any; any affidavit alternative to providing a photo ID; the photo ID requirements for early and absentee voting, if any; provisions relating to obtaining free ID; and public education requirements.[1]

 [1] For purposes of this memorandum, “exceptions” to the photo ID requirement refers to categories of voters exempted from providing photo ID to vote.  An “affidavit alternative” is a procedure whereby certain voters without qualifying ID can execute an affidavit to either obtain a regular ballot or to accompany a provisional ballot in lieu of providing photo ID.

Here are just a few of the summaries:

NORTH CAROLINA

Effective Date: Starting in January 2014, poll officials will ask voters for a photo ID (and give notice it will be required in 2016) but no photo ID is required to vote until January 2016.

Acceptable Forms of ID
Every qualified voter shall present photo ID bearing reasonable resemblance to that voter to a local election official before voting.  “Photo identification” means any of the following that contains a photograph and that shall have an expiration date and be unexpired, provided that people over 70 may use an expired ID that was unexpired on their 70th birthday. For ID (4) through (6), no expiration date is required if the issuance date is fewer than 8 years before it is presented.
  • North Carolina driver’s license, including learner’s permit or provisional license.
  • Special non-operator’s identification card
  • Passport
  • Military identification card (no requirement that it have a printed expiration or issuance date)
  • Veteran’s identification card (no requirement that it have a printed expiration or issuance date).
  • Tribal enrollment card
  • A driver’s license or nonoperator’s identification card issued by another state if the voter’s voter registration was within 90 days of the election.
Exemptions from Photo ID Requirement
  • People who, because of age or disability, are permitted to use curbside voting.
  • Religious objectors who have filed a declaration at least 25 days before the election, or who sign declaration in-person at county board of elections after voting provisional ballot.
  • Victims of natural disaster resulting in disaster declaration and occurring within 60 days of the election
  • Law contains no affidavit alternative.
Provisional Ballot Counted if Acceptable Photo ID Later Presented
  • Provisional ballot counted if acceptable ID is presented in person at the county board of elections by noon on the day prior to convening of the election canvass.
Free Photo ID
Registered voters who do not have acceptable photo ID may sign a declaration to such effect and shall be issued an ID card for free after their registration is verified. Such declaration, if false or fraudulent, is a Class I felony.
  • Permits challengers to challenge a voter for failure to present photo ID.
  • Expands types of facilities offering voter registration services
  • Creates Voter Information Verification Advisory Board to assist in election administration.
proof of residence address.
Public Education Requirements
The Elections Director “may advertise the availability and the use of the [voter ID] card,” but this is not required.


 NEW HAMPSHIRE

Effective Date: New Hampshire’s law was first passed on June 27, 2012, after the legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto. In 2013, the list of acceptable forms of ID was amended further, and the effective date is now September 15, 2013.

Photo IDs Permitted
Prior to voting, a voter must provide one of the following valid forms of photo ID (the name on the ID must be “substantially similar” to that of the voter registration record):
  • A driver’s license issued by the state of New Hampshire or any other state;;
  • An identification card issued by the director of motor vehicles;
  • A United States armed services identification card;
  • A United States passport or a passcard;
  • Any other valid photo identification issued by federal, state, county, or municipal government;
  • A valid student identification card (all student identification cards issued after January 1, 2014 are required to have a date of issuance; in all elections before September 1, 2018, student ID cards without a date of expiration or issuance will still be acceptable);
  • A photo identification not authorized specifically above, but determined to be legitimate by the supervisors of the checklist, the moderator, or the town or city clerk
The ID cannot have expired more than five years ago, except that anyone 65 years or older may use an expired form of identification that would otherwise be deemed valid.

Non-Photo IDs Permitted
Verification of the person’s identity by a moderator, supervisor of the checklist, or the town or city clerk is also acceptable.

Affidavit Alternative
There is a qualified voter affidavit that can be filled out and submitted in lieu of presenting photo identification. If the voter submits an affidavit, the voter can cast a regular ballot and a letter of identity verification will be sent by the Secretary of State. The letter will be mailed 60 days after the election, unless it is a primary in which case the letter will be mailed 60 days after the general election, and if the election is a regularly scheduled municipal election, the letter will be mailed by the July 1 or January 1 next following the election.
The Secretary of State will mark the envelope with instructions to the U.S. Post Office not to forward the letter and to provide address correction information. The letter will notify the person that someone who did not present valid photo identification voted using his or her name and address, and instruct the person to return the letter within 90 days which a written confirmation that the person voted, or contact the attorney general immediately. Any letters that are returned as undeliverable or any letters returned saying the person did not vote will be referred to the attorney general for an investigation into fraudulent voting.

Free IDs
The fee for voter identification cards will be $10, with exceptions for people who turn in his or her driver’s license before its expiration date if they are over 65. A person who requires a photo identification card for voting may obtain a voucher from his or her town or city clerk or the Secretary of State exempting the person from the fee.

Public Education Requirements
The Secretary of State will prepare an explanatory document explaining the proof of identity requirements, and will provide copies of the document to all towns and wards so it will be available to all persons registering to vote and at polling places at each election. The Secretary of State will take whatever measures he or she deems necessary to educate the public including displaying the information on the Department of State’s website, and will provide explanatory information to media outlets that request the information and encourage such outlets to assist the department in educating the public.
 
Editor's Note:  While most Voter ID Laws are being passed by Republican Governors, New Hampshire’s law was first passed on June 27, 2012, after the legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto.
 ______________________________________________________________________________

 PENNSYLVANIA

Effective Date: The law was passed with an effective date of March 14, 2012, but it was challenged in Pennsylvania state court and is subject to a preliminary injunction. Under the terms of that injunction, voters may be asked for photo ID at the polls during the November election but voters lacking such ID can still vote a regular ballot.

Photo IDs Permitted
Prior to voting, a voter must provide one of the following valid forms of photo ID:
  • Photo ID issued by the department of transportation that is not more than twelve months past the expiration date;
  • Unexpired photo ID issued by the U.S. government that includes an expiration date;
  • U.S. military photo ID that does not contain an expiration date, but notes that the expiration date is indefinite;
  • Unexpired municipal employee Photo ID that includes an expiration date;
  • Unexpired student photo ID from an accredited public or private higher education institution that includes an expiration date; or
  • Unexpired photo ID from certain state care facilities that includes an expiration date.
Non-Photo IDs Permitted
A voter who has a religious objection to being photographed must provide a valid-without-photo driver’s license or a valid-without-photo ID card issued by the department of transportation.

Limited Exception for Indigent Voters
A voter who is unable to produce the required ID on the grounds that he or she is indigent and cannot obtain such ID for free must cast a provisional ballot, and provide an affirmation to the county board within six days, affirming his or her identity and indigent status, or the ballot will not count.

Absentee Voting ID Requirements
An absentee voter who has been issued a current and valid driver’s license must provide his or her license number. An absentee voter who has not been issued a current and valid driver’s license can provide the last four digits of his or her social security number. A qualified absentee voter who is entitled to vote by absentee ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act or by an alternative ballot under the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act will not be required to provide proof of ID.

Free IDs
The department of transportation must issue free voter ID cards to any registered voter who provide an affirmation that they lack the ID the law requires and require ID for voting purposes.

Public Education Requirements
Between the effective date of the law and September 17, 2012, the photo ID specified in the law will be requested but not required. During this time frame, if any voter who will be required to produce photo ID starting on September 17, 2012 is unable to produce the photo ID requested, election officials will provide him or her with written information about the new law’s requirements.
________________________________________________________________________________

 One of the states laws NOT summarized in the report by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York Law School is Texas' Voter (suppression) ID law and discriminatory gerrymandering.

 In a June 25, 2013 Huffington Post article "Harsh Texas Voter ID Law "immediately" Takes Effect After Voting Rights Act Ruling: WASHINGTON -- Texas will "immediately" enact a voter ID law that a panel of federal judges ruled last year would impose “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor," a top state official said Tuesday. The decision to go forward with a measure that those federal judges called “the most stringent in the country" comes after the Supreme Court ruled that a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional.

 In blocking those redistricting maps last year, a separate panel of federal judges ruled that the government "provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space, or need, to address" in their opinion. Attorney General Eric Holder cited the Texas redistricting case in his statement criticizing the Supreme Court's ruling.

In a  CBS News/AP release on August 30, 2012 "Texas' Voter ID  Law Struck Down in Federal Court they addressed the Voter ID Law and the redistricting (gerrymandering) that's happening in Texas.

 "The court ruled that the new voter identification law in Texas would have an unconstitutional impact on the right to vote for poor people and especially Hispanics and African-Americans - the same minorities who were protected earlier in the week from Republican redistricting by another federal court panel.
This is the third court ruling in the past three days out of the federal courts striking down Republican voter laws. A federal panel on Wednesday blocked a Florida registration measure from continuing in effect. South Carolina's strict photo ID law is on trial in front of another three-judge panel in the same federal courthouse. A court ruling in the South Carolina case is expected in time for the November election.

 An appeal is likely in the Texas case, but there is no guarantee that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to want to get involved in this case, or any of these voting rights case, before the election. On the other hand, the justices in 2008 said that states could impose some voter identification restrictions.
Federal court finds discrimination in new Texas voting maps Earlier in the week, Texas' voting districts were thrown again into upheaval after a federal court found evidence of discrimination in new district maps drawn and approved by the state's Republican-controlled Legislature last year.

 The U.S. District Court in Washington wrote in a 154-page opinion that the maps don't comply with the federal Voting Rights Act because state prosecutors failed to show Texas lawmakers did not draw congressional and state Senate districts "without discriminatory purposes."

 The ruling applies to the maps originally drawn by the Legislature in 2011, and not interim maps drawn by a San Antonio federal court that are to be used in the upcoming elections this November.
CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen said the Supreme Court likely will have the final say the case of voting maps, and it's been quite supportive of Republican redistricting efforts in the recent past. There's likely to be some sort of expedited appeal.

 This ruling was a blow to the GOP because it keeps in place the current voting districts."


Chart by www.washingtonpost.com

Profiles of the (some of the) 37 Republicans the could Lose Their Seats for Shutting Down the Government

Another problem Democrats have in taking back the House in 2014 is gerrymander, in addition to the Suppressive, discriminatory Voter ID laws. But the Republicans can sometimes be their own worse enemies. For example when they allowed the far right-wing of their party to run a campaign to shut down the government in yet another attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare.) This was a strategy that now even the TeaPublicans that pushed it, admit they "didn't really" think it would work. Speaker of the House of Representatives finally stood up to the outside "groups" like Heritage Action, Club for Growth, and Freedom Works, after the federal budget agreement by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Budget Committee Chairwomen Patty Murray was passed. We'll have to see if people can remember the shutdown when the all-important 2014 elections come to pass. This writer will remind Americans from time-to-time who really was responsible for the government shutdown despite the outrageous claims of the unstable TeaPublicans and the money-making, don't care what they say is outright lies, the more sensational the lies the bigger the ratings,  Fox News commentators and Reporters.

 

3. California -- District 49: Rep. Darrell Issa
Cook Partisan Voting Index: R+4


darrell issa
Issa -- the second-richest member of congress -- has served as the representative for California's 49th congressional district since 2001. The district, which covers the northern coastal areas of San Diego County as well as a small southern portion of Orange County, has voted largely in favor of Republican representatives on local and national levels for more than the last decade -- although Democrats Lynn Schenk and Susan Davis were able to break into the House seat in 1993 and 2001, respectively.
Romney won the district with 52.4 percent of votes in 2012, but Barack Obama won 49 percent of votes in 2008, beating out McCain by 1 percent.


4. Colorado -- District 3: Rep. Scott Tipton
Cook Partisan Voting Index: R+4


scott tipton
Colorado’s third congressional district, located in western and south-central Colorado, has been represented by Tipton since 2010, after he defeating three-term incumbent Democrat John Salazar. Tipton's relatively short stint in office has already been marred by potential ethics violations. Coupled with the district’s positive voting record toward Democratic representatives -- excluding national elections -- a general Democratic contender stands a strong chance of securing the seat in 2014.
Romney won 51.8 percent of Tipton's district in 2012.


5. Florida -- District 7: Rep. John L. Mica
Cook Partisan Voting Index: R+5


john mica
Mica has represented Florida’s seventh congressional district since 1993. In recent years, a population increase in has boosted the region’s economy, pushing economic stability to the top of the local agenda -- perhaps explaining the district's current hesitation to reelect a Republican whose party has largely been blamed for the government shutdown’s costly economic consequences.
Although Republicans have won the district's presidential vote since 1992, with Romney securing 51.8 percent of votes in 2012, the district's significant proportion of independent voters may contribute to a turn toward Democrats.


6. Florida -- District 15: Rep. Dennis Ross
Cook Partisan Voting Index: R+8


dennis ross
Although Ross has only served as a House Republican since 2011, his constituents may be ready for change. Formerly the 12th and reassigned in 2013 as Florida’s 15th, Ross’s right-leaning district encompasses the northern parts of Hillsborough County and Polk County, including many of Tampa’s eastern suburbs.
Republicans have dominated the district’s congressional politics since 1995. In 2012, Romney won 53.3 percent of the district's votes.

For profiles on all 37 Republicans that could lose their jobs because of shutting down the government see Huffington Post - Meet the 37 Republicans... from 10/24/2013.

Find and contact YOUR Congressmen/women and U.S. Senators here https://www.govtrack.us/ to tell them how you feel about Voter (suppression, disenfranchisement) ID Laws and Gerrymandering, as well as the Fair Minimum Wage Act, Jobs, Immigration Reform and other issues that concern you.

Friday, December 27, 2013

Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 H.R. 3746, S 1737, H.R. 1010, S 460 - Time To Do YOUR Part


Active "Minimum Wage" Bills in the House and Senate

Photo by www.classwarfareexists.com

H.R. 3746 - The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 

H.R. 3746 was introduced and referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce by Rep. John Larson (D-CT1) on December 12, 2013. The bill doesn't have any co-sponsors at this time. GovTrack.us predicts the bill has a 2% chance of getting past committee and a 0% chance of being enacted. The text of the bill was made available today by GovTrack.us and is summarized below;


Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:


(1)
except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than—
(A)
$8.50 an hour, beginning on the first day of the third month that begins after the date of enactment of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 Act;
(B)
$10.00 an hour, beginning 1 year after that first day;
(C)
$11.00 an hour, beginning 2 years after that first day; and
(D)
beginning on the date that is 3 years after that first day, and annually thereafter, the amount determined by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (h);


S 1737 - Minimum Wage Fairness Act

S 1737 is a Senate bill related to the other "Minimum Wage" bills. This bill was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Thomas "Tom" Harkin (D-IA) on November 19, 2013 and reported to committee on November 20, 2013, the bill only has 1 co-sponsor at this time. GovTrack predicting a 20% chance of  and referred to committee on November 20, 2013 with the following text;




(1)
except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than—
(A)
$8.20 an hour, beginning on the first day of the sixth month that begins after the date of enactment of the Minimum Wage Fairness Act ;
(B)
$9.15 an hour, beginning 1 year after that first day;
(C)
$10.10 an hour, beginning 2 years after that first day; and
(D)
beginning on the date that is 3 years after that first day, and annually thereafter, the amount determined by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (h);


H.R. 1010  - Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013

H.R. 1010 was introduced and referred to committee on March 6, 2013 by Rep. George Miller (D-CA11) and has 154 co-sponsors. GovTrack.us predicts a 7% of getting past committee and a 2% of being enacted. The bill calls for the following;
 
(1)
except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than—
(A)
$8.20 an hour, beginning on the first day of the third month that begins after the date of enactment of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 Act;
(B)
$9.15 an hour, beginning 1 year after that first day;
(C)
$10.10 an hour, beginning 2 years after that first day; and
(D)
beginning on the date that is 3 years after that first day, and annually thereafter, the amount determined by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (h);


S 460  - Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013

S 460 was introduced by Sen. Thomas "Tom" Harkin on March 5, 2013 and referred to committee on March 6, 2013. It is related specifically to H.R. 1010. It has 32 co-sponsors and GovTrack.us predicts it has a 14% chance of getting past committee and a 2% chance of being enacted. The text of the bill is as follows:

(1)
except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than—
(A)
$8.20 an hour, beginning on the first day of the third month that begins after the date of enactment of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 Act;
(B)
$9.15 an hour, beginning 1 year after that first day;
(C)
$10.10 an hour, beginning 2 years after that first day; and
(D)
beginning on the date that is 3 years after that first day, and annually thereafter, the amount determined by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (h);

Now is time to e-mail of call your Congressmen/women and U.S. Senators. Below is a GovTrack link for each bill that allows you to (1) track the bill; and (2) call your Representative. The site will find YOUR  Congressmen/women and Senators and even connect you to their Washington, DC offices. Please utilize these links now to contact your Representatives and tell them to RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE!





Get Involved for a Better America. Make your voice heard. When people pull together they have influence. Don't let only the ultra-rich, corporations, and Super PACS be the only influence on our politicians and elections.

Thursday, December 26, 2013

37 Republican Seats Up In The Congress - Let's Look at VOTER ID LAWS and GERRYMANDERING

Did You Know That In Some Places (like PA) There Were 75,000 More Votes For Democratic Congressmen Yet The GOP Captured All But 5 of the States 18 Congressional Seats?

2012 Election - House of Representatives (Congress) chart by dailykos.com

On the chart above you can see that the Democrats captured 51.2% of the popular vote, nationally, for the House of Representatives, yet they won fewer seats. How can that be? Gerrymandering. Look at Pennsylvania. 50.8% of the voters in PA voted for Democratic Congressmen, yet the Republicans won all but 5 of the 18 Congressional seats, How? Gerrymandering.


What Exactly is "Gerrymandering" -- How Does It Work?

 Gerrymandering is defined in Wikipedia (you will find pretty much the same definition in any dictionary) as follows: "In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts. The resulting district is known as a gerrymander

 In addition, Wikipedia continues, to its use achieving desired electoral results for a particular party, gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, or class group, such as in U.S. federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities, known as "majority-minority districts".

Gerrymandering is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries for political gain. By creating a few "forfeit" districts where voters vote overwhelmingly for rival candidates, gerrymandering politicians can manufacture more narrow wins among the districts they do seek to win. Gerrymandering relies on the wasted vote effect, effectively concentrating wasted votes among opponents while minimizing wasted votes among supporters. Consequently, gerrymandering is typically done under voting systems using single-member districts, which have more wasted votes.

For the 2010 documentary film, see Gerrymandering (film). The etymology of the word gerrymandering dates back to a redrawing of Massachusetts' state Senate election districts in 1812.[1] It was named after the governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, who signed a bill redistricting the state to his own advantage. One district was described as having the shape of a salamander; hence the term gerrymandering.[2][3]

 "Democrats are understandably annoyed that despite the fact that Democratic House candidates nationally received more aggregate votes than Republican candidates, the Republicans maintained a solid 234-201 majority. Successful Republican gerrymandering had something to do with it." Eric Black of the MinnPost stated in an article on October 7, 2013" 

In an article by www. pagerrymander.weebly.com the following was stated: "We knew that the Republicans would use their control of the process to draw a map that benefited Republicans, but we did not expect them to abuse their power to this degree, all while shutting out the public."

In a January 2012 an article by ThinkProgress - Thanks To Gerrymandering, Democrats Would Need To Win The Popular Vote By Over 7 Percent To Take Back The House it is explained that the Democrats would have to win by 7% over the GOP to take back the U.S. House of Representatives.

The simplest way I can say what the GOP is doing with gerrymandering districts is this: wherever the Republicans control their State Government (the State Legislature controls drawing the district lines) they are gerrymandering the districts. They redistrict (draw new district lines) to benefit themselves. Here's how the GOP gerrymanders a state; if you had a state with 100 voters, half Democrats, half Republicans, and drew the district lines so that all 50 Democrats were in 1 district, and the rest of the state, with the 50 Republican voters, was broken up into 10 districts, the GOP would win with 10 districts, and the Democrats would only win 1 district, even though 50 people voted Democratic, and 50 people voted Republican. If each district represented a seat in U.S. House of Representatives (Congress,) the GOP would gain 10 seats, and the Democrats would gain 1 seat. That's 10 Republican Congressmen/women vs. 1 Democratic Congressman/woman out of 100 voters, 50 GOP and 50 Dem. That's why (with the actual numbers) the Democrats would have to win by a margin of 7% to take back the House in 2014.

Photo by www.winningprogressive.org

 Who Controls the States And Drawing The Lines?

The drawing  of  "District Lines" is controlled by the State Legislature. See StateScape's "Legislative Control 2013" for a chart showing who has who has control in each state.

26 States have a Republican-Controlled Legislature.
18 States have a Democratic-Controlled Legislature.
  6 States and the District of Columbia have a split-controlled or non-partisan Legislature.

It is important to note that:

In 23 of the 26 States that have Republican-Controlled Legislatures, the Governor's office and both houses are controlled by the Republicans.

In only 12 of the 18 States that have Democratic-Controlled Legislatures are the Governor's office and both houses controlled by their party.



Voter ID Laws Were Passed in 34 States to Supposedly Combat Voter Fraud - Problem? Voter Fraud Almost Non-Existent 

 

But the Laws Are Disenfranchising Hundreds of Thousands of Minorities (Likely to Vote Democratic) From Voting

 The Governor's office, and State Legislatures, are responsible for another issue swaying the elections in the direction of the Republican/Tea Party. Voter ID Laws. Voter ID Laws, disenfranchising Minorities and other Democratic voters have been, and are being, put in place in states that are controlled by the Republicans and Tea Party members. In fact, 34 states have passed voter ID laws since the Republican's gains in State Governments in the 2010 midterm elections.

 On September 18, 2012 Slate.com asked "How Much Voter Fraud Is There? This is in part what they found:

Since the 2010 elections, many Republican state legislatures (as well as Rhode Island's Democratic-controlled body) have moved to pass stronger voter ID laws. Though the supposed goal of this legislation is to stop voter fraud, the data on how much fraud is actually happening are hard to come by.
News21, part of the Carnegie-Knight Initiative on the Future of Journalism Education, has mounted an intensive effort to try to flesh out that record. News21 students have requested and reviewed thousands of public records, court documents, and media reports to see how many prosecutions for election fraud have been made in each state. The result: "analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal." The map above illustrates the number of confirmed voter fraud cases found by News21 dating back to 2000. Out of hundreds of millions of ballots cast, they counted 633 incidents. Among states with voter ID laws on the books, Georgia and Kansas have seen the most prosecutions, with 80 and 97 cases respectively. In Pennsylvania, which may require voters to show identification on Election Day if the state’s Supreme Court does not block the new law from taking effect, the number of fraud cases was just five. Read More - See the Map of Voter Fraud by State since 2000

For more recent facts about Voter Fraud we looked at several sources:

PolitiFact/Texas found that Texas' attorney general Greg Abbott, has his facts wrong on the voting process, U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson said in an opinion column published Aug. 8, 2013, in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. For example, "Abbott advocates the use of voter ID laws, allegedly to stop voter fraud," the Dallas Democrat wrote. "Studies have shown that voter fraud is non-existent in Texas."
 
"Non-existent" is pretty strong; we don’t have to look any farther than our own reporting to know that statement isn’t entirely accurate. But how prevalent is voter fraud in Texas? Johnson spokesman Cameron Trimble told us by phone and email that the column should have said "virtually" non-existent. He sent us web links to research and news stories that described nationwide voter fraud as " rare." None of the materials analyzed fraud in Texas specifically, and we found only one mention of a Texas case -- the 2006 conviction of a Pecos woman who filled out and mailed absentee ballots for others.

On the UP w/Steve Kornacki  on Sunday he quoted The Columbia Dispatch as stating that in the 2012 elections in Ohio only 17 cases were found out of 5.6 million voters. And in Iowa the Secretary of State, Matt Schultz,  (who blatantly displays a big red button on his website that offers a "Voter Fraud Hotline") spent $150,000 of taxpayer money to find out there were only 16 cases found out of all the voters there. The numbers don't get much higher anywhere else in the country. Georgia and Kansas have seen the most prosecutions, with 80 and 97 cases respectively.

Both on the UP w./Steve Kornacki and in the Salon.com/PolicyMic December 21, 2013 article "Study confirms every bad thing you suspected about voter ID laws" the following was discovered:

According to new research by University of Massachusetts Boston sociologist Keith Bentele and political scientist Erin O’Brien, the states that have enacted tougher voter ID laws in the past few years are also the same states where both minority and lower-income voter turnout had increased in recent years.

Focusing further analysis on just 2011, when the vast majority of voter ID regulations were passed, the researchers found that states which passed the legislation were highly likely to have:
- Republicans in control of both houses of the state legislature and the governorship
- Strong probabilities of being swing states in the 2012 elections
- Minority turnout which was higher in the 2008 election and with high proportions of African-American voters
- Larger numbers of allegations of fraud in 2004, though these had a “much smaller substantive impact relative to partisan and racial factors.”

 The authors note that the study’s results carry ominous implications and demonstrate voter ID laws have “an uncomfortable relationship to the political activism of blacks and the poor.”

The fact is that Voter ID Laws really have nothing to do with Voter Fraud and everything to do with disenfranchising minorities and likely Democratic voters. One scary thing is that with only 17 cases of voter fraud out of 5.6 million voters in Ohio, and 16 cases in Iowa a Washington Post poll recently found that 48% of Americans think that voter fraud is "a major problem." 33% think it's a minor problem and only 14% think it's no problem. 74% of people think that photo ID should be required, though it is a major problem for some people to get the required ID's. To get State issued ID's you need a birth certificate which for people not living in the state they were born in ca find themselves having to pay a fee to get a copy of their birth certificate of up to $33.00. Not everyone has $33.00 to get a copy of their birth certificate. Niot everyone has transportation to run around to different agencies trying to get the proof they'll need to get a photo ID. States like Texas whose laws won't accept a student ID  from a State College but will accept a gun permit are specifically designed to disenfranchise voters that are likely to vote Democratic.



Photo by newyorker.com

The Dept. of Justice Calls in the Big Guns to Combat

 Voter ID Laws

It’s difficult to exaggerate the prominence Stanford Law Professor Pam Karlan enjoys within the progressive legal community. Karlan is one of the most active members of the Supreme Court bar — among other things, she co-authored the brief that convinced the justices to strike down the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act last June. She is a former litigator for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and she is among the most widely regarded voting rights experts in the nation. If President Obama had shown more courage in the early years of his presidency, or if Senate Democrats had deployed the nuclear option sooner, she would be a federal appellate judge today. Many Court watchers, including myself, would choose her if we could place only one person on the Supreme Court.
So when the Justice Department revealed on Friday that Karlan would become the nation’s top voting rights attorney, it was as if Marsellus Wallace called up the many voters being disenfranchised in states like Texas and North Carolina, and told them that he’s sending The Wolf. READ MORE from ThinkProgress


mrc.org

Meet the 37 Republicans Who Could Lose Their Jobs For Shutting Down The Government

On October 24, 2013 the Huffington Post put out an article with the above headline. This article tells you a little about each of the 37 Republicans that we could fire and take their seats. It's definitely worth the read. Huffington Post - October 24, 2013 - Meet the 37 Republicans...


References from Wikipedia for above
  1. There is no evidence that the famous American portrait painter Gilbert Stuart had any involvement with either the design, drawing, or naming of the cartoon, or with the coining of the term. Detailed biographies and academic journal articles about Stuart make no reference to gerrymandering. The myth of Stuart’s association with the original gerrymander has been reproduced and spread, without verification or sources, from one reference book and Internet site to another. Modern scholars of Stuart are in agreement that no proof exists to credit him with the term or cartoon and that he had the propensity not to be involved with such issues. Martis, Kenneth C. (2008). "The Original Gerrymander". Political Geography 27 (4): 833–839. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2008.09.003.
  2. O’Brien, D. C. (1984). "Elkanah Tisdale: Designer, Engraver and Miniature Painter". Connecticut Historical Bulletin 49 (2): 83–96.
  3. Library of Congress. Original woodblocks for printing “Gerrymander” political cartoon. Geography and Map Reading Room. LCCN Permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/2003620165.

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Remember The Men and Women of the U.S. Armed Forces and Their Families During this Holiday Season


 A THANK YOU



Timeline Photos

 Remember Those Who Paid The Ultimate Price...






 
Photo by gameglide.com

 

Those Who Came Back Physically Injured...







Meme by adriansundeaddairy

And Those Injured in Other Ways That Will Suffer PTSD and Other Damage

 

                             
Photo by www.veteranjournal.com

And Thank The Families That Also Had Great Sacrifice





Let's Truly Support Our Troops And Hope That All Those Who Aren't On Our Home Soil Tonight Return Home Soon


Photo by collagemuseum.blogspot.com

Let's remember those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, those who came back with less than what they went with to protect our liberties, those who were injured not physically but who will not be able to see things quite the way they did before they went. Let's remember and thank the families of our men and women who served to let us live the way we do. Let's make sure that we take care of those men and women, and their families as they try to pick up their lives in this great country. Let's not let them not get the benefits they deserve, let's not let some despicable politician call a soldier and his family "takers," or cut the amount of their food stamps if they need that assistance while getting back on their feet. I saw a program some months ago about a 3-day event that is held every year for veterans. 300,000 veterans attended, mostly homeless, many in need of medical care, and yes many were hungry. The sad part was that the great organization couldn't help everyone, they could only help about 10,000 with getting shelter, even less in getting jobs, and had to tell the rest after three days of giving them a cot and a few hot meals that the event was over, and they had to go. The next time you hear of a politician that wants to cut any kind of benefit that is there for our veterans, please call your Congressmen/women and Senators and tell them it just ain't right. You can use the link below to find your Representatives and how to contact them.


Find and Contact Your Congressmen/Women and U.S. Senators at GovTrack.us




THANK YOU!