Kin in the Game: Bachmann & Family, going down?

It's a fair bet we will be seeing more of this kind of press conference from Michele Bachmann, using the Sgt.Schultz defense.

Kent Sorenson, pled guilty last week, August 27th, in a federal plea deal relating to bribery and falsifying campaign expenditures. If you don't know or care who Kent Sorenson is, he is a former Iowa state Senator, and he was paid for his endorsement, first of Michele Bachmann, and then Ron Paul.

He's the former Iowa campaign chair for Michele Bachmann's failed presidential run, the one where GOD told her he wanted her to be president.

Sorenson took money to support first Bachmann, and then Ron Paul.

From the Wa Po:

On Wednesday, Sorenson admitted in federal court what he had long adamantly denied: that he took thousands of dollars in payments from the campaigns of Bachmann and Paul in exchange for his endorsement.

The former state senator pleaded guilty to one count of causing a federal campaign committee to falsely report its expenditures and one count of obstruction of justice for giving false testimony to a state independent counsel investigating the payments.

Two sealed documents were filed in court as part of the case, a possible indication that Sorenson is cooperating with federal prosecutors as part of a broader investigation.

In Iowa, you can buy a Republican for upwards of $80,000.

Apparently, Sorenson is going to jail as part of his plea deal as well. I'm betting he's not the only one.


Since Sorenson pled guilty, the chair of the Ron Paul campaign in 2011/12, Ron Paul's granddaughter's husband Jesse Benton, has resigned as the campaign chair of the Mitch McConnell campaign for senate re-election, while continuing to deny any wrong-doing. His alleged 'bag man' was Dimitri Kesari, operating a company called Hyllus. No, not the funny vaguely u-shaped bone under you mouth, inside the lower jaw. HYLLUS. Dimitri Kesari went on to be part of Team Mitch McConnell as well. And it is a fair guess that he, like Benton, could very well be facing jail time too.


But what about Michele Bachmann?


Her defense so far of any potential wrong doing was the Hogan's Heroes character Sgt. Schultz's defense, "I KNOW NOTHING". So then the question will be -- did the mostly knows nothing about anything factual Bachmann REALLY NOT KNOW? Or, like Schultz, is she lying through her teeth --- and will Sorenson rat her out as part of his deal with the feds?


As noted by the Gazette's Des Moines Bureau:

Last October, Sorenson resigned his Senate District 13 seat in Madison and Warren counties just hours after a special prosecutor found probable cause that he violated Senate rules and may have committed the offense of felonious misconduct in office by “knowingly” making false statements to the Senate’s ethics panel.

In his lengthy report, independent counsel Mark Weinhardt determined there was probable cause that the Milo Republican violated Senate rules by “accepting compensation” from entities associated with former GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann’s campaign “in exchange for his service” during the past caucus season.

And from the Huff Po:

Andy Parrish Affidavit: Michele Bachmann 'Knew And Approved' Of Payments To Kent Sorenson
"Congresswoman Bachmann knew of and approved this arrangement,” Parrish said. “She, like the rest of us, understood from Senator Sorenson that it did not run afoul of any Iowa Senate ethics rules. We relied on his representations in this regard."

Parrish added that his affidavit is "not in any way a rebuke or betrayal to Congresswoman Bachmann," whom he considers a "personal friend."

The affidavit included emails from Guy Short, a fundraiser for Bachmann for President, who said Sorenson could be paid by a PAC, and an email from Parrish himself saying, "We're cool he can't get paid from a PAC."

Short also has attracted an Federal Election Commission inquiry because he was paid by MichelePAC while working for Bachmann's presidential campaign.

and the Bachmann campaign denial, fro the same Huff Po article:

UPDATE: 5:30 p.m. -- William McGinley, Bachmann's campaign counsel, responded to the affidavit in a statement.

The way the media is portraying this story is wrong, reckless, and outrageous. The affidavit by a former employee in fact confirms that Congresswoman Bachmann followed all applicable laws and ethical rules and instructed those working for her to do the same. The alleged arrangement at issue was both lawful and properly reported under federal law. This dispute is between the Iowa Senate and an Iowa Senator: it has nothing whatsoever to do with Congresswoman Bachmann or her political committees. For anyone to suggest otherwise is both dishonest and reprehensible.

And from the aptly named Iowa Republican, which shows how much SHE was paying Sorenson before Ron Paul upped the ante:

Fellow Bachmann staffer Peter Waldron alleges, in a complaint filed with the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee, that Sorenson violated Senate Rule 6 by accepting payments from a presidential campaign or PAC.

In the affidavit, Parrish states that he personally recruited Sorenson to work on the campaign. Parrish notes that Sorenson allegedly told him that he could not be paid by the campaign directly, so Bachmann’s campaign fundraiser Guy Short would pay him via his company, C&M Strategies, as a consultant.

Parrish also provided several emails. One of them, apparently sent from Parrish to Sorenson, states Short agreed to hire Sorenson at a rate of $7,000 per month, plus reimbursement for phone use and purchase of a laptop computer. Parrish says the monthly fee was raised to $7,500, without the phone reimbursement.

“Congresswoman Bachmann knew of and approved this arrangement,” Parrish writes in the sworn affidavit. “She, like the rest of us, understood from Senator Sorenson that it did not run afoul of any Iowa Senate ethics rules. We relied on his representations in this regard.”

If bimbo Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, utterer of so many odd and factually false things, doesn't take the fall, it is likely someone from her family, given the nepotism of her campaigns, WILL have to answer to the feds, and might have to face going to jail.


Would Bachmann sacrifice someone near and dear?


I think she would, those right wing values only go so far (apparently they include lying), and even right wing family values must have their limits. And if Bachmann throws one of her family under the bus....will they go willingly, or turn on HER? Both her husband and her son were key, top advisors/ top power players in her campaigns. They had, presumably, to be party to the payolla decisions, but would they go to jail for wife and/or mom? Because I do NOT envision Michele "I didn't get anything wrong" Bachmann taking responsibility for anything, EVER. I expect that if she can get out of jail by playing dumb, as opposed to BEING dumb, she will. But that could result in someone in her family being among those who take the heat for the bribery decisions. This is by no means a case where only the Rand Paul/Ron Paul family has kin in the game.


As noted almost a year ago, by the STrib, almost a year ago:

WASHINGTON – In the waning days of U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign, her husband, Marcus Bachmann, allegedly wrote an e-mail describing his efforts to raise much-needed funds through an outside “super PAC.”

That e-mail is now in the hands of the U.S. Justice Department, which has subpoenaed records from the National Fiscal Conservative (NFC) Political Action Committee as part of a federal grand jury investigation into potentially illegal coordination between the PAC and Bachmann’s campaign.

The grand jury subpoena, first reported in the New York Times, represents a major escalation in the multiple federal and state inquiries that rose from alleged election law violations brought forward last January by campaign whistleblower Peter Waldron.

The grand jury subpoena, obtained by the Star Tribune, covers financial transactions involving an array of top Bachmann campaign officials, including her husband.

A copy of an e-mail purportedly written to Waldron by Marcus Bachmann describes a telephone conversation he had with PAC president Bill Hemrick to raise money for a mailing to evangelicals. Hemrick reportedly suggested that Bachmann contact GOP donor August Busch, who, according to the e-mail, agreed to give $7,000 “thru the NFC super pac.”

The e-mail ended: “Praise the Lord!!”

In his reply, Waldron warned that raising money through the super PAC could violate federal election laws that bar certain types of coordination between campaigns and outside political organizations.

As noted in the Daily Beast:

And Ron Carey, a plugged-in Minnesota GOP veteran who briefly served as Bachmann’s chief of staff, has said Marcus and son Lucas were the congresswoman's main advisers on the full spectrum of issues. “The only person she talks to as an insider is her husband, Marcus, who's a wonderful man, and her son Lucas,” Carey told the Star-Tribune. (Carey has been critical of his former boss, telling the Associated Press in February that she was unelectable and even so would not “be ready for the position of the president of the United States.”)

and from the Business Insider:

By most accounts, Dr. Bachmann’s campaign role is unique — he describes himself as his wife’s political “strategist” but also doubles as a personal assistant, press secretary, and confidante.

This HAS to up the stakes with the remarkably quiet but still open Congressional ethics inquiry into Bachmann. And we haven't heard from the DOJ for a while, investigating improper deals with her book, her PAC and her campaign.

From CREW:

Rep. Bachmann appears to have improperly used her presidential campaign resources to promote her memoir, and the Department of Justice is investigating whether the Bachmann campaign illegally coordinated advertising with a super PAC.

I had a hunch last year when Bachmann announced she was not running again for Congress that something of this size and import was behind it, not the relatively piddly Heki stolen-home-school-list scandal. THIS could involve serious jail time for a lot of people, including Bachmann.

Audio of the Michael Brown shooting discovered

From CNN:

Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

(CNN) -- Could a newly released audio provide more clues on what led up to Michael Brown's shooting death?

The FBI has questioned a man who says he recorded audio of gunfire at the time Brown was shot by Ferguson, Missouri, police on August 9, the man's attorney told CNN.


In the recording, a quick series of shots can be heard, followed by a pause and then another quick succession of shots.


Forensic audio expert Paul Ginsberg analyzed the recording and said he detected at least 10 gunshots -- a cluster of six, followed by four.


"I was very concerned about that pause ... because it's not just the number of gunshots, it's how they're fired," the man's attorney, Lopa Blumenthal, told CNN's Don Lemon. "And that has a huge relevance on how this case might finally end up."


The man, who asked that his identity not be revealed, lives near the site of the shooting and was close enough to have heard the gunshots, his attorney said.

He was speaking to a friend on a video chat service and happened to be recording the conversation at the same time Brown was shot, Blumenthal said.

A further complication to understanding the audio, which appears to record 10 shots is that unconfirmed reports indicate there were 12, not 10, bullet casings found at the scene.

This does make it appear that the cop, Darren Wilson, who previous to his hire at Ferguson worked at a police department that had such bad race relations with the community that it was DISSOLVED, emptied his weapon into Michael Brown.

We should do the same!

Why Presser v. Illinois is the progunner's worst nightmare.

Of course, Scalia dismissed it in his exposition of mendacity called District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), but he also dismissed such pearls as:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

and

To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark, that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides, "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive

Since they "weren't helpful".

That's putting it mildly--they totally contradict your position.

After all, why not dismiss anything which shows that what you are saying is total bollocks?

The American people are too happily ignorant to notice anyway.

Anyway...

Presser basically is making the same tired argument we hear over and over about being part of an unorganised militia, except that term didn't have actual currency back then in US Federal law.  The court tossed that argument since Presser wasn't part of the enrolled militia.

Even better, Presser actually addressed the incorporation issue.  If Heller is a joke, then McDonald v. Chicago is even worse of a joke since Presser came to the correct conclusion about the matter:

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.

Yeah, the Second Amendment relates to congress' power under article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16--not state power.

I thought that Alito was on the ball when he asked if congress' power was "plenary" in the Heller.  Yeah, it is which means that the answer is:

The right is related to the militia and congress' power to arm it

Seriously, you had it right in US v Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), WHAT MADE YOU GO FOR THE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST POSITION??? DIDN'T THINK YOU WOULD GET CAUGHT????

Back to the story,  Presser concerned people openly carrying while pretending to be a militia and claiming their Second Amendment right, but the court swatted it down saying:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think [116 U.S. 252, 266]   it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.

Oh dear, it's that nasty civic right interpretation.

And, unlike Justice Stevens' version, this one actually got it right on incorporation.

Presser even compares the First Amendment claim:

We have not been referred to any statute of the United States which confers upon the plaintiff in error the privilege which he asserts. The only clause in the constitution which, upon any pretense, could be said to have any relation whatever to his right to associate with others as a military company, is found in the first amendment, which declares that 'congress shall make no laws ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This is a right which it was held in U. S. v. Cruikshank, above cited, was an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guarantied by, the United States. But it was held in the same case that the right peaceably to assemble was not protected by the clause referred to, unless the purpose of the assembly was to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law.

By now, I am laughing my arse off since this case is a serious nugget when looked at in relation to the farce that is Heller-McDonald.  Combine Presser with Miller, and Heller-McDonald is the serious odd man out.

As I have been pointing out, it is a tough stretch to say that carrying weapons in public outside the national defence context is protected (again, the US Constitution makes it clear it addresses NATIONAL Defence and no where mentions self-defence).

I keep mentioning that if the law is silent on the topic, one cannot assume or imply it is somehow addressed, which is something else Presser mentions:

Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.

I keep wishing that someone with more academic clout/prestige would take up these arguments, but it seems that I am the little boy who is saying the emperor has no clothes here.

But, I have loads of evidence he is as naked as a jaybird.

Going Armed to the Terror of the People

If people are going to try and claim that there is some form of "Second Amendment right" to carry a weapon in public outside the context of actual militia service (like it or not, Presser v. Illinois, 16 U.S. 252 [1886] seems to be quite on point that it is not protected).

This is a common law offense. Common law made it clear that it was contrary to law to go about in public. , "the offence of riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of  Northampton, 2 Edward 3d, ch. 3d, upon pain of forfeiture of the arms and imprisonment during the Kings pleasure." 

It is hard to imagine a right that would somehow contradict prohibited and antisocial activity.  Indeed, the crime of Going Armed to the Terror of the People consists of the following elements:

A person guilty of this offense
(1)  arms himself or herself with an unusual and dangerous weapon
(2)  for the purpose of terrifying others and
(3)  goes about on public highways
(4)  in a manner to cause terror to the people.

Element (1). In  State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418 (1843), the court held that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Huntly, 25 N.C. at 422. In that case it was argued that a gun cannot constitute an unusual weapon, “for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort.” Id. The court rejected that argument, concluding: “A gun is an ‘unusual weapon,’ wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements–as a part of his dress–and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.” Id.
Element (4). The offense of affray involves fighting in public to the terror of the people. For purposes of that offense, cases hold that if members of the public experience fear, the “to the terror of the people” element is satisfied. In re May, 357 N.C. 423, 428 (2003). In an unpublished case involving a charge of going armed to the terror of the people, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found this element satisfied where the defendant shot his gun while driving closely behind another vehicle on a public highway. State v. Toler, 716 S.E.2d 875 (N.C. App. 2011) (unpublished) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that his actions were not “to the terror of the people” where the only people involved were those in the victim’s car, and stating: “We find this to be substantial evidence that this behavior was intended to be to the terror of the people and was in fact to the terror of the people. The fact that a limited number of witnesses testified regarding Defendant’s actions does not change the character of those actions.”).

In other words, if one causes fear in the general public then you are guilty of this offence.

As I said before,  William Rawle explained this in relation to the Second Amendment in his treatise "A View of the Constitution of the United States", 125--26 1829 (2d ed.):

"This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.

An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment."

While some people would like to claim that carrying weapons in public is covered by the Second Amendment, Presser v. Illinois, 16 U.S. 252 [1886]

It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are [116 U.S. 252, 268]   authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.

Although, one thing that the Presser court made clear was that the Second Amendment right was tied to militia service and that carrying weapons outside that context was not covered by the Amendment.

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.

As I have said before,  I'm rather surprised that Presser has been neglected in Second Amendment jurisprudence.  Although, maybe surprise is the wrong word to use since this decision so clearly supports the "Civic Right" interpretation of the Second Amendment by pointing out that the right to bear arms is only protected when it relates to militia service.

Presser was doing what open carry advocated do these days and walking about claiming his Second Amendment right to bear arms in public. He was not engaging in menacing activity (although the common law does not really require actual menace, the mere fact one is carrying a weapon in public is enough to prove menace).  To be quite frank, Presser is the gun rights fanatic's worst nightmare.

I would add that any "incorporation" issue is also addressed in this decision by pointing out that the Second Amendment right DOES apply to the states if they were to abridge the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of militias under the aspect of Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16, not private uses.

As US v. Miller said, [it is] With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.  Which means, as William Rawle pointed out, the first and second clauses of the Second Amendment are corollaries and must be considered together.

There is no right to go about armed outside the context of national service and the law should not be misinterpreted to say there is. Additionally, one cannot claim a right to terrorise people.

See also:

• Going Armed to the Terror of the People « North Carolina Criminal Law

William Rawle on the Second Amendment

NOTE:   The right judicially created by the Heller-McDonald cases does not extend beyond the curtilage (boundaries of the home).

I've been quoting William Rawle a lot lately since it is pretty much a given that there is no right to walk about carrying weapons in such a way that is likely to commit a disturbance of the peace  (see Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Chapter XI. Of Offences Against the Public Peace).

William Rawle explains this in relation to the Second Amendment in his treatise "A View of the Constitution of the United States", 125--26 1829 (2d ed.):

"This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.

An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment."

In other words, people are well within their rights to call the police if they see someone carrying a weapon in public:  after all, that is the police's job to deal with people who could possibly be causing a breech of the peace.

In fact, there are some seriously good legal precedent that say someone carrying a weapon in public must give surety, or at least have some form of licence.

While the Cruikshank case isn't really useful for Second Amendment precedent, the Presser case sure as hell is where it says that the government has the right to licence the carrying of weapons outside the Militia context.

Also, it's interesting that people cite to Rawle and call his treatise a landmark text.  They even mention that Rawle says that the Second Clause is a corollary clause, yet they miss that the word "corollary" implies a relationship:

a statement that follows readily from a previous statement.

In other words, there is a relationship between the first and second clauses of the Second Amendment, whether people want to admit that these days.  The Miller Court reiterated that when it said, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

And, as Presser pointed out:

It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are [116 U.S. 252, 268]   authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.

I find it hard to say that carrying arms in public outside of the militia/national defence context is in any way a protected act by the Second Amendment.

Heller is wrongly decided and does not properly follow the Second Amendment Jurisprudence as set out by the Supreme Court.

GOP = Bad Governance, Bad Economics

Bad Republicans, GOP = Bad Governance & Failed Priorities

Christian fundamentalism --- just as bad

Touring Test?

OK, this is a pun on the Turing Test for artificial intelligence named for Alan Turing (who was recently given a posthumous pardon by the queen).

This robot is attempting to hitchhike across Canada:

More on this:

• Official webpage
• Hitchbot Facebook Page

Eric Holder Ferguson success ENRAGES Right

now

then [c.1970]

I've been watching the response from the radical right to the events in Ferguson, Missouri, particularly since the visit Wednesday by Eric Holder.

Those who protest the apparent murder of Michael Brown have spoken out quite positively about how they feel after the visit by AG Eric Holder.

They are more positive, more hopeful, and more encouraged, and that has been reflected in the more peaceful tone in the town (along with the literal dampening effect of a night of rain).

Holder is promising to look into a specific investigation into the possible violation of civil rights of Michael Brown. Further, Holder has promised to look at a broader pattern of civil rights by police as well.


That positive result in the town of Ferguson has sent conservatives off the deep end where they live, on the fringe.


In response, the right dredges up an old smear -- another fact-averse smear, of the propaganda model loved by conservatives. I've made a habit here and elsewhere of pointing out that conservatives consistently believe things which are factually false, which are lies, which are ugly propaganda.

Propaganda is manipulative, emotional rather than rational, and dishonest.


The big lie about Holder is that he is a dangerous, violent extremist, who has somehow nefariously risen to be the first African American AG in our history. They claim that when he was at Columbia University, he was the leader of an armed group of black power radicals who took over a building and held off authorities.


Of course, the REALITY, the FACTS are nothing like that.

According to Columbia, Holder was never armed, or acted inappropriately. Holder and a group of other black students approached the administration about using an empty, unused part of a ROTC building.  They went ahead and used the space, while waiting for formal approval from Columbia which came a few days later.

No weapons. No stand-off with authorities. No violence. No radical extremists, no black power group.

It's an old lie. It's been published in the Daily Liar, er, Daily Caller.  It's been spread in the Blaze.  It's been smeared around like feces in Before It's News.
There are endless examples of other right wingers who have promoted the smear, the lie, the propaganda.

Now the conservatives who live by emails sent by other crazy conservatives, and the lies promoted by Faux News, have revived it.

It was entertaining to watch conservative heads explode (figuratively speaking) when confronted with the FACTS about Holder's career.  No, not his career at Columbia; they won't be dissuaded by any factual information about that, including from the University.  No, I'm talking about the rise of Holder to his current position -- which is not the first time he's headed up the DoJ.

Think about it for a moment; who is the dead conservative MOST idolized by a majority of Conservatives?

No doubt about it - that would be the late President Ronald Reagan, or more colloquially, (secular) St. Ronnie Ray-gun.  Yes, THAT is who gave Eric Holder his entrance into a prominent role in the Judiciary.  In 1988, Ronald Reagan appointed Eric Holder to the Superior Court bench for the District of Columbia.

In 1988, he was selected by President Ronald Reagan to be an associate judge of the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. In 1993, he became the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. In 1997, President Bill Clinton named him deputy attorney general, the first African-American to hold that position.

Holder briefly served as acting AG for George W. Bush, during the confirmation process for AG Ashcroft as well.

He [Ashcroft] later met with Eric Holder, who had served as acting attorney general since President Bill Clinton left office Jan. 20. Ashcroft thanked Holder, previously the deputy attorney general, on his last day at the Justice Department.

And of course, Holder has a few other rewards and acknowledgements that he is an excellent attorney, very qualified, influential.


But either you believe that NEITHER Ronald Reagan, while president, NOR the Senate, which approves judicial appointments to the Superior Court D.C. bench, NOR George W. Bush while President vetted Eric Holder, and chose to overlook ----- ALL OF THEM ---- such radical armed violence at Columbia, OR...........you have to concede that the Columbia story of guns and extremism is false.

Confronted with the facts, Conservatives fall silent.  They cannot relinquish the hate, the smear, the ugly propaganda.  But they are caught in a double bind, a kind of check-mate of comment.

Conservatives believe things which are not true.  Conservatives embrace and celebrate and disseminate lies.  The facts are not their friends. And there is no mystery why so many people view conservatives as racists; this is a perfect example of why.

There is something uniquely tragic about the political orientation that so loves to pat themselves on the back for their superior values, which is nothing more than holier-than-thou hypocrisy, that supports and promotes this kind of deliberate dishonesty.  There is something uniquely ugly, hateful and un-patriotic about people who WANT FAILURE of people in our government trying to intervene in a painful and chaotic situation, no matter how much misery, damage, and injury might result from failure.

Meet Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

I am amazed at how much the Second Amendment debate is held in ignorance: in particular, this case should be front and centre.

I should add that as long as the "civic right" interpretation of the Second Amendment is out there, this is still a valid case.  In fact, while the Heller-McDonald line of cases said this may no longer be applicable, the fact that the court said that "to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same" would relate to public order means that this is a very relevant case to a world where people want to openly carry arms in public.


Facts:

Herman Presser was part of a citizen militia group, the Lehr und Wehr Verein (Instruct and Defend Association), a group of armed ethnic German workers, associated with the Socialist Labor Party. The group had been formed to counter the armed private armies of companies in Chicago.

The indictment charged in substance that Presser, on September 24, 1879, in the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois, "did unlawfully belong to, and did parade and drill in the city of Chicago with an unauthorized body of men with arms, who had associated themselves together as a military company and organization, without having a license from the Governor, and not being a part of, or belonging to, 'the regular organized volunteer militia' of the State of Illinois, or the troops of the United States." A motion to quash the indictment was overruled. Presser then pleaded not guilty, and both parties having waived a jury the case was tried by the court, which found Presser guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of $10.

In December 1879, marched at the head of said company, about four hundred in number, in the streets of the city of Chicago, he riding on horseback and in command; that the company was armed with rifles and Presser with a cavalry sword; that the company had no license from the governor of Illinois to drill or parade as a part of the militia of the State, and was not a part of the regular organized militia of the State, nor a part of troops of the United States, and had no organization under the militia law of the United States.

Presser claimed the law violated his rights under the Second Amendment.

Holding: 

"Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States."

The Presser Court said:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.

The Court emphatically disposed of Presser's argument that there exists a right to assemble, drill, or march in a militia independent of authorization by state or federal law:

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the State and Federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.

In other word, as I have been saying all along, you do not belong to a "Constitutional Militia"  unless you belong to an actual serving organisation which is organised under Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16 of the United States Constitution.  As per Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, that body is the National Guard: whether you like it or not.

In fact, reading Presser, it's pretty clear that the "unorganised militia" argument is seriously nonsensical from a legal point standpoint.  There is no basis for claiming that a reserve pool with no obligation of service (hence Unorganised, Sedentary, reserve, inactive,  general or other term indicating INACTIVITY Militia) has any "right" to arms.

This is especially true if your unit was not created by act of congress and under some form of governmental control.

I would also add that local governments are probably on good ground in strictly regulating open carry rallies by combining this case with the comment in Heller that:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).

Additionally, as I pointed out before the First Amendment protect peaceable assembly.  Any armed group is not "peaceable" in any realistic sense of that word.

Republican government is bad government

The toe bone's connected to the foot bone.....

Numbers tell the story

Transparency and Accountability

Because, it is true.

Gov. Dayton vs. Jeff Johnson: Primary Election Perspective and retro-spective

From my view on Primary Tuesday as an elective judge, the predicted low turnout was more variable.  The up-ballot races were not driving voter participation, but rather from what I saw and what was reported to us by our county auditor about our county wide participation and the larger state-wide participation, high or low turnout was dependant on whether or not there were commissioner races, not the 'big' job races.



This prompted me to take a look at the primary turnouts in the last two election cycles.


From the Sec. State site, comparing the last midterm election year for the Governor's race primary and this year's primary, as a  measure of voter enthusiasm. 

First let's look at 2010, the most recent midterm election year, significant for the Tea Party phenomenon:

Independence party
TOM HORNER AND JAMES A. MULDER            11380  64.24
PHIL RATTE’ AND GAYLE-LYNN: LEMASTER      1215   6.86
RAHN V. WORKCUFF AND MARK F WORKCUFF    815   4.60
JOHN T. ULDRICH AND STEPHEN WILLIAMS      1766   9.97
ROB HAHN AND THOMAS J HARENS                  2538  14.33
GOP
OLE’ SAVIOR AND TODD “ELVIS” ANDERSON      4396     3.37
LESLIE DAVIS AND GREGORY K. SODERBERG     8598     6.59
BOB CARNEY JR AND WILLIAM MCGAUGHEY        9856   7.56
TOM EMMER AND ANNETTE T. MEEKS               107558 82.48
DFL
MARGARET ANDERSON KELLIHER, JOHN GUNYOU  175767   39.75
PETER IDUSOGIE AND LADY JAYNE FONTAINE              3123     0.71
MATT ENTENZA AND ROBYNE ROBINSON                    80509   18.21
MARK DAYTON AND YVONNE PRETTNER SOLON        182738 41.33

Independence party 17714
GOP 130408
DFL 442137
_______
total 590259
and a little ‘extra’ context — total registered MN voters as of poll opening 3111619
and this year:
Independence party
HANNAH NICOLLET AND TIM GIESEKE 5822 100.00
GOP
MARTY SEIFERT AND PAM MYHRA 38798 21.09
KURT ZELLERS AND DEAN SIMPSON 43991 23.92
MERRILL ANDERSON AND MARK ANDERSON 7008 3.81
JEFF JOHNSON AND BILL KUISLE 55813 30.34
SCOTT HONOUR AND KARIN HOUSLEY 38331 20.84
DFL
BILL DAHN AND JAMES VIGLIOTTI 4896 2.56
LESLIE DAVIS AND GREGORY K. SODERBERG 8529 4.46
MARK DAYTON AND TINA SMITH 177737 92.98
Independence party 5822
GOP 183941
DFL 191162
________
total 372396
total registered MN voters as of poll opening: 3111478

That's a decline of 217503 voters participating in the 2014 election, more than the total votes cast by any of the parties for their combined candidates, compared to the 2010 election, and a slight decline in total number of registered voters (141).


It also reflects a difference of an INCREASE of 53533 Republican voters, and a DECREASE of 259144 Democratic voters participating in this primary compared to 2010.

What does this say about the enthusiasm levels between the various parties? It strongly suggests a lack of primary excitement by Democrats and Independents compared to Republicans. But arguably the sharpest contest was the 5 way race for the Republican ticket, compared to the 4-way equivalent in 2010 for the DFL ticket - other than the draw of those more local races, where there were contests.


It would be a serious over-reach of the numbers to suggest this represents any kind of overall turnout for the general election.


It will remain to be seen how the overall voter turnout compares in the general election to the primaries, and who does and does not turn out to vote --- and WHY, not for WHOM. A big question will be can those who split among the top three MN GOP candidates unite behind Jeff Johnson, in contrast to the triple digit unity by MN Dems behind Mark Dayton. Dayton has excellent statewide recognition, with 46278 voters turning out in Hennepin County, while only 12101 voters turned out for Johnson in Hennepin, his home county.


There are a lot of devils hiding in a lot of details, which may or may not be useful predictors of ANYTHING.  What looks unlikely at this point however is another governor's race recount after the November general election.

Goodbye, Robin Williams

On hearing that Robin Williams had committed suicide after battling deep depression, I was reminded of the words from Hamlet, Act I Scene 2, part of the famous 'soliloquy':

O, that this too too solid flesh would melt,
Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!
Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God! God!
How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable,
Seem to me all the uses of this world!

R.I.P. Robin Williams

I'm sorry to hear he died, but here he is on US Gun Culture.

"Suicide leaves such a bad aftertaste on the soul."

A hat tip to Lana for this idea.

Stewie Mills the turd -- LYING again about Nolan,SO desperate to win CD 8 any way he can

‘Friends of Stewart Mills’ sent out a mailer recently, calling Rick Nolan out of touch, illustrated by an automatic pistol hanging by a threat attached to the trigger apparatus.

Apparently they are upset that Nolan doesn’t think assault rifles with a hundred or more rounds of ammo are really what constitutes hunting weapons.  From that the Friends of Stewie Mills III get positively hysterical with paranoia.

Friends of Stewart Mills show most of their campaign contributions (approximately 67%) coming from ‘large individual contributions’, not from ‘ordinary people’, and does not differentiate between in-state contributors and out of state donors. And of course, Stewie III is now ‘self-funding’ his actual campaign.


As of mid-July, per MinnPost:
More notably, Mills, an executive at Fleet Farm, his family’s company, has begun to pump some of his personal wealth into the campaign, cutting a personal check for $121,000 (that number isn’t reflected in his fundraising total). That’s Mills’ first major contribution to his own campaign. This wasn’t exactly unexpected—he had never ruled out self-funding before Election Day, and Mills’ wealth means he could afford to spend a lot more on this race if he wants to. His stake in Fleet Farm is worth between $41 million and $150 million.

It claims Rick Nolan has no respect for 2nd Amendment rights, and that “our gun rights are hanging by a thread’.

In the same period, we have a Mendota Heights police officer killed by a career criminal, a mass shooting in a Minneapolis bar over the weekend that injured 11 people (5 women, 6 men according to police reports). This morning, there was a shooting at a gas station. Earlier this month, 3 people were injured in a drive by shooting in North Minneapolis. Not long before that, a man was shot after a bus confrontation. And a Bemidji man was arrested for attempted murder for shooting a 17 year old girl as she stood on her deck, for telling him not to ride his lawn mower through her yard. Earlier this morning, a gunman at a gas station gunned down his unarmed passenger, shooting him multiple times.

That is a lot of gun violence in a little over a two week period, in what is generally considered one of the SAFEST states from gun violence.

As noted by gnom news, re the West St. Paul shooting of the police officer:

The fatal shooting is the latest in a surge of violence against police — more than 70 officers have died this year. Police killings by firearms are up 65 percent this year after a historic low in 2013.

So what were Nolan’s actual votes and positions on gun control? According to NNCNOW, the group of news stations up on the ‘range’ in northern Minnesota:

Fact Check: Rick Nolan claims Stewart Mills attack ad “a big lie”
DULUTH, Minn. (NNCNOW.com) — U.S. Congressman Rick Nolan is claiming a new attack ad by his Republican opponent contains some false information.
In a race that is among the most fiercely contested in the country, Nolan accuses Stewart Mills of using smear campaign tactics.
“Far too many politicians in Washington have no respect for the Second Amendment,” the ad says.
The thirty second ad slams Nolan’s “F” rating with the National Rifle Association.
“This ad is a dishonest, “big lie” smear campaign tactic that couldn’t be further from the truth,” Nolan said.
The ad continues, “…In Washington, he (Nolan) has repeatedly voted to take away your rights.”
In fact, since Nolan returned to the House of Representatives in 2013, there have been few votes on major gun legislation.
The Mills’ campaign points to Nolan’s support on the Thompson King Amendment, which would require people to clear a background check before purchasing a gun.
The campaign also cites a vote Nolan made that some say would have implemented a gun registry, but that vote was 36 years ago.
“I think there is no better point there than it shows Rick Nolan is out of touch with the values of this District,” Mike Lukach, Mills’ Campaign Manager said. “He went on national television within a month of him being in office to endorse gun control.”
That is not the whole story.
Nolan did appear on Face the Nation, but he did not endorse complete gun control.
“I don’t need an assault weapon to shoot a duck,” Nolan said on Face the Nation. “I think they ought to be banned and I think we need to put a ban on the amount of shells you can carry in a magazine.”
“Congressman Rick Nolan is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment,” Kendal Killian, Nolan’s Campaign Manager said. “And the accusation that he (Nolan) doesn’t support the Second Amendment is just a complete lie.”
The Nolan campaign hit back saying Mills suggested raising taxes on guns in a 2013 Youtube video.
“The ATF collects approximately $24 billion a year in excise fees,” Mills said in the video. “If we need to increase the 11% ATF excise fee on firearms to 15% or whatever to pay for it, we need to do that.”
The Mills campaign said the comment was taken out of context.
One more thing you need to know.
Mills’ ad says, “Around Election time, Rick will put on his hunter’s orange and grab a rifle…”
“The accusation that Congressman Nolan only hunts on election season, that is also a complete lie,” Killian said. “Congressman Nolan has been hunting for over 50 years.”
The Nolan campaign showed NNC numerous family photos of the Congressman hunting with family throughout past years.
The Eighth Congressional District has one of the highest populations of gun owners, so voters can expect to see more ad’s that target gun owners this election cycle.

Looking at Nolan’s ACTUAL legislative record, at govtrack.us, on any gun related measure, under bills he sponsored or co-sponsored, we have this one, from 2013:

H.R. 2494: Protecting Americans from the Proliferation of Weapons to Terrorists Act of 2013
Sponsor: Rep. Christopher Gibson [R-NY19]
Introduced: Jun 25, 2013
Referred to Committee: Jun 25, 2013

Hardly a threat to the 2A rights of Americans.

And this one — also NOT a threat to the 2A rights of Americans (look at the author).

H.R. 1565: Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2013
Sponsor: Rep. Peter “Pete” King [R-NY2]
Introduced: Apr 15, 2013
Referred to Committee: Apr 15, 2013

and this pro-hunting/pro-hunter legislation:

H.R. 3728: Wild Game Donation Act of 2013
Sponsor: Rep. Don Young [R-AK0]
Introduced: Dec 12, 2013
Referred to Committee: Dec 12, 2013

and there was this anti-crime legislation, that does NOT threaten 2A rights, or ‘dangle our guns by a thread’:

H.R. 2669: Community-Based Gang Intervention Act
Sponsor: Rep. Tony Cárdenas [D-CA29]
Introduced: Jul 11, 2013
Referred to Committee: Jul 11, 2013

Looking at legislation INTRODUCED by Nolan, I suppose you could stretch this to be an attack on the 2A rights of CORPORATIONS…. but that would be ridiculous.

H.J.Res. 29: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only.
Sponsor: Rep. Richard Nolan [D-MN8]
Introduced: Feb 14, 2013
Referred to Committee: Feb 14, 2013

One of the aspects of Nolans record noted by trackgov.us is that Nolan is one of the BETTER members of Congress working both across partisan lines on legislation, and in cooperation with the Senate in order to make legislation more effective, and was one of the more active legislators for government transparency.

Looking at gun control related legislation in Congress in 2013 and 2014, most legislation has been referred to committees on which Nolan does not sit, and therefore could not vote. I don’t see any legislation for a general vote that could possibly be defined as gun control legislation in the House of Representatives during Nolan’s recent term in office.

It IS true, Nolan is in favor of background checks – that is NOT an assault on 2A rights. It is an attempt to keep bad people from getting their hands on guns, and clearly from our recent experience here in Minnesota (which is BETTER than most states) there is good reason to do that.

And while the NRA might give Nolan a bad grade for that, even a majority of MEMBERS of the NRA support background checks for gun purchases. It is pretty meaningless what grade the NRA gives a candidate, when 74% of the NRA’s OWN MEMBERS support criminal background checks for ALL gun purchases, as do 90% of ALL AMERICANS.
From Politifact.com:

Ninety percent of Americans and 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support universal background checks, Leffingwell said, the Austin American-Statesman reported in a news article posted online the day he spoke, March 28, 2013.
Currently, background checks are required in sales by federally licensed gun dealers but not for gun sales by private sellers. President Barack Obama wants to require criminal background checks for all gun sales. The National Rifle Association, which opposes universal background checks, has suggested that an expansion would fail to rope in criminals.
As noted in a January 2013 fact check by our colleagues in Washington, Republican pollster Frank Luntz’s organization, Luntz Global, conducted a May 2012 poll of 945 gun owners nationwide, half of whom were gun owners who were “current or lapsed” members of the National Rifle Association and half of whom were non-NRA gun owners. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
A week before Leffingwell spoke, Everhart pointed out, Bloomberg delivered remarks in New York noting that polls in 41 congressional districts suggest an average of 86 percent to 89 percent of likely voters support universal background checks. “That’s in line with other recent polls that have found that more than 90 percent of Americans support background checks for all gun buyers,” Bloomberg said before revisiting the May 2012 poll that reached current and former NRA members.
That poll found that 82 percent of gun owners were in favor of required background checks, including 74 percent of individuals with current or former memberships in the NRA.
PolitiFact identified two other 2013 polls of gun owners. A Pew Research Center poll taken of 1,502 adults from Jan. 9-13, 2013, found 85 percent of some 529 polled gun owners in favor of making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks — nearly identical to the Luntz poll. The gun-owner results had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points. A CBS/New York Times poll conducted of 1,110 adults from Jan. 11-15, 2013, showed that 85 percent of respondents living in a household with an NRA member supported universal background checks.
More recently, according to the results of a national January 2013 poll presented in the March 21, 2013, New England Journal of Medicine, 84 percent of gun owners and 74 percent of NRA members supported requiring a universal background-check system for all gun sales. The poll was conducted by GfK Knowledge Networks for researchers led by Colleen L. Barry, an associate professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
The January Pew poll found 85 percent of all respondents in favor of making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks, with comparable support from Republicans, Democrats and independents, Pew said. The margin of error for the entire sample was 2.9 percentage points.
The CBS/New York Times poll indicated that 92 percent of all the respondents favor background checks for all potential gun buyers. The poll had an overall margin of error of three percentage points.
PolitiFact Georgia, looking into a similar claim about support for universal checks, noted a Fox News poll conducted Jan. 15-17, 2013, of 1,008 registered voters. Ninety one percent of respondents said they favor “requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows and private sales.”
A Quinnipiac University national survey of 772 registered voters, taken Jan. 30 through Feb. 4, 2013, found 92 percent supporting background checks for all gun buyers. The survey, pointed out by Everhart, had a margin of error of 2.3 percentage points.
A subsequent Quinnipiac University survey, taken of 1,944 registered voters from Feb. 27, 2013 through March 4, 2013, found 88 percent in favor of background checks for all gun buyers. The poll had a margin of error of 2.2 percentage points.

Nolan is in touch with Americans, including apparently CD8 Minnesotans, and supports their interests and safety with real responses to risks in balance with freedom.

Frat Brat Stewie Mills does NOT represent the interests of Minnesotans, nor is he being honest with the voters in CD 8 about his opponent. Instead he is lying about Nolan to appeal to the low information, single issue voter, pandering to ignorance and irrational fears.

Shame on bratty little Stewie Mills; because that is all he has to offer.  He’s got nothing else.

More Right Wing Failures of Governance

Good for all of us; Good for the NATION!

'Dangerous' half-naked flying Putto,
with sword

Russian Jet
NOT
violating U.S. airspace

OH NOOOOOOOOH!

It's a bird! It's a PLANE! It's a Russian JET......

It's a 'putti'?

Putti, plural of Putto (from wikipedia):

A putto (plural putti, /ˈpʊti/ or POO-tee, puttoes)[1] is a figure in a work of art depicted as a chubby male child, usually nude and sometimes winged. Putti are commonly confused with, yet are completely unrelated to, cherubim. Putti are secular and represent a non-religious passion.


Here, I am using the term Putti as a nom de guerre for Puti(n) of Russia, in the larger context of fly-bys from Russian jets.


Russian Jet NOT violating U.S. airspace.

I love to poke holes in the paranoia of the radical right, as their propaganda machines grossly misrepresent current events so as to rile up the ignorant unwashed conservatives into hysteria with emotional-appealing lies, rather than providing factual information.


One of the latest is misrepresenting claimed invasions of U.S. air space by Russian Jets.


Here is the reality, from the Alaska Dispatch News:

Much has been made of reports that Russian military aircraft have penetrated U.S. airspace 16 times over the last 10 days. But the so-called incursions aren't actually a violation of any treaty, national border or military agreement, according to federal defense officials.

Russian military aircraft training in the Northwest Pacific Ocean near Alaska have caused North American Air Defense officials to scramble fighter jets to check them out recently. But the aircraft have not penetrated U.S. airspace, according to John Cornelio, NORAD's deputy director of public affairs.

According to NORAD, the Russian aircraft were operating over international waters but inside the Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone, an area usually extending about 200 miles from the Alaska coastline. (The zone is much smaller in areas like the Bering Strait where another nation's border is less than 200 miles away.) All aircraft entering the zone are required to submit flight plans to local air traffic control towers. Any plane spotted in the area that does not identify itself, does not have a working transponder or has not filed a flight plan is visually identified by U.S. and Canadian military aircraft.

"Over the past week, NORAD has visually identified Russian aircraft operating in and around the U.S. air defense identification zones," said Maj. Jennifer Lovett, director of public affairs for the Alaskan Command.

"While there has been a spike in activity, we assess that these flights are in keeping with the mission of routine training and exercises, and it's important to note that these Russian aircraft remained in international air space at all times," Lovett said.

Lovett would not go into detail about the numbers or types of Russian aircraft contacted inside the Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone, or how close they got to U.S. airspace, defined as an area 12 nautical miles from the coastline. Lovett would also not comment on what happens when a NORAD military aircraft scrambles to identify an unknown plane inside the identification zone.

But NORAD was firm in its statement that the Russians have not violated American airspace.

"There have been absolutely no incursions into U.S. airspace. Zero. No violations of U.S. sovereign airspace," Cornelio said.

Let me repeat that:

"There have been absolutely no incursions into U.S. airspace. Zero. No violations of U.S. sovereign airspace," Cornelio said."


While on the right wing nuttery echo chamber, it's nothing but "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!" interspersed with how Putti, er, Putin, is the new bogeyman that terrifies them (and whom they secretly admire for doing so).


From the Washington Times:
Russian bombers penetrated U.S. airspace at least 16 times in past 10 days

By Bill Gertz - Washington Free Beacon - - Thursday, August 7, 2014

Russian strategic nuclear bombers conducted at least 16 incursions into northwestern U.S. air defense identification zones over the past 10 days, an unusually sharp increase in aerial penetrations, according to U.S. defense officials.

The numerous flight encounters by Tu-95 Russian Bear H bombers prompted the scrambling of U.S. jet fighters on several occasions, and come amid heightened U.S.-Russia tensions over Ukraine. Also, during one bomber incursion near Alaska, a Russian intelligence-gathering jet was detected along with the bombers.

Now while this was REPRINTED in the Washington Times, a right wing rag, it ORIGINATED in an even MORE extremist right wing more raggedy rag, the Washington Free Beacon.


You get more of the same hysterical headlines and factually incorrect B.S. from News Max, and from Hot Air:

Sleep tight: Russian nuclear bombers penetrated U.S. airspace 16 times in last 10 days
posted at 2:41 pm on August 8, 2014 by Noah Rothman

At a July 29 press conference, President Barack Obama assured reporters that the new conflict between the U.S. and Russia, one characterized by economic and military proxy conflict on a variety of fronts, is “not a new Cold War.” He’s right; at no point during the Cold War would the Soviets have felt comfortable engaging in the systematic testing of American defense parameters with nuclear bombers. The current leadership in the Kremlin, however, has no such qualms about employing that kind of instigation.

According to a report from the Washington Free Beacon’s Bill Gertz, U.S. defense officials are warning that Russian strategic nuclear bombers have conducted no less than 16 incursions into American airspace in just a 10-day period. Gertz characterizes this uptick in the number of times American airspace has been penetrated by Russian air assets as an “unusually sharp increase.”

Let me repeat what NORAD has to say:

"There have been absolutely no incursions into U.S. airspace. Zero. No violations of U.S. sovereign airspace," Cornelio said.

It is fair to say, conservatives are once again running around with their hair on fire. I can only imagine a 'putto' with his shirt off, and the face of Vladimir Putin, hovering around in the air above them, flapping his wings, and grinning from ear to ear at their propaganda manipulation.


We have about as much to worry about from Putin and these NON-airspace-violations as we have from a flying Putto. One more time, Conservatives believe things which are factually false, then get ginned up emotionally, run around in full-blown paranoia with their hair on fire -- over NOTHING.


(And my parents used to worry that art history classes would be useless - Hah!)

Friday Fun Day! and.... Ford Day?

The world is full of serious, tragic events.

Sometimes, no matter how important those events are, we need to take a breath, and step back for a moment, in order not to go numb.

Fridays are great for taking that moment.

Following the news in mid-July:

Rob Ford’s sobriety coach leaves full-time duty as Toronto mayor continues to recover

Sobriety guru Bob Marier, who has been by Ford's side nearly every moment since the mayor was released from rehab two weeks ago, will be around less. Ford's camp said he is continuing to undergo treatment for drugs and alcohol.

To launch a musical theater production about a story that is still very much a work in progress, at best, seems ambitious verging on the extremely risky.

In that context, here is a bit of odd-but-true news, via the Daily News:

Toronto mayor Rob Ford is subject of new musical about scandal-filled year
'Rob Ford the Musical: Birth of A Ford Nation,' is set to play in the beleaguered politician's hometown with actor Sheldon Bergstrom in the lead role.


It’s a rare high note for embattled Toronto mayor Rob Ford — the recovering drug-addicted politician’s foibles inspired a new musical in his home city.
“I've been fascinated by him for a long time," actor Sheldon Bergstrom, the star of “Rob Ford the Musical: Birth of A Ford Nation,” told the Ottawa Citizen.
“All across Canada, all throughout the world, people are watching this man, this mayor of ... Canada's greatest city, and he has managed to pull off some amazing things and pull off some crazy things in his time as mayor."
The 90-minute musical comedy will star Bergstrom as Ford, and focus on the politicians’ last year.

the actor, here, and the real Ford, below:

Actor Sheldon Bergstrom will play the role of
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford in the upcoming musical, Ford the Musical: Birth of A Ford Nation.’‘
(photo Chris Young / AP)

The musical will focus on the last year
of the scandal-scarred mayor’s life,
including his rehab stint and reported
drug and alcohol addictions.
(photo: Lucas Oleniak, Toronto Star, via Getty Images)

Ronnie Ray-Gun and the Prez's Bush -- BAD PRESIDENTS!

Michele Bachmann, Tea Party Queen, part of another scandal with a charity for our Military

The above is from 2013; Bachmann has done more of these, including in 2011. Bachmann gave the famously odd 'Tea Party Express' response to the State of the Union speech back in 2011.


Pro Publica recently did an expose on Move American Forward, a right wing nut 'charity' for Veterans that seems to be doing more giving at home to tea party 'consultants'. Our own Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, (R-CD6) has been in the thick of it all.

Pro-Troop Charity Misleads Donors While Lining Political Consultants’ Pockets

Move America Forward has collected millions to send care packages to U.S. troops. But its appeals often rely on images and stories borrowed without permission, and its assets have been used to benefit political consulting firms and PACs.

by Kim Barker
ProPublica, Aug. 5, 2014, 5:45 a.m.
Yet an examination of its fundraising appeals, tax records and other documents shows that Move America Forward has repeatedly misled donors and inflated its charitable accomplishments, while funneling millions of dollars in revenue to the men behind the group and their political consulting firms.

Part of an email from Move America Forward claiming the charity had sent care packages to 800 Marines in Afghanistan. The battalion in question was deployed more than 3,000 miles away in Okinawa, Japan.

In several instances, the charity has taken images and stories from other groups and from veterans themselves without permission to use in fundraising appeals.

Last year, Move America Forward even solicited funds by claiming a partnership with Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, the largest hospital for wounded service members in the country. No such partnership existed, Defense Department officials say.

The charity's funds and other assets also appear to have been used to subsidize three conservative political action committees, records show.

The Tea Party is an astro-turf movement that all too often exists to manipulate their base with propaganda that has them putting on the fear goggles instead of thinking, that relies on emotion rather than factual information.


In her time in Congress, Michele Bachmann has done well for herself, promoted herself, at every opportunity, appealing to the wilfully ignorant angry white people who think that if the world changes they must be victims. The people doing most of the real victimizing of them are the people they follow on the right. Other right wing nut figures, like Sean Hannity, have gotten in trouble for the same thing -- claiming to raise money for vets, but keeping a lot of it.


You'd think, after the scandal of big donor Bobby Thompson and his Navy Vets group that he used to raise millions for himself that Bachmann would have learned to check out the groups with which she associates.


Apparently NOT.


Now we find Bachmann, along with a long laundry list of other radical right wing nuts, who are supporting and supported by the same crew that gave us the Tea Party Express. This sure looks a lot like long term mutual back scratching -- the Tea Party Express "does" for the right wingnut celebs and pols, and they "do" for the same operators, and the money keeps flowing out of the pockets of the tea party grass roots believers, just one more rip off OF the right, BY the right.