Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Boehlert On Hardball: Glenn Beck "Is Just An Absolute True Conspiracist" -- "He's Selling Paranoia," "Fear"

February 14, 2011 6:18 pm ET

From the February 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

Posted by at No comments:

Dick Wadhams drops out of state GOP chairman’s race

Posted February 7, 2011, 6:28 pm MT

UPDATE: Ryan Call, the state’s legal counsel said he is “strongly considering” running for chairman.


Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado GOP

Dick Wadhams


Dick Wadhams today unexpectedly dropped his bid for a third term as chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, and said he has no idea what he will do next.


Wadhams said he had the votes but in the last few days got to thinking, “What happens after I win?”


“I have loved being chairman, but I’m tired of the nuts who have no grasp of what the state party’s role is,” he said.


Wadhams last year was alternately accused of meddling in the governor’s race and not interceding in order to make sure the right Republican won. Democrat John Hickenlooper ultimately won the race despite 2010 being a Republican year.


His departure from the race leaves state Sen. Ted Harvey as the strongest contender in the race, although a number of Republicans expect more candidates to run now that Wadhams is out. Among those mentioned: Ryan Call, legal counsel for the GOP.


“I am strongly considering it,” Call said. “Our party needs good leadership and someone who can build consensus.”


Here is the memo Wadham sent this afternoon to members of the Colorado Republican State Central Committee:


It has been an honor and privilege to serve as Colorado Republican Chairman but after much reflection I have decided to not seek reelection.


I am very grateful to a clear majority of the members of the Colorado Republican State Central Committee who offered their support and encouragement over the past several weeks.


I entered this race a few weeks ago looking forward to discussing what we accomplished in 2010 and to the opportunities we have in 2012 to elect a new Republican president; to increase our state House majority and win a state Senate majority; and to reelect our two new members of Congress.


However, I have tired of those who are obsessed with seeing conspiracies around every corner and who have terribly misguided notions of what the role of the state party is while saying “uniting conservatives” is all that is needed to win competitive races across the state.


I have no delusions this will recede after the state central committee meeting in March. Meanwhile, the ability of Colorado Republicans to win and retain the votes of hundreds of thousands of unaffiliated swing voters in 2012 will be severely undermined.


For the past four years, I have devoted all of my professional time and energy to serving as state chairman and am very proud of what we accomplished in the face of unique and unprecedented challenges in both the 2008 and 2010 election cycles.


I will always remain humbled and grateful for the opportunity to travel this magnificent state where I was born and raised and to work with Republican leaders and elected officials in all 64 counties as state chairman.




http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2011/02/07/dick-wadhams-drops-out-of-state-gop-chairmans-race/22599/
Posted by at No comments:

“Freedom Flyer” arrested at TSA checkpoint

“NOT GUILTY” VERDICT BY JURY ON ALL CHARGES, FRIDAY, JAN. 21, 2011!



Criminal Case 2573709, Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, Albuquerque, NM.


Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)



What is this case about?


Phil Mocek

Phil Mocek (click photo for hi-res)


Phil Mocek (pronounced “MOE-seck” or “MOE-s?ck”) was arrested by Albuquerque police at a TSA checkpoint at the Albuquerque International Sunport on November 15, 2009. He had a valid ticket on Southwest Airlines (”You are now free to move about the country”), and was attempting to get to his flight. Like the “Freedom Riders” of the 1960s on interstate buses, Mr. Mocek sought to exercise his Federally and Constitutionally-guaranteed right to travel, but was arrested by local police for alleged violations of state and local laws and ordinances.


Why was Mr. Mocek arrested?


Even after Mr. Mocek’s trial and acquittal, we still don’t know. The first statement by the police (on their own live audio recording) was that he was being arrested, “for being stupid”. The real motivations of the police for arresting Mr. Mocek remain a potential issue at trial. Based on the available evidence, we are concerned that Mr. Mocek was arrested because he declined to show ID credentials, declined to answer questions about his identity, and/or because he attempted to photograph and record his interactions with the TSA and police – all of which were activities protected by the First Amendment and other laws.



What were the charges against Mr. Mocek?


He was charged with criminal trespass (Albuquerque Code of Ordinances § 12-2-3), resisting, obstructing or refusing to obey a lawful order of an officer (§ 12-2-19), concealing his identity with intent to obstruct, intimidate, hinder or interrupt (§ 12-2-16), and disorderly conduct (NMSA § 30-2-1). [Note: It appears that direct links to sections of the Albuquerque Code of Ordinances will work only after you first click on the Albuquerque Code of Ordinances link and then on either "frames" or "no frames", to set the required cookies in your Web browser.]  The maximum penalties, if he had been convicted, could have been up to 6 months in jail for disorderly conduct (a “petty misdemeanor” under New Mexico state law), and 90 days in jail for each of the ordinance violations, for a total maximum sentence of 15 months in jail.



Was Mr. Mocek guilty of any of these crimes?


No.  The jury acquitted Mr. Mocek without his having to testify or present any evidence in his defense.  The prosecution failed to meet their burden of proving that Mr. Mocek had committed any crime.


There is no evidence of any of these crimes in the audio and video recordings released by the police. Mr. Mocek was calm, polite, and nonviolent. There is no evidence that he was disorderly, made any attempt to “conceal” his identity, or had any obstructive intent. As a ticketed passenger, his right of transit through the airport and the TSA checkpoint and by the airline as a common carrier was guaranteed by Federal law, the First Amendment, and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He was not trespassing, and any police order to leave the airport would have been unlawful.


(If something like this should happen to you, be aware that police and custodians of public records aren’t always aware of what recordings they may have, of the technical features of their recording and archiving systems, or of the possibility that audio and video archiving systems may generate logs of what recordings are accessed or deleted, when, and by whom.  As this incident (chronology) in Seattle showed, digital recordings aren’t necessarily “deleted” automatically, and may not be overwritten until long after police assume that they have been deleted. If you are requesting records of a police encounter, be sure to include a request for any system logs of access, viewing, and/or deletion of the recordings, and be extremely skeptical of any claims that digital recordings are actually “erased” on a fixed schedule, rather than merely flagged as potentially available to be overwritten.)



Why is this case important?


So far as we know, this was the first time someone in the USA was arrested or charged with a crime for attempting to exercise their right to travel by air without showing ID or answering questions about themselves or their trip, or for photography or audio or video recording at a TSA checkpoint.


Is there any law that requires you to show ID credentials to fly, or to the police?


No. In Gilmore v. Gonzales (decided at 435 F.3d 1125), a case involving the same airline, lawyers for the TSA swore to the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals that no Federal law or regulation requires airline passengers to show any evidence of their ID in order to fly.


Is there any law that requires you to answer questions from the TSA or police?


No. You have the right to remain silent. Mr. Mocek explicitly invoked this right.


Is there any law or regulation that prohibits or restricts photography or audio or video recording at TSA checkpoints or of police?



No. Prior to his flight out of ABQ, Mr. Mocek received written confirmation from Albuquerque TSA staff that, “There aren’t any state or city laws/ordinances that prohibit photography in the public areas of the airport.”


Do you have a right to travel by air?


Yes. The “public right of freedom of transit” by air is guaranteed by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and the TSA is required by Federal law (49 USC § 40101) to consider this right when it issues regulations. Airlines are common carriers. Mr. Mocek’s attempted trip was an exercise of “the right … peaceably to assemble,” which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Freedom of movement is also guaranteed by Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a human rights treaty signed and ratified by the US.


Can local police lawfully interfere with your right to travel, by air or otherwise?


No. The TSA checkpoint is a Federal facility, the airport and airline are Federally certified, and the right of travel by air is guaranteed by Federal law. Any interference with the passage of ticketed passengers, under color of state or local authority, would violate 42 USC § 1983. Interference by local police with air travel is forbidden by the same laws that forbade Southern sheriffs from interfering with interstate bus travel by Freedom Riders. In this sense, we see Mr. Mocek as a modern-day “Freedom Flyer.”



What happened in the trial?


Phil Mocek was found “NOT GUILTY” on all counts by a jury on Friday, January 21, 2011, at the conclusion of a two-day trial in Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court in Albuquerque, NM.


Jury trial in State of New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek (Criminal Case 2573709) began on Thursday, January 20, 2011, before Judge Kevin L. Fitzwater.  A jury was selected and heard opening arguments and the first prosecution witness on Thursday.  Testimony and arguments were completed and the jury returned its verdict of “NOT GUILTY” on all counts on Friday, January 21, 2011, after about an hour of deliberations. [Complete audio archive and photos of the trial (except jury selection)]



Did Mr. Mocek testify or present any evidence in his defense?


No. The jury found that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof, based solely on the evidence introduced by the prosecution (including the video from Mr. Mocek’s camera).


Mr. Mocek did not testify, and the defense rested without calling any witnesses or presenting any evidence. The jury found that even without rebuttal, the TSA and Albuquerque police had failed to satisfy their burden of proving any of the four charges: concealing his identity, refusing to obey a lawful order (it was never entirely clear whether this was supposed to have been an order to turn off his camera, an order to leave the airport despite having a valid ticket, or an order to show ID, none of which would have been lawful orders), trespassing, and disorderly conduct.


The best evidence in the case was the video from Mr. Mocek’s digital camera that both the TSA and the police had tried to stop Mr. Mocek from filming, and which ended when they seized his camera out of his hands and shut it off. In her closing argument, defense counsel Molly Schmidt-Nowara argued that the police and TSA witnesses were not credible, that their testimony was contradicted by the video and by common sense, that what they really objected to was having Mr. Mocek legally take pictures, and that any disorderly conduct was on the part of the police and TSA.


The verdict of “NOT GUILY” on all counts shows that the jurors saw through the police and TSA lies.


What did the TSA and police witnesses testify about the authority of TSA “officers,” flying without ID, and using cameras in airports?


Uncontested TSA and police testimony at the trial established, among other things, three important points:



  1. Despite calling themselves “officers”, TSA checkpoint staff are not law enforcement officers and have no police powers — and both TSA and police are fully aware of this. When the TSA calls for the police, they are just like any other civilians who call the police, and the police have no obligation to do what they ask. Police should not act, and have no right to act, in such a case, unless the police have a reasonable basis for believing that a crime has actually been committed or is being committed.


  2. You have the right, recognized by the TSA, to fly without showing ID. “It happens all the time. We have a procedure for that,” according to the lead TSA “Travel Document Checker” at the Albuquerque airport. Signs and announcements in airports saying that all passengers must present ID are false.

  3. You have the right, recognized by the TSA, to photograph or film anywhere in publicly accessible areas of airports including TSA checkpoints, as long as you don’t violate any local laws, photograph the images on the screening monitors, interfere with the screening process, or slow down the line. (Whether those limitations to your First Amendment rights claimed by the TSA are legal or Constitutional was not decided in this case, since Mr. Mocek wasn’t violating any local law, filming the images on the screening monitors, interfering with the screening process, or slowing down the line.) Signs or statements that photography is prohibited at Federal checkpoints are, in general, false.


Annoying the TSA is not a crime. Photography is not a crime. You have the right to fly without ID, and to photograph, film, and record what happens. Your best defense is your own camera and microphone. Ordinary jurors know, and were prepared to recognize with their verdict in this case, that the TSA and police lie about what they are doing and why.


What does the Identity Project hope will happen as a result of this “NOT GUILTY” verdict?


We hope that Mr. Mocek’s acquittal will encourage and empower others to question the unlawful demands of the TSA — including their demands that we waive our right to remain silent, provide them with evidence as to our identity, and submit to virtual strip-search machines or groping — and to photograph and record our interactions with the TSA’s cop-wannabes and rent-a-cops and the local law enforcement officers who provide their muscle.


(See also our FAQ: What you need to know about your rights at the airport, and the information about dealing with police encounters from FlexYourRights.org.)



We also hope that this verdict will teach police not to blindly back up the TSA when the TSA calls upon law enforcement officers to “deal with” travelers to whose actions the TSA has, for whatever reason, taken a dislike. This verdict shows that jurors can see through their lies when they make up stories and false accusations against travelers.


What can I do to help now that Mr. Mocek has been acquitted?


Contribute to Mr. Mocek’s defense fund. Mr. Mocek has incurred many thousands of dollars of expenses to hire private lawyers and to return repeatedly to court hearings in Albuquerque from his home in Seattle.  Contributions can be made online via Paypal. Note that the Paypal donation receipt will read, “Canabis Defense Coalition”, as this is the group that volunteered to collect donations for Phil’s defense. But all funds donated will go to Phil’s defense.


Contributions by cash, check, or money order can be sent directly to Mr. Mocek’s lawyers. Checks must be payable to “Freedman Boyd et al.” You can indicate “Phil Mocek defense fund” in the memo field.  Send to:




Phil Mocek legal defense
Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Ives & Duncan PA
20 FIRST PLAZA CTR NW STE 700
ALBUQUERQUE NM 87102-5802


If you would like your contribution to Mr. Mocek’s defense fund to be tax deductible (or if your employer will match your contributions to tax-exempt charities), you can send it to CDC, a Washington-state 501(c)(3) IRS-recognized public charity, earmarked for Mr. Mocek’s defense fund:



Phil Mocek legal defense
Cannabis Defense Coalition (CDC)
PO BOX 45622
SEATTLE, WA 98145


Spread the word about this case and what it means. Organize a gathering to discuss the issue. Stand up for your own rights, and “just say no” to demands for ID. See our website or contact us for more on how to get involved.



What is the Identity Project?


The Identity Project (PapersPlease.org) provides advice, assistance, publicity, and legal support to those who find their rights infringed, or their legitimate activities curtailed, by demands for ID, and builds public awareness about the effects of ID requirements on fundamental rights. We are part of the First Amendment Project, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in Oakland, CA.


What is the role of the Identity Project in this case?


We went to Albuquerque to observe and report on Mr. Mocek’s trial (since the trail was not recorded or transcribed by the court, our recordings are the only complete record of the trial), to help explain the issues it raises, and to support Mr. Mocek’s rights (1) to travel without showing ID credentials or answering questions from the TSA or police and (2) to photograph and record his interactions with TSA and police officers.  Contact us for more information or if you’d like to arrange for an interview or speaker from the Identity Project. Nothing we say should be taken as legal advice or as representing Mr. Mocek or his attorneys (Nancy Hollander and Molly Schmidt-Nowara).



How can I get more information about this case?



How can I contact Mr. Mocek or find his own statements about this case?




What have Albuquerque and other news media and blogs said about this case?


  • The Official TSA Blog (blog.tsa.gov):


  • Fox Business Network: Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano:



  • Albuquerque Weekly Alibi:


  • KIVA talk radio, 1550 AM, “Adam vs. the Man” with Adam Kokesh:


  • KOB Albuquerque, channel 4 TV:


  • KOAT Albuquerque, channel 7 ABC TV:


  • Albuquerque Journal:


  • New Mexico Watchdog:


  • Seattle Weekly:


  • KOMO TV-4, Seattle:


  • KIRO TV-7, Seattle:


  • CHS Capital Hill Seattle:



  • Seattle P-I:


  • Washington Times:


  • The Register (U.K.):


  • The Guardian (U.K.):



  • BoingBoing:


  • Carlos Miller - Photography is Not A Crime:


  • Elliott.org:



  • Common Sense with Paul Jacob (syndicated):


  • TechDirt:



  • Federal Computer Week:


  • Checkpoint USA:


  • Cato@Liberty:



  • Infowars.com:


  • Slashdot:


  • Amy Alkon, Advice Goddess:


  • Big Brother Watch [U.K.]:


  • Privacy Journal (subscription only - not available online):

    • “No ID Requirement at Airports, TSA Admits,” Feb. 2011, p.1

    • “Defiant Traveler Prevails in Court,” Feb. 2011, p. 1




  • The Travel Insider:


  • WOOT (”One Day, One Deal):


  • Schneier on Security:


  • Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC):


  • Uncontrolled Airspace Podcast (UCAP):


  • Tray Stacking Association:


  • The Computer Curmudgeon:


  • Totally, completely, absolutely, unequivocally unofficial blog:


  • Borepatch:


  • Hammer of Truth:


  • Security Generation:


  • Layered Security:


  • The Blotch:


    http://www.papersplease.org/wp/mocek/
    • Posted by at No comments:

    Common Cause Asks Court About Thomas Speech

    By ERIC LICHTBLAU
    Published: February 14, 2011

    WASHINGTON — Discrepancies in reports about an appearance by Justice Clarence Thomas at a political retreat for wealthy conservatives three years ago have prompted new questions to the Supreme Court from a group that advocates changing campaign finance laws.




    When questions were first raised about the retreat last month, a court spokeswoman said Justice Thomas had made a “brief drop-by” at the event in Palm Springs, Calif., in January 2008 and had given a talk.



    In his financial disclosure report for that year, however, Justice Thomas reported that the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative legal group, had reimbursed him an undisclosed amount for four days of “transportation, meals and accommodations” over the weekend of the retreat. The event is organized by Charles and David Koch, brothers who have used millions of dollars from the energy conglomerate they run in Wichita, Kan., to finance conservative causes.



    Arn Pearson, a vice president at the advocacy group Common Cause, said the two statements appeared at odds. His group sent a letter to the Supreme Court on Monday asking for “further clarification” as to whether the justice spent four days at the retreat for the entire event or was there only briefly.



    “I don’t think the explanation they’ve given is credible,” Mr. Pearson said in an interview. He said that if Justice Thomas’s visit was a “four-day, all-expenses paid trip in sunny Palm Springs,” it should have been reported as a gift under federal law.




    The Supreme Court had no comment on the issue Monday. Nor did officials at the Federalist Society or at Koch Industries.



    Common Cause maintains that Justice Thomas should have disqualified himself from last year’s landmark campaign finance ruling in the Citizens United case, partly because of his ties to the Koch brothers.



    In a petition filed with the Justice Department last month, the advocacy group said past appearances at the Koch brothers’ retreat by Justice Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia, along with the conservative political work of Justice Thomas’s wife, had created a possible perception of bias in hearing the case.



    The Citizens United decision, with Justice Thomas’s support, freed corporations to engage in direct political spending with little public disclosure. The Koch brothers have been among the main beneficiaries, political analysts say.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us/politics/15thomas.html?_r=3&hpw=&pagewanted=print
    Posted by at No comments:

    Border activist convicted in deadly home invasion

    – Mon Feb 14, 5:49 pm ET

    TUCSON, Ariz. – The leader of an anti-illegal-immigrant group was convicted Monday in a home invasion robbery that left a 9-year-old girl and her father dead in what prosecutors said was an attempt to steal drug money to fund the group's operations.

    A Tucson jury found Shawna Forde, 42, guilty of murder in the May 2009 killings of Raul Flores, 29, and his daughter Brisenia at their home in Arivaca, a desert community 10 miles north of Mexico.

    The jury deliberated for seven hours over two days. Forde was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder for the shooting of Flores' wife and related aggravated assault and robbery counts.

    The jury will return to Pima County Superior Court on Tuesday to decide if the death penalty should be considered.

    Forde had pleaded not guilty.

    Her attorney, Eric Larsen, argued that Forde was never inside the home. Prosecutors disputed that contention, saying Forde was the ringleader if the operation and the law is clear.

    "She didn't put a gun to Brisenia's head ... but she was the one in charge," prosecutor Rick Unklesbay told jurors. "Because of that you must hold her accountable."

    Larsen said Forde talked a big game, but "she frankly just didn't have the wherewithal to do this."

    Calls seeking comment from Larsen on Monday were not immediately returned.

    Forde is the leader of the Minutemen American Defense, a small border watch group. Prosecutors argued that she planned the attack to help fund its anti-immigrant operations.

    Authorities said Forde and two men dressed as law enforcement officers, forced their way into Flores' home then shot him, his daughter and wife, Gina Gonzalez, who survived her injuries after getting into a gun battle with the attackers.

    Flores was believed to be involved with drug trafficking, police said, but officers don't think the assailants found much cash or drugs in the home.

    A 911 recording released by the Pima County sheriff's office captured Gonzalez pleading for help after her husband and daughter were shot. She was heard crying out in pain from a gunshot wound then becoming frantic as the attackers returned.

    The sound of nine gunshots was heard as Gonzalez engaged the intruders.

    "Oh my God, I can't believe they killed my family," Gonzalez said on the recording.

    Police said Gonzalez shot and wounded one of her attackers, Jason Eugene Bush, who officers believe was the gunman.

    Another man, Albert Robert Gaxiola, is accused of providing information about the area.

    Bush and Gaxiola go on trial in the spring.

    Before coming to Arizona, Forde lived in Everett, Wash., where she ran for the City Council in 2007, promising to allow police to check the immigration status of suspects, according to news accounts.

    Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, said his group expelled Forde in 2007 amid allegations of lying and pretending to be a senior leader. Forde began her own group, bragging that it would be going after drug cartels, he said.

    "We knew that Shawna Forde was not just an unsavory character but pretty unbalanced, as well," Simcox said.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110214/ap_on_re_us/us_border_activist_trial
    Posted by at No comments:

    Monday, February 14, 2011

    67% of Pakistani journalists say US drones attacks are acts of terrorism: survey

    By Sahil Kapur
    Monday, February 14th, 2011 -- 11:15 am

    WASHINGTON – Two out of three Pakistani journalists view United States drone strikes in the region as acts of terrorism, according to a new study conducted by Washington State University and Pakistan's Lahore University of Management Sciences.

    Only 27 percent of Pakistani journalists said the US drone attacks did not constitute acts of terrorism. Six percent did not know. The study surveyed 395 Pakistani journalists and was supported by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

    That said, about one in five also didn't view the Mumbai attacks of 2008, or the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl, as acts of terrorism.

    The figures still underscore the public relations debacle facing President Barack Obama as his administration oversees a continuing drone program in western Pakistan, in an effort to wipe out Islamic extremists spilling over to the eastern side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

    The unmanned drone strikes in the region began under the Bush administration and have continued unabated under the Obama administration. The volume and frequency of the attacks has intensified in recent years, according to collected reports.

    Northwestern Pakistan is believed to be a hotbed for activity among Islamic extremist groups.

    Although US officials say the drone attacks have killed high-ranking members of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, Pakistani and international media have reported that innocent civilians are also dying in the process.

    Three-quarters of the Pakistani journalists viewed the American people are favorably, but a whopping 77 of them had a negative view of US foreign policy.

    "Indeed, as the United States broadens its effort to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, it would do well to look into the heads of the journalists who shape opinions in those societies," wrote Lawrence Pintak of Washington State University and Syed Javed Nazir of Lahore University in the New York Times.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/67-of-pakistani-journalists-say-us-drones-attacks-are-acts-of-terrorism-survey/
    Posted by at No comments:

    Shirley Sherrod Sues Andrew Breitbart Over Video

    Eric Lach | February 14, 2011, 10:36AM

    Shirley Sherrod, who was fired from her USDA job last year after Andrew Breitbart posted online an edited video of her, has filed a lawsuit for libel and slander against Breitbart in D.C. Superior Court. The suit was filed on Friday, and Breitbart was served with it this weekend, while attending the Conservative Political Action Conference, according to The New York Times.


    Sherrod was the Georgia Director of Rural Development for the USDA until July, when Breitbart posted the edited video, in which she was shown telling the Coffee County, GA NAACP about a time she didn't help a farmer as much as she could have because he was white. The video made national news, and Sherrod was forced to resign shortly after its release. But when the NAACP released the full version of the video -- in which it was clear Sherrod was speaking about overcoming her own racial prejudices -- the story turned. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs offered Sherrod public apologies, and she was offered a new job at the USDA -- which she turned down.


    A press release on Breitbart's website Big Government responds to the suit against Breitbart and Breitbart.tv head Larry O'Connor, but does not refer to Sherrod by name, and does not mention the edited video. Instead, the release titled "Andrew Breitbart on Pigford Lawsuit: 'Bring It On,'" focuses on the Pigford settlement, which paid black farmers who said they had been discriminated against by the USDA. Breitbart's statement alludes to Sherrod as "a central figure in the Pigford 'back-door' reparations case."


    "I find it extremely telling that this lawsuit was brought almost seven months after the alleged incidents that caused a national media frenzy occurred," Breitbart said in the statement. "It is no coincidence that this lawsuit was filed one day after I held a press conference revealing audio proof of orchestrated and systemic Pigford fraud. I can promise you this: neither I, nor my journalistic websites, will or can be silenced by the institutional Left, which is obviously funding this lawsuit. I welcome the judicial discovery process, including finding out which groups are doing so."


    The statement also says that Breitbart "categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech and, to reiterate, looks forward to exercising his full and broad discovery rights."


    Sherrod and her husband, a civil rights activist, received a multi-million-dollar settlement as part of the first Pigford settlement, resulting from discrimination the couple faced while running a collective farm in Georgia.


    But when TPM reported last year that the release of the Sherrod video coincided with a Senate vote on Pigford II, Breitbart wrote us an email denying the connection.


    "No. Seriously. On everything I hold dear," Breitbart wrote. Shortly before the video was released, the NAACP had passed a resolution condemning racist elements of the Tea Party movement, and Breitbart claimed the group was the video's real target.


    "This was never about Sherrod. It was CLEARLY telegraphed at NAACP -- on Thursday when I, gulp, told Ben Jealous to 'go to hell' for spending week attacking racism with Tea Party. That the media and White House have turned this into me versus Sherrod is silly. My consistent angle is defending Tea Party from this predictable line of attack," Breitbart told TPM at the time.


    Sherrod has hired a big-time lawyer to represent her: Thomas D. Yannucci. A partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Yannucci's bio boasts that he has been selected as "one of America's Leading Lawyers for Business in Litigation/General Commercial and in Media & Entertainment by Chambers USA every year since 2003." He also had a lead role in Chiquita Brands' claims against the Gannett Company Inc. and The Cincinnati Enquirer in the 1990s.


    Back in July, Sherrod told CNN she would like to "get back at" Breitbart, and said she was considering suing.


    TPM's attempts to contact Breitbart on Monday were not immediately successful.



    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/shirley_sherrod_sues_andrew_breitbart_over_video.php?ref=fpblg
    Posted by at No comments:

    Top Reagan DOJ official slams Scalia for ‘secretly’ meeting tea party members

    By Sahil Kapur
    February 14, 2011 @ 9:50 am

    WASHINGTON – A top Justice Department official under President Ronald Reagan tore into Justice Antonin Scalia for holding a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill with tea partyers.

    "Justice Antonin Scalia galloped beyond the farthest boundaries of judicial propriety in secretly meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss the Constitution with Tea Party members of Congress saddled with a co-equal duty to assess the constitutionality of legislative action," Bruce Fein, Reagan's associate deputy attorney general, wrote in a published letter [1] to the New York Times.

    "If there are better ways to destroy public confidence in judicial impartiality, they do not readily come to mind."

    Scalia last week attended a private gathering with on Capitol Hill, ostensibly to discuss the Constitution, with a group of tea party lawmakers led by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), the leader of the House Tea Party Caucus.

    Fein wrote that "[n]o justice has ever testified on the constitutionality of bills before Congress," and noted that former Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign for privately advising President Lyndon Johnson.

    "[J]ustices must be above suspicion," he added.

    Scalia, 74, was nominated to the bench by Reagan in 1986, as has reliably voted on the conservative side of issues during his tenure.

    His actions only fueled criticisms that members of the Supreme Court are evolving into partisan entities, more openly expressing political preferences and losing their stature as neutral arbiters of the Constitution.

    Another recent target of the same misgivings has been conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife Ginni Thomas came under fire for openly cozying up with the tea party movement and involving herself with activism on its behalf.

    URL to article: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/top-reagan-doj-official-slams-scalia-for-tea-party-meeting/

    URLs in this post:

    [1] letter: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/opinion/l11scalia.html?_r=3

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/top-reagan-doj-official-slams-scalia-for-tea-party-meeting/print/
    Posted by at No comments:

    Congressman Ron Paul booted from conservative group for anti-war views

    By Eric W. Dolan
    February 13, 2011 @ 3:08 pm

    The conservative group Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) announced Saturday that Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) would be expelled from the group's National Advisory Board because of his "delusional and disturbing alliance with the fringe Anti-War movement."


    "It is a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative-libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security than the current feeble and appeasing administration," YAF’s Senior National Director Jordan Marks said in a statement.


    "Rep. Paul's refusal to support our nation's military and national security interests border on treason, aside from his failure to uphold his oath to the United States Constitution and defend our country and citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic," Marks continued.


    According to the group's founding statement of principles, the Sharon Statement, "American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?"


    Supporters of Ron Paul shouted down former Vice President Dick Cheney [1] at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Thursday, in a sign of a growing foreign policy rift on the American right.



    Young Americans for Freedom helped to found the CPAC 38 years ago along with other conservative organizations, such as the American Conservative Union.


    Cheney had appeared on the first day of the 2011 CPAC [2] to introduce Donald Rumsfeld, the former Bush-era defense secretary who was scheduled to receive [3] this year's "Defender of the Constitution Award."


    That didn't sit well with "Team Paul," supporters of Rep. Ron Paul who have long called for an end to the US's foreign wars.



    He drew thunderous applause [4] for bashing the Patriot Act, US aid to foreign nations, and US military bases overseas during his speech at CPAC on Friday.


    "The United States is the world's leader - a beacon of light for the wretched and the oppressed," YAF National Chairman Michael Jones added. "God has blessed the United States with liberty and the strength and heart to spread that liberty to all of his children. Rep. Paul has abandoned this mission, abandoned the United States' citizens, and abandoned the citizens of the world in their quest for their God-given natural rights."


    When asked about being expelled from the YAF Advisory Board, a position Rep. Paul has held for more than two decades, a spokesman for the congressman seemed less than concerned.


    "I hadn't heard of YAF doing anything in years, I thought they were defunct," Ron Paul's political director Jesse Benton told Politco [5]. "Young Americans for Liberty is the group of the future."




    URL to article: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/13/congressman-ron-paul-booted-from-conservative-group-for-anti-war-views/


    URLs in this post:

    [1] shouted down former Vice President Dick Cheney: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/10/paul-backers-crash-cheney-rumsfeld-reunion/

    [2] 2011 CPAC: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=59717860748

    [3] receive: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/rumsfeld-receive-defender-constitution-award-cpac/

    [4] drew thunderous applause: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/11/ron-paul-encourages-revolution-conservative-conference/

    [5] Politco: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49412.html#ixzz1Ds4j9znu

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/13/congressman-ron-paul-booted-from-conservative-group-for-anti-war-views/print/

    Posted by at No comments:

    Sunday, February 13, 2011

    FOX NEWS INSIDER: “Stuff Is Just Made Up”

    February 10, 2011 7:20 am ET by Eric Boehlert

    Asked what most viewers and observers of Fox News would be
    surprised to learn about the controversial cable channel, a former insider from
    the world of Rupert Murdoch was quick with a response: “I don’t think people
    would believe it’s as concocted as it is; that stuff is just made up.”


    Indeed, a former Fox News employee who recently agreed to talk with Media Matters confirmed what critics have been saying for years about Murdoch’s cable channel. Namely, that Fox News is run as a purely partisan operation, virtually every news story is actively spun by the staff, its primary goal is to prop up Republicans and knock down Democrats, and that staffers at Fox News routinely operate without the slightest regard for fairness or fact checking.   


    “It is their M.O. to undermine the administration and to
    undermine Democrats,” says the source. “They’re a propaganda outfit but they
    call themselves news.”


    And that’s the word from inside Fox News.


    Note the story here isn’t that Fox News leans right.
    Everyone knows the channel pushes a conservative-friendly version of the news.
    Everyone who’s been paying attention has known that since the channel’s
    inception more than a decade ago. The real story, and the real danger posed by
    the cable outlet, is that over time Fox News stopped simply leaning to the
    right and instead became an
    open     and active political
    player    , sort of one-part character assassin and one-part propagandist,
    depending on which party was in power. And that the operation thrives on
    fabrications and falsehoods.


    “They say one thing and do another. They insist on maintaining this charade, this façade, that they’re balanced or that they’re not right-wing extreme propagandist,”
    says the source. But it’s all a well-orchestrated lie, according this former
    insider. It’s a lie that permeates the entire Fox News culture and one that
    staffers and producers have to learn quickly in order to survive professionally.


    “You have to work there for a while to understand the nods
    and the winks,” says the source. “And God help you if you don’t because sooner
    or later you’re going to get burned.”


    The source explains:


    “Like any news channel there’s lot of room for non-news content.
    The content that wasn’t ‘news,’ they didn’t care what we did with as long as it
    was amusing or quirky or entertaining;  as along as it brought in eyeballs.  But anything—anything--that was a news story you had to understand what the spin should be on it. If it was a big enough story it was explained to you in the morning [editorial] meeting. If it wasn’t explained, it was up to you to know the conservative take on it. There’s a conservative take on every story no matter what it is. So you either get told what it is or you better intuitively know what it is.”


    What if Fox News staffers aren’t instinctively conservative
    or don’t have an intuitive feeling for what the spin on a story should be? “My
    internal compass was to think like an intolerant meathead,” the source explains.
    “You could never error on the side of not being intolerant enough.”


    The source recalls how Fox News changed over time:


    “When I first got there back in the day, and I don’t know how they indoctrinate people now, but back in the day when they were “training” you, as it were, they would say, ‘Here’s how we’re different.’ They’d say if there is an execution of a condemned man at midnight and there are all the live truck outside the prison and all the lives shots.  CNN would go, ‘Yes, tonight John Jackson, 25 of Mississippi, is going to die by lethal injection for the murder of two girls.’ MSNBC  would say the same thing. 


    “We would come out and say, ‘Tonight, John Jackson who kidnapped an innocent two year old, raped her, sawed her head off and threw it in the school yard, is going to get the punishment that a jury of his peers thought he should get.’ And they say that’s the way we do it here. And you’re going , alright, it’s a bit of an extreme example but it’s something to think about. It’s not unreasonable.


    "When you first get in they tell you we’re a bit of a counterpart to the screaming left wing lib media. So automatically you have to buy into the idea that the other media is howling left-wing. Don’t even start arguing that or you won’t even last your first day. 


    “For the first few years it was let’s take the conservative take on things. And then after a few years it evolved into, well it’s not just the conservative take on things, we’re going to take the Republican take on things which is not necessarily in lock step with the conservative point of view.


    “And then two, three, five years into that it was, we’re taking the Bush line on things, which was different than the GOP. We were a Stalin-esque mouthpiece.  It was just what Bush says goes on our channel. And by that point it was just totally dangerous.  Hopefully most people understand how dangerous it is for a media outfit to be a straight, unfiltered mouthpiece for an unchecked president.”


    It’s worth noting that Fox News employees, either current or former, rarely speak to the press, even anonymously. And it’s even rarer for Fox News sources to bad mouth Murdoch’s channel. That’s partly because of strict non-disclosure agreements that most exiting employees sign and which forbid them from discussing their former employer. But  it also stems from a pervasive us-vs.-them attitude that permeates Fox News. It’s a siege mentality that network boss Roger Ailes encourages, and one that colors the coverage his team produces.


    “It was a kick ass mentality too,” says the former Fox News insider. “It was relentless and it never went away. If one controversy faded, goddamn it they would find another one. They were in search of these points of friction real or imagined. And most of them were imagined or fabricated. You always have to seem to be under siege. You always have to seem like your values are under attack. The brain trust just knew instinctively which stories to do, like the War on Christmas.”


    According to the insider, Ailes is obsessed with presenting a unified Fox News front to the outside world; an obsession that may explain Ailes’ refusal to publically criticize or even critique his own team regardless of how outlandish their on-air behavior.  “There may be internal squabbles. But what [Ailes] continually preaches is never piss outside the tent,” says the source.  “When he gets really crazy is when stuff leaks out the door. He goes mental on that. He can’t stand that. He says in a dynamic enterprise like a network newsroom there’s going to be in fighting and ego, but he says keep it in the house.”


    It’s clear that Fox News has become a misleading, partisan outlet. But here’s what the source stresses: Fox News is designed to mislead its viewers and designed to engage in a purely political enterprise.


    In 2010, all sorts of evidence tumbled out to confirm that fact, like the recently leaked emails from inside Fox News, in which a top editor instructed his newsroom staffers (not just the opinion show hosts) to slant the news when reporting on key stories such as climate change and health care reform. 


    Meanwhile, Media Matters revealed that during the 2009-2010 election cycle, dozens of  Fox News personalities endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or organizations in more than 600 instances. And in terms of free TV airtime that Fox News handed over to GOP hopefuls, Media Matters calculated the channel essentially donated $55 million worth of airtime to Republican presidential hopefuls last year who also collect Fox News paychecks.


    And of course, that’s when Murdoch wasn’t writing $1 million checks in the hopes of electing more Republican politicians.


    So, Fox News as a legitimate news outlet? The source laughs at the suggestion, and thinks much of the public, along with the Beltway press corps, has been duped by Murdoch’s marketing campaign over the years. “People assume you need a license to call yourself a news channel. You don’t. So because they call themselves Fox News, people probably give them a pass on a lot of things,” says the source.


    The source continues: “I don’t think people understand that it’s an organization that’s built and functions by intimidation and bullying, and its goal is to prop up and support Republicans and the GOP and to knock down Democrats. People tend think that stuff that’s on TV is real, especially under the guise of news. You’d think that people would wise up, but they don’t.”


    As for the press, the former Fox News employee gives reporters and pundits low grades for refusing, over the years, to call out Fox News for being the propaganda outlet that it so clearly is. The source suggests there are a variety of reasons for the newsroom timidity.


    “They don’t have enough staff or enough balls or don’t have enough money or don’t have enough interest to spend the time it takes to expose Fox News. Or it’s not worth the trouble. If you take on Fox, they’ll kick you in the ass,” says the source. “I’m sure most [journalists]  know that. It’s not worth being  Swift Boated for your effort,” a reference to  how Fox News traditionally attacks journalists who write, or are perceived to have written, anything negative things about the channel.


    The former insider admits to being perplexed in late 2009 when the Obama White House called out Murdoch’s operation as not being a legitimate new source, only to have major Beltway media players rush to the aid of Fox News and admonish the White House for daring to criticize the cable channel.


    “That blew me away,” says the source, who stresses the White House’s critique of Fox News “happens to be true.” 



    http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102100007
    Posted by at No comments:
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)