Saturday, July 7, 2012

An Oldie, and Still a Baddie - another factcheck.org rumor mill failure

If it is correct that the truth will set you free, we are all less free every election cycle.  This, in variations, was around during the 2008 election cycle, and minimally repeated in 2010.  With Obama running for re-election, we can look forward to this raising it's ugly head again.  Time for a smackdown, especially for those who believed it the first time around, and continue to do so.
From factcheck.org's internet rumor busting report:

The Obamas’ Law Licenses

Posted on June 14, 2012
Bookmark and Share
Q: Did Barack and Michelle Obama “surrender” their law licenses to avoid ethics charges?
A: No. A court official confirms that no public disciplinary proceeding has ever been brought against either of them, contrary to a false Internet rumor. By voluntarily inactivating their licenses, they avoid a requirement to take continuing education classes and pay hundreds of dollars in annual fees. Both could practice law again if they chose to do so.

FULL QUESTION
Have you seen this one? I couldn’t find a reference to it on your website. Can you debunk any of the following accusations?
Chain email: I knew they had both lost their law license, but didn’t know why until I read this.
This is legit. I check it out at https://www.iardc.org Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It’s the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois; and they are very strict and mean as hell. (Talk about irony.) Even I, at the advanced age of almost 65, maintain (at the cost of approximately $600/year) my law license that I worked so hard and long to earn. Big surprise.
Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address.
Consider this:
1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a “lawyer”. He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application. A “Voluntary Surrender” is not something where you decide “Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?” and forget to renew your license. No, a “Voluntary Surrender” is something you do when you’ve been accused of something, and you ‘voluntarily surrender” your license five seconds before the state suspends you.
⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏
FULL ANSWER
We briefly addressed rumors about the status of the Obamas’ law licenses back in January 2010 in an Ask FactCheck titled “Clueless ‘Columbo.’ ” But a steady stream of questions about them has continued to flow to our inbox ever since.
It’s true that neither the president nor the first lady holds an active license to practice law. A search on the website of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois shows that Barack Obama is listed as “voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law,” and Michelle Obama is listed as “voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law.”
But it’s not true that President Obama “surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application,” or that Michelle Obama “ ‘voluntarily surrendered’ her law license in 1993 after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud,” as the chain email claims.
Lawyers who voluntarily change their registration status to inactive or retired “may not practice law based upon their Illinois license or hold themselves out as being so authorized,” according to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. But James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the ARDC, said that the Obamas were “never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings.”
Voluntary Changes
President Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991 and was admitted as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of Illinois on Dec. 17, 1991. Prior to being elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996, he worked as a civil rights lawyer at the firm formerly known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Four days after Obama announced that he would run for president in February 2007, he voluntarily elected to have his law license placed on “inactive” status, according to Grogan. Then, after becoming president, he elected to change his status to “retired” in February 2009.
Michelle Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in 1988, and was admitted as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of Illinois on May 12, 1989. Following graduation, she joined Sidley Austin, a corporate law firm in Chicago. But a few years later, in 1994, while working for the Public Allies project in Chicago, Obama voluntarily had her license placed on “inactive” status.
But the claim that the Obamas “surrendered” their licenses to avoid ethics charges has no basis in fact. Neither of the Obamas has any public record of discipline or pending proceedings against them, according to the online public registration records of the ARDC. We also confirmed that with Grogan, who said that the Obamas were “never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings.”
The Obamas haven’t said exactly what prompted them to change the status of their licenses. But Grogan said that it was fairly common for lawyers who didn’t intend to continue practicing law to go on inactive status. It was actually one of the reasons, he said, that the rule was changed so that lawyers wanting to switch to inactive status no longer had to petition the Illinois Supreme Court to do so. In 2011, more than 12 percent of the state’s 87,943 registered attorneys were on inactive status (see Chart 2), according to the ARDC’s annual report for that year.
In addition, prior to June 5, 2012, the Obamas would have been required to pay an annual fee of $289 (now $342), and take classes to satisfy the state’s Minimum Continuing Legal Education requirement, in order to keep their licenses active. Lawyers on retirement status, however, don’t have to pay an annual fee or take classes. And lawyers on inactive status also don’t have to take classes, but they do have to pay an annual fee of $105.
Perhaps one reason for these false claims is that the online registration record used to list Michelle Obama as being “on court ordered inactive status.” But that wasn’t because of any wrongdoing. As previously mentioned, before 1999, an Illinois Supreme Court rule required active lawyers who wanted to change their registration status to do so by petitioning the court.
ARDC website: Prior to November 1, 1999, former Supreme Court Rule 770 provided for a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer’s preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law.
Obama’s motion seeking a transfer to inactive status was filed on June 8, 1994. And the court granted the request the following month, Grogan said.
Grogan said claims that Michelle Obama went on inactive status to avoid disbarment are simply false. “We had to consent to this,” he said, noting that the ARDC would’ve brought up any disciplinary problems with the court. And he added that simply changing the registration status wouldn’t prevent the ARDC from bringing a case against a lawyer.
(The online registration record no longer refers to Michelle Obama as being on “court ordered inactive status.” Grogan said that changes were made to the online registration system because other inactive lawyers had complained that they were also being suspected of wrongdoing.)
And the Obamas could return to practicing law if they decide to, Grogan said. President Obama would have to submit a written or online notification stating that he intended to return to active status. And he would have to pay the registration fee for each year that he was retired.
The process for Michelle Obama would be different, Grogan said, because she changed her status under old Supreme Court Rule 770. She would have to once again file a motion with the Illinois Supreme Court requesting to be transferred back to active status. But unlike President Obama, she would only have to pay the registration for the year that she requested to return to active status.
Other Claims
The email also claims that “Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago.” That’s technically true.
As we wrote back in 2008, Obama’s formal title was “senior lecturer,” but the University of Chicago Law School says he “served as a professor” and was “regarded as” a professor.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama regularly referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor.” But the university later clarified his title in an official statement:
UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
The email also faults Obama for mixing up the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
“The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence … not the Constitution.”
But whether Obama was right or wrong depends on how his words are interpreted.
In his State of the Union address on Jan. 27, 2010, Obama made the following statement:
Obama, Jan. 27, 2010: Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we’re all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.
However, the exact phrase “created equal” is not found in the U.S. Constitution. It is found in the Declaration of Independence:
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
But Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA, writing for the Volokh Conspiracy blog, said that the president was actually correct.
Volokh, April 5, 2010: But of course President Obama’s statement is quite correct: The Constitution enshrines the notion that we are all created equal in the Equal Protection Clause, in the voting rights amendments, chiefly the Fifteenth Amendment and the Nineteenth Amendment, and in large measure in the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. (And don’t quibble that these are Amendments, and not the Constitution. As Article V of the Constitution says, the Amendments “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.”)
– D’Angelo Gore

Sources

Grogan, James, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. Interview with FactCheck.org. 6, 11, 12 Jun 2012.
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. Lawyer Search. Accessed 6 Jun 2012.
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. Lawyer Registration. Accessed 6 Jun 2012.
Supreme Court of Illinois. “Illinois Supreme Court Increases Registration fees for Attorneys to Help Fund Legal Services for Poor.” Press release. 5 Jun 2012.
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. Annual report for 2011. 24 Apr 2012.
Schilling, Chelsea. “What happened to Michelle Obama’s law license?” WorldNetDaily.com. 4 Aug 2009.
Jackson, Brooks. “Clueless ‘Columbo.’ ” FactCheck.org. 18 Jan 2010.
Morain, Dan. “Obama’s law days effective but brief.” Los Angeles Times. 6 Apr 2008.
Marek, Lynne. “The ‘other Obama’ honed her skills at Sidley Austin.” National Law Journal. 25 Jun 2008.
Miller, Joe. “Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?” FactCheck.org. 28 Mar 2008.
White House. “Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address.” Press release. 27 Jan 2010.
U.S. Constitution.
Declaration of Independence. 4 Jul 1776.
Volokh, Eugene. “Massive Problems with Anti-Obama Allegations That Have Been Making the Rounds Recently.” Volokh Conspiracy Blog. 5 Apr 2010.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Lemon Picking - Fact Check.org busts Texas Gov. Perry, R-money Surrogate

From Factcheck.org's weekly roundup:
I enjoy the Sunday morning talking heads, including Face the Nation; unfortunately there is not enough challenging of claims by people conversant with the facts at the time these false or misleading statements are made, and the delay involved in fact checking too often allows the false or misleading claims to stand in the minds of viewers who don't get the follow up.  So we share those follow ups here, as an educational service to our readers.

If it is true that the first casualty of war is the truth, it is doubly so in political campaigns.  We are fortunate to have fact checking to help diminsh those casualties.

Rick Perry’s Whopper on Job Losses

Posted on June 26, 2012
Bookmark and Share
Texas Gov. Rick Perry falsely states that President Barack Obama “has overseen the loss of 1.4 million jobs.” Perry is referring to job statistics in 34 states that have lost jobs since Obama took office, ignoring the 16 states that have gained jobs. The total job loss in all 50 states under Obama is about 552,000 through May 2012, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Perry also exaggerates when he blames the nation’s high deficit solely on “uncontrolled spending that has gone on with the stimulus program.” The president inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit in 2009 and his $821 billion stimulus plan contributed to annual deficits since then, but it is not the only factor.
Lemon-Picking Jobs Statistics
Perry, a former candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, made his statements June 24 on “Face the Nation,” appearing as a high-profile surrogate for the party’s presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney. He criticized Obama’s record of job creation in explaining why he now supports Romney, his one-time rival.
Perry, June 24: I think Governor Romney is very focused on the issues that are important to the vast majority of the people out there, and that’s the economy. This president has overseen the loss of 1.4 million jobs. We’re now into the greatest deficit position this country has ever been in because of the uncontrolled spending that has gone on with the stimulus program.
A lot of different job figures have been cited during this campaign as both sides have tried to spin employment numbers to their advantage. But we had never seen the claim that the U.S. had lost 1.4 million jobs under Obama, so we contacted the Texas governor’s office for an explanation.
Perry spokeswoman Steffany Duke told us the governor’s number came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and referred us to a May 18 article on Investors.com. But the Investors.com article shows that the governor was selectively citing job losses only in states that had lost jobs — something he did not make clear at all in his statement on “Face the Nation.”
Investors.com, May 18: Just 16 states have seen job growth since President Obama took office, according to state employment data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The remaining states have lost a combined 1.4 million jobs since January 2009.
Talk about “lemon-picking” — that is, the opposite of cherry-picking — to make the president’s job record look worse.
The U.S. had 133,561,000 total jobs when Obama took office in January 2009. As of May, the BLS reported that the U.S. had 133,009,000 jobs. That’s a loss of 552,000 jobs (total, nonfarm seasonally adjusted).
There are other ways to look at jobs losses and job gains, and both sides have done so. The president lately has taken up the talking point that he has created more than 4 million private-sector jobs in the past 27 months. That’s true, but the president ignores job losses in the public sector and excludes all jobs that were lost before the job slump ended in February 2010.
In Perry’s case, the governor is ignoring job gains in 16 states — including his home state of Texas.
Stimulus Spending
Now, let’s look at the governor’s claim that “uncontrolled” stimulus spending is to blame for the nation’s high deficits. “We’re now into the greatest deficit position this country has ever been in because of the uncontrolled spending that has gone on with the stimulus program,” he said.
It’s true that deficits have been high under Obama. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will be $1.2 trillion for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. But the stimulus program is not solely, or even mostly, to blame.
First, we should note that Obama inherited a projected deficit of $1.2 trillion when he took office in January 2009. It was the first time the nation’s deficit ever exceeded $1 trillion. So, massive deficit spending did not start under Obama — although, as we recently wrote, he has done little to curb high deficits, which have remained above $1 trillion each year since then.
It is true that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 added to the deficit, particularly at the height of stimulus spending in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. In a January 2011 report, the CBO said the law “added $579 billion to budget deficits in 2009 and 2010.” During that time, deficit spending totaled $2.7 trillion, so the stimulus accounted for about 21 percent of the two-year deficit total. That report also said that the law would have an impact of only $94 billion over an eight-year period from 2012 to 2019, which includes the current fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.
CBO also said that about 70 percent of stimulus money had been spent by the end of fiscal year 2010, so the impact of the stimulus on deficits has since waned. Yet, deficits remain above $1 trillion. Why? We refer you to our June 4 article, “Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?” In that article, we noted that a combination of historically high spending and low revenues has caused a string of trillion-dollar annual deficits, and those who blame deficits solely on spending ignore the revenue side of the ledger.

– Nathan Emmons and Eugene Kiely
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: ,

Thursday, July 5, 2012

New Zimmerman bail at $1 Million.

This guy is lucky he won't be spending every day until trial behind bars; and I'd give it a 50/50 chance he does something else that gets bail revoked between now and trial.  To my mind, it appears this man tried to deceive the court; and further it appears his wife tried to deceive the court; the only difference was one of them lied by omission and the other by commission.  Obtaining a second passport when only turning in one, the case seems good to allege that these two were making arrangements to skip the country with money if things didn't go their way. 

These appear to neither be innocent nor allegedly law abiding acts, these, in my opinion, seem to be people trying to scam and game the system, which makes their statements questionable.  I'm still shaking my head over the allegation that Trayvon Martin stated "you got me" when Zimmerman shot him.  That's bad dialogue out of a z-grade old western movie; the other lines attributed to Martin are just as implausible.  These are NOT believable people, and those who support them, those who gave them their hard earned money are just plain gullible.

From the STrib:

ORLANDO, Fla. - A Florida judge ruled Thursday that George Zimmerman can be released from jail a second time on $1 million bond, saying he set the bail amount significantly higher because Zimmerman may have been hiding money as part of a plot to flee the country.
Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester had revoked Zimmerman's $150,000 bond last month after prosecutors told the judge Zimmerman and his wife misled the court about how much money they had during an April bond hearing. Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.
"It is entirely reasonable for this court to find that, but for the requirement that he be placed on electronic monitoring, the defendant and his wife would have fled the United States with at least $130,000 of other people's money," Lester wrote.
Prosecutors said a website Zimmerman created for his legal defense had raised $135,000 at the time of his first bond hearing. Zimmerman and his wife did not mention the money then, and Shellie Zimmerman even said the couple had limited resources because she was a student and he wasn't working.
The judge made his decision after listening last week to Zimmerman's attorney and a forensic financial analyst explain why he wasn't more forthcoming.
The judge expressed his unhappiness with Zimmerman and said that his actions suggest a possibility that he was preparing to flee to avoid prosecution.
"Under any definition, the defendant has flaunted the system," Lester wrote in the order. "The defendant has tried to manipulate the system when he has been presented the opportunity to do so."
Lester said he was granting bond because Zimmerman posed no threat to the community, and Florida law requires that most defendants receive bond if they pose no threat and can assure their presence for trial. The judge's order requires Zimmerman to be electronically monitored and residing in Seminole County, prohibits him from opening a bank account or obtaining a passport and implements a 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. Zimmerman had been allowed to leave Florida under the conditions of his first bond release.
Prosecutors previously argued Zimmerman and his wife talked in code during recorded jailhouse conversations about how to transfer the donations to different bank accounts. For example, George Zimmerman at one point asked how much money they had. She replied "$155." Prosecutors allege that was code for $155,000. Their reference to "Peter Pan" was code for the PayPal system through which the donations were made, prosecutors said.
Zimmerman's attorney Mark O'Mara sparred with prosecutors over those finances last week and questioned why his client is in jail at all, arguing that Martin's actions led to his death. O'Mara did not immediately return a phone message Thursday.
O'Mara ultimately decided against calling his client to the stand during last Friday's hearing, unlike during the first bond hearing, when Zimmerman apologized to Martin's family.
The defense attorney called Zimmerman's father to testify, and played a chilling 911 call from the Feb. 26 night when Martin was killed. The call includes a disputed cry for help and the fatal gunshot. Robert Zimmerman said he was sure that was his son's cry.
Shellie Zimmerman has since been charged with perjury. She is out of jail on $1,000 bond and her arraignment is set for July 31.
Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder for fatally shooting the unarmed 17-year-old Martin on Feb. 26 at a gated apartment community in Sanford. Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty and claims the shooting was self-defense under the state's "stand your ground" law.
Martin's parents and supporters claim that the teenager was targeted because he was black and that Zimmerman started the confrontation that led to the shooting. Zimmerman's father is white and his mother is Hispanic.

The 44 days between the shooting and Zimmerman's arrest inspired nationwide protests, led to the departure of the Sanford police chief and prompted a U.S. Justice Department probe.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Could YOU correctly answer these questions from the U.S. citizens test? How about my bonus questions?

Let's play 40 Patriotic questions -
from MSNBC.com:
These are 20 questions selected from the U.S. citizenship test given to immigrants.  I wrote the additional bonus questions which accompany each citizenship test question.  Answers are provided after the test; you're on your honor not to cheat!
If you do well with the multiple choice format, keep in mind that immigrants seeking citizenship have to answer these orally, fully to the satisfaction of the test giver, WITHOUT the crutch of multiple choice answers being provided.
The bonus questions are provided by me, however, not MSNBC or the citizenship test.
 1.  Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?
A. George Washington
B. Thomas Jefferson
C. James Madison
D. John Hancock

Bonus point question -- WHERE did he write it?

  2.  When was the Constitution written?
A. 1774
B. 1776
C. 1787
D. 1865

Bonus point question - WHERE was it written?

  3.What are the first words of the Constitution?
A. When, in the course of human events
B. In order to form a more perfect Union
C. To whom it may concern
D. We the People

These are way too easy - so here's the next bonus question: What are the LAST words of the original constitution? (sure, you'll have to look it up -- but what a great trivia question to ask your colleagues
on your next day back at work.)
 
  4.  What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution?
A. The Preamble
B. The Bill of Rights (Your Answer)
C. The Statute of Liberty
D. Declaration of Independence

So let's test your knowledge of that Constitution a little further with a two part two point bonus question: What number was the amendment that resulted in prohibition of alcohol (aka the Volstead Act) and what was the number of the amendment that repealed prohibition?
   5.  Which of the following is NOT a right outlined in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence?
     A. Life
     B. Liberty
     C. Right to bear arms
     D. Pursuit of happiness

Bonus question : How many patriotic revolutionaries signed the Declaration of Independence?
  6.  Which one of these is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment?
    A. Freedom of the press
    B. Right to trial by jury
    C. Right to bear arms
    D.  Right to happiness

Bonus question - name three other rights in the First Amendment.

  7. How many amendments does the Constitution have?
    A. 10
    B. 17
    C. 23
    D. 27

Bonus question - What was the 27th Amendment, and when did it go into effect?

  8.  Why does the United States Flag have 13 stripes?
    A. One for each state in the Union.
    B. The number of seats in the cabinet
    C. They represent the 13 original colonies
    D. One for each article of the Constitution

What was the greatest number of stripes that the official flag of the United States ever had?
  9.   Which of these was not among the original 13 states?
    A. New Hampshire
    B. New York
    C. Delaware
    D. Vermont

Which state was the first state to ratify the Constitution, earning that first star on the U.S. flag and the distinction of being the very first state in the United States?

10. What territory did the United States buy from France in 1803?

   A. Maine
   B. Alaska
   C. Vermont
   D. Louisiana

My bonus question - the Louisiana purchase included land that was later ceded to Canada, forming the southern parts of two provinces.  What geographic demarcation that forms the 48 state northern U.S. boundary gave that Louisiana purchase territory to Canada?

11.  Which one of the following is NOT  one of the three branches of government?

    A. Legislative
    B. Executive
    C. Judicial
    D. Federal

Bonus question - how did we originally elect our Vice President?

12. The House of Representatives has how many voting members?

    A. 100
    B. 365
    C. 435
    D. 646

Bonus question - what early Vice President gave his name to oddly shaped congressional districts, and what is that kind of distorting of districts called?

13. We elect a U. S. Senator for how many years?

   A. 2
   B. 4
   C. 6
   D. 8

What were the first three new states admitted to the Union AFTER the original 13?

14.  In what month do we vote for President?

   A. January
   B. February
   C. September
   D. November

Bonus question, when did it become the law that we vote on a Tuesday? (give yourself a pat on the back and a gold star if you know WHY we vote on a Tuesday.)

15. If both the President and the Vice President can no longer serve, who becomes President?

    A.  Secretary of  State
    B.  Secretary of Defense
    C. The Speaker of the House
    D. President Pro Tempore of the Senate

Bonus question - what does the President Pro Tempore of the Senate DO?

16.  How many justices of the Supreme Court are there?

    A. 3
    B. 5
    C. 7
    D. 9

Bonus question - which came first, a black Supreme Court Justice or a female Supreme Court Justice?
Double bonus points if you can name the first female Supreme Court Justice and who appointed her.

17. Who is the Chief Justice of the United States?

   A. John Paul Stevens
   B. John G. Roberts, Jr.
   C. Antonin Scalia
   D. Samuel Alito

Bonus question, does a Supreme Court Justice have to be a natural born citizen of the U. S.?

18.  What did Susan B. Anthony do?
   
    A. Hid John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of Abraham Lincoln
    B. Designed and made the original U.S. flag.
    C. Designed the original U. S. currency
    D. Fought for women's rights

Did the American revolution begin before or after the Declaration of Independence?

19. Who was President during World War I?

    A. Theodore Roosevelt
    B. Warren G. Harding
    C. Franklin Roosevelt
    D.  Woodrow Wilson

Bonus question : Who was Abraham Lincoln's Vice President, who subsequently replaced him after Lincoln's assassination?

20. Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. Which of the following is NOT a federal power?

   A. To declare war
   B. To print money
   C. To declare treaties
   D. To provide education

Bonus question What was the name of the treaty that ended the American Revolution, and where was it signed?

1.B; 2. C; 3. D; 4. B; 5. C; 6 A; 7. D; 8. C; 9. D; 10. D; 11. D; 12. C; 13. C; 14. D; 15. C; 16. D; 17. B; 18. D; 19. D; 20. D

Bonus question answers:
 1. the Graff House, also known as the Declaration House, in Philadelphia PA
 2. the Philadelphia State House- there were three committees established - the declaration committee, the constitution committee, and the treaty with France committee, that went to work in Philly.
 3. "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"
 4. 18th and 21st Amendments
 5. 56 - but they signed it over a period of months
 6. Freedom of religion, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Speech
 7. originating in 1789, it went into effect in 1992; it stipulates that no increases or decreases in salary for members of Congress do not go in effect until the next term of office / after an election has intervened.
 8. 15; early in the history of the U.S., a new stripe and a new star were added for each additional state admitted to the Union.
 9.  Delaware
10. 49th parallel
11.  the Vice President was originally the candidate who had the second greatest number of votes.
12.  Elbridge Gerry, gerrymandering
13.  Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee
14.  Congress agreed on Tuesday in 1845, in 1875 included Congressional elections and in 1914 made it the official date for Senate elections
15.  the President Pro Tempore presides when the Vice President is not present, and is usually the most senior member of the Senate; he or she is also just behind the Speaker of the House in presidential succession.
16.  Thurgood Marshall was the first black Supreme Court Justice, appointed in 1967; Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman Supreme Court Justice, appointed by Ronald Reagan.
17.  There are absolutely NO requirements in the Constitution for becoming a Supreme Court Justice - not age, not age, citizenship, or experience - no law degree or previous experience as a judge is specified.
18.  Before, by approximately one year
19.  Andrew Johnson; while Lincoln was an early Republican, Andrew Johnson was a Democrat.
20. the 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the conflict between England and the U.S.; the Peace of Paris was a series of treaties that ended the conflict between U.S. allies France, Spain and the Dutch Republic and England - each nation signed a separate treaty with England.
Posted by at 3 comments:
Labels: ,

Happy Fourth of July from Penigma blog

Here are a few fun facts courtesy of weather.com, given many of us will be checking weather sources, internet or otherwise today to see the temp.

Population then and now

2.5 million: Estimated number of people living in the newly independent nation in July 1776.

313.9 million: The nation's estimated population this July 4.

Flags

$3.6 million: Value of U.S. imports of American flags in 2011. The vast majority ($3.3 million) was for U.S. flags made in China.

$663,071: Value of U.S. flags exported in 2011. Mexico was the leading customer, purchasing $80,349 worth.

Food

Almost 1 in 3: Chance that any hot dogs and pork sausages consumed on the Fourth of July originated in Iowa. The Hawkeye State was home to an estimated 19.7 million hogs and pigs on March 1, 2012, nearly one-third of the nation's total. Other hog havens: North Carolina (8.6 million) and Minnesota (7.6 million).

Fireworks
$231.8 million: Value of U.S. manufacturers' shipments of fireworks and pyrotechnics (including flares, igniters, etc.) in 2007.

$232.3 million: Value of fireworks imported from China in 2011, representing the bulk of all U.S. fireworks imported. U.S. exports of fireworks, by comparison, came to just $15.8 million in 2011, with Australia purchasing more than any other country ($4.5 million).

Patriotic-Sounding Place Names

31 places have "liberty" in their names. The most populous one as of April 1, 2010, was Liberty, Mo. (29,149). The state of Iowa, with four, has more of these places than any other state: Libertyville, New Liberty, North Liberty and West Liberty.
35 places have "eagle" in their names. The most populous one is Eagle Pass, Texas, with a population of 26,248.
11 places have "independence" in their names. The most populous one is Independence, Mo., with a population of 116,830.
9 places have "freedom" in their names. The most populous one is New Freedom, Pa., with a population of 4,464.
5 places have "America" in their names. The most populous is American Fork, Utah, with a population of 26,263. American Canyon, Calif., has a population of 19,454.

Have a safe and happy 4th of July, wherever you are.
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: ,

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Fast and Furious, the inherent contradiction

cross posted from Mikeb302000 blog

I've been perusing a bit of the right wing blogosphere. 

Their take on the Eban expose of the Fast and Furious scandal is interesting, if neither fact based nor logical. The premise of the Fast and Furious scandal is that ATF agents observed straw purchases of firearms, often in large quantities, that were quickly turned over to people who were not legal purchasers, as private transactions which are not subject to FFL checks. These firearms then were trafficked over the border to a drug cartel.

The glitch in the right wingnut crazy conspiracy theory is that arrests should have been made. The documentation is that those arrests were forbidden by the prosecutors, because of lax gun laws that made such transactions to drug cartels effectively legal.  Without prosecutorial approval, arrests could not take place. PERIOD.

This does not make the ATF responsible for the sale and transfer of those firearms.  This just proves they witnessed and documented that such transactions occur daily, whether they are monitored or not. I was surprised to see that some gun nuts believe that this was some sort of sting operation, that there was some form of encouragement by the ATF to cause these straw purchases to occur.  That is not the case.  In those who claim to 'fact check', I have yet to see anyone debunk that 1. prosecutor approval is necessary for an ATF arrest; and 2. that there were no such arrest approvals received by the ATF from prosecutors. Rather it is clear that these prosecutors in states like Arizona with NRA sponsored lax gun laws routinely DO NOT PROSECUTE STRAW PURCHASES -- not through arrests by the ATF, or DEA, or local police, or state law enforcement. I have yet to see where anyone of the pro-gunner gun zombies can explain how useful it would be to make an arrest without prosecution, or at least reasonable expectation of prosecution.

 I have yet to see where anyone can demonstrate that such prosecution in these states like Arizona occur, EVER. IF you cannot provide that documentation, which has not been sought by the Issa investigation, you cannot fault the ATF for failing to make arrests. 

As to the hysteria that Eric Holder did not produce documentation as requested, in fact he produced a considerable amount.  It was a relatively small subset of subpoenaed documents that were in question, and Holder made an effort to find ways to provide those, or at least most of those, to Congress IF - big IF - security for the information could be negotiated.

Ordinarily I would be reluctant to take the side of anyone resisting a congressional investigation, but I believe that Issa, along with a few other notable members of congress, like Congressman Peter King, who have on a variety of topics, not just this one, turned congressional investigation into cheap political theater, and witch hunts on the order of the late, debased Senator Joe McCarthy. 

The McCarthy House Unamerican Activities hearings are among the darkest, most despotic and tyrannical of our history.  The recent hearings on everything from Islam in America to the ridiculous and nasty contraception hearings that resulted in the Fluke scandal that so appropriately damaged Rush Limbaugh are not proper, honest hearings, and I agree with Holder that these are not members of Congress who have demonstrated that they operate in the scope of ethics that a Congressional hearing should encompass.

So long as the right persists in being post-truth liars and deniers, so long as they engage and propagate conspiracy theories and fact averse disconnects from objective reality, there is a legitimate concern that these investigations are not genuine investigations, they are attempts to smear people.  A genuine investigation is based on a fair and thorough investigation that does not have a predetermined outcome. 

That cannot be said of any investigation so far conducted by Daryl Issa.

Maintaining an electronic data base to verify numbers on guns trafficked across the border, instead of having to go through the much more time consuming and less effective, less efficient paper records, is NOT about gun control of legal weapons, and is a ridiculous claim of gun grabbing policies.  It is simply an attempt to use the same computerized investigation techniques used in every other aspect of law enforcement.  To try to spin this into something it is not, before seeing where a legitimate investigation would lead, is a perfect example of the outcome of an investigation being pre-determined BEFORE seeing evidence.  A pre-determined outcome is a witch hunt. A predetermined outcome is evident when someone is making statements about what has transpired, without seeing all the evidence or talking to all the witnesses.  Issa made his comments using only a whistle blower, who was subsequently discredited, and without having interviewed other ATF agents involved and without examining the information on prosecutorial prohibition on arrests -- or ignoring them.


And yet, when the Democrats unanimously support something like the Brian A. Terry Memorial Act, and the President SIGNS it, they get no credit for it.  I would question why it is the President's job to popularize this.  Where was Issa?  He was the legislative sponsor for this.  Why didn't he publicize it instead of grandstanding fact-averse statements to the media?  Clearly Issa can get the attention of the media when it suits his purpose to do so.  One has to ask, why is Issa so uninterested in sharing the limelight on his legislation with democrats -- is it because it doesn't suit the agenda of his puppet masters, the NRA and other right wing special interests? From the excellent web site resource, govtrack.us:

H.R. 2668: Brian A. Terry Memorial Act

112th Congress, 2011–2012
To designate the station of the United States Border Patrol located at 2136 South Naco Highway in Bisbee, Arizona, as the "Brian A. Terry Border Patrol Station".
Introduced:
Jul 27, 2011
Sponsor:
Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA49]
Status:
Signed by the President
Bill titles and summaries are written by the sponsor. H.R. stands for House bill.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: ,

Fire and Thunder, Death and Destruction

From the Ed Show, July 2, 2012:
 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This is global, these storms are not normal, and we can expect to see more of them.  This is not a uniquely North American problem, as this amateur video of a tornado last month, June 12, 2012 in Venice demonstrates.
We expect tornadoes in what we call Tornado Alley in the U.S., but these are very uncommon in places like Italy.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Be careful! Syptoms and Responses for Heat-Related Illness

From our next door neighbor state, this is an excellently organized description of what the dangers are from heat, and what to do about heat-related illness:
SYMPTOMS OF HEAT-RELATED ILLNESS AND WHAT TO DO Heat Stroke
  • Heat Cramps - cramps or muscle spasms in the abdomen, arms or legs.
    • Solution: Stop activity. Cool down, drink clear juice or sports drink.
  • Heat Exhaustion - heavy sweating, paleness, muscle cramps, weakness, dizziness, headache, nausea, fainting.
    • Solution: Cool down, seek medical attention.
  • Heat Stroke - extremely high body temperature, red, hot, dry skin, rapid pulse, throbbing headache, dizziness, nausea, confusion, unconsciousness.
    • Solution: Call 911 and cool the victim with shower or hose until help arrives.

HEAT EXHAUSTION HEAT STROKE
I. Cause. Depletion of body fluids and electrolytes due to exposure to intense heat or the inability to acclimatize to heat, resulting in prolonged or severe diaphoresis.May progress to heat stroke. I. Cause. Failure of temperature- regulating mechanism of the body due to prolonged exposure to high temperature.
II. Onset. May develop slowly after exposure to heat for several days and inadequate or unbalanced replacement of fluids and electrolytes. II. Onset. May develop quickly (within minutes).
III. Similarities
  • Headache
  • Vomiting
  • Dizziness
  • Muscle cramps (arms, legs, abdomen)
  • Fatigue
  • Rapid pulse (tachycardia)
  • Nausea
III. Similarities
  • Headache
  • Vomiting
  • Dizziness
  • Muscle cramps (arms, legs, abdomen)
  • Fatigue
  • Rapid pulse (tachycardia)
  • Nausea
IV. Differences
  • Profuse perspiration
  • Cool, moist skin
  • Rapid respiration
  • Body temperature may be normal, or slightly below normal, or as high as 102.2 degrees F.
  • Possible giddiness
IV. Differences
  • Absence of perspiration
  • Hot, dry, red or mottled skin
  • Slow deep respiration
  • Extremely high temperatures
  • (104 degrees F/40 degrees C or above, rectally)
  • Mental confusion, disorientation, delirium, irrational behavior, feeling of euphoria or impending doom, diminished level of consciousness, loss of consciousness may be abrupt
  • Confusion may occur early or late
  • Signs of shock
V. How to Intervene. Cool fluids, loosen tight clothing, recumbent position, cool shaded environment, elevate legs, transport to medical facility for medical follow up. V. How to Intervene. Call for transport to medical facility immediately; cool water, sponging, and fluids by mouth if still alert; reduce body temperature to 102 degrees F as rapidly as possible. Transport to medical center for temperature stabilization and prevention/ treatment of complications.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Hot enough for you?

image from readywisconsin which details heat dangers
The weather prediction for the 4th of July is in triple digits; only 5 states out of 50 did not have temperatures in the 90s or above this week.  In western states like Colorado, forests are badly dehydrated from droughts, resulting in unprecedented modern amounts of fires that have cost at least 2 lives so far, and the destruction of square miles of territory and hundreds of homes.  Those fires have resulted in particulate matter in the air that in conjunction with our heat and humidity has made being outdoors dangerous for a number of groups of people.  It isn't doing animals any good either, when we have more than 3,100 records for highest temperatures recorded broken in just one month. The heat index in Minnesota for July 2, 2012, the summer equivalent to our wind chill factor expressing how the heat feels to our body as a rate of object temperature change, ranged between 105 and 108 over the most populated section of the state.  A heat index over 105 is very dangerous.

A few weeks ago, it was announced that Minnesota is the 3rd fastest warming state.  Climate change, and global warming are world wide events, but not all areas warm equally.  The difference between an individual hot or cold day is that the changes form a pattern.  In the case of man-made climate change, those patterns are stark and have not occurred in a similar period of time before.  Where such drastic climate changes have occurred in the past, due to other causes, the results have been severe and harsh in the impacts on the struggle for life.  While we have modern conveniences that mitigate how WE experience those events, like air conditioning, using our air conditioning only makes the larger problem worse --- and is no use at all when more violent storms shut down power, as has happened on the Eastern seaboard.

From Climate Central:

Our state-by-state analysis of warming over the past 100 years shows where it warmed the most and where it warmed the least. We found that no matter how much or how little a given state warmed over that 100-year period, the pace of warming in all regions accelerated dramatically starting in the 1970s, coinciding with the time when the effect of greenhouse gases began to overwhelm the other natural and human influences on climate at the global and continental scales.

We looked at average daily temperatures for the continental 48 states from 1912 to the present, and also from 1970 to the present and found:
  • Over the past 100 years, the top 10 states warmed 60 times faster than the bottom 10 (0.26°F per decade vs. 0.004°F per decade), when looking at average mean temperatures. During this timeframe, 45 states showed warming trends, although 21 were not statistically significant. Three states experienced a slight cooling trend.
  • Since 1970, warming began accelerating everywhere. The speed of warming across the lower 48 more than tripled, from 0.127°F per decade over the 100-year period, to 0.435°F per decade since 1970, while the gap between the fast and slowly warming states narrowed significantly; the 10 fastest warming states heated up just twice as fast, not 60 times as fast as the 10 slowest warming states (0.60°F vs. 0.30°F per decade). Over the past 42 years 17 states warmed more than half a degree F per decade.
  • The states that have warmed the most — whether you look at the past 100 years or just the past 40 — include northern-tier states from Minnesota to Maine and the Southwest, particularly Arizona and New Mexico. Places that have warmed the least include Southeast states, like Florida, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, along with parts of the central Midwest, like Iowa and Nebraska.
graph courtesy of Paul Douglas by way of Conservation Minnesota
I would encourage readers to follow the link to the site; the interactive map showing the rates of warming from 1912 to 2011, and from 1970 to 2011, is a persuasive and dramatic representation of that change. 

I'm in the process of reading a book from 2005, The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney.  It describes the many ways in which the right, not only Republicans but conservatives generally, have attacked science.  It breaks down those groups into the religious right, and the ideological right funded by special interest groups such as big oil..  It shows how dishonest they are, how manipulative they are, and ultimately how dangerous they are to any attempt at a rational public policy or ANY policy debate.  In the interval since 2005, the indicators are that global warming, from largely man-made causes, may in fact be occurring more rapidly than originally predicted.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Monday, July 2, 2012

The Mittness Protection Program: Mitts on R-Money, What IS it you are afraid of from the Media that you have to avoid them?

The mainstream media asks questions, and the mainstream media fact checks answers.

The right wing media is notorious for NOT doing those things, and for not having the same level of journalistic standards.  In the case of Breitbart's organization they have NO journalistic standards.

The problem with the strategy is that the right wing media doesn't reach a lot of people, so the reports that Mitts on R-money is planning to avoid the marjority of the 4th estate suggests he has a less interactive and more devious method for reaching the majority of voters --- those in the center and those on the left.  The premise that organizations like Breitbart's is center right is a joke; the entire right wing media and blogosphere is far right of everyone else, and heading over the horizon and out of sight in their evolving extremism. 

I predict we are watching the rise and immediate fall of any significant role by an exclusively right wing nut media.  If ever there were a repudiation of it, the flight of Rush Limbaugh's advertisers should have been a clue as to what kind of failure THAT is, or the decline of Glenn Beck.

But more to the point - what is it that Romney has to hide from?  Why can't he deal with the mainstream media or their questions?  How weak and pathetic is that?

Just think of the attack ad potential of this little revelation.

If one takes a look at the amount of money Mittens has in hand, it would suggest he is avoiding any sort of challenge, and hoping to persuade entirely on a deluge of lying advertisements, either directly through his campaign or in conjunction with the PACs and SuperPACs.

Do we want a President who is afraid to talk to people that ask questions?  If Mitts on our Money is afraid of reporters, how is he going to deal with leaders of other countries, or for that matter, with leaders of other groups here in the U.S.?

He can't be relying on the Drudge Report to communicate with Putin, or Hollande, or Merkel; although arguably the Murdoch Media might be a good way to communicate with Cameron in the UK.

From Opposing views:
Mitt Romney's Campaign Admits to Avoiding Mainstream Media
Submitted by Michael Allen on Jul 2, 2012
In an interview with Breitbart.com, Romney campaign spokesman Lenny Alcivar revealed the campaign’s plan to largely ignore the mainstream media journalists in favor of right-wing web sites.
From the beginning of the campaign, Romney has often avoided news outlets that might pose tough questions. The press called it “the Mittness Protection Program.”
Alcivar recently explained how the campaign will avoid journalists and communicate their message through Brietbart.com and the Drudge Report, which are far-right websites that reguarly post conspiracy theories such as the 'birther' movement:
When this election is over, one of the lessons that will be learned by the mainstream media is that they no longer have a toe-hold on how Americans receive their news. Never before – in a way that has taken Democrats off stride – have we seen the confluence of an aggressive online community, led by Breitbart, and an aggressive campaign team not willing to cede an inch of ground to Democrats.
This combination has created a new political reality. We no longer allow the mainstream media to define the political realities in America. The rise of Breitbart, Drudge and others, combined with an aggressive Romney campaign is a powerful tool in the arsenal of the conservative movement.
…The governor will no longer allow the mainstream media to dictate the terms of this debate. This is just the beginning… We are witnessing the rise of the center right media.

Really? What a laugh.  It would be funny if it were not so corruptly partisan.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: ,

Bain or Bane for Mitt R-money?

It is conspicuous that Mitt Romney is NOT, emphatically not, running on his record as governor of the state of Massachusetts.

When Sarah Palin was the vice-presidential nominee in 2008, all we heard about was the importance of that kind of executive experience, as mayor, and as a part-term governor, compared to Obama having only been a member of the Illinois state legislature, and subsequently having been elected to the U.S. Senate - an arguably more prestigious position which gave him practical insight into the function of legislation at both the state and federal level that Palin lacked. 
Why is that not true in 2012, if it was ever true in 2008?
Could it be it was because as the head of the executive branch of government, Mitt R-money was not very good?  That is exactly why, particularly in respect to job creation, and what arguably SHOULD be a successful policy he should boast about - health care reform, which has been so successful, that the state of Massachussetts filed an amicus brief in support of the Affordable Care Act because of how it had worked out for the problems within Massachussetts.

Bain is not a plus, should not be a plus; it is a perfect example of how money is extracted from our economy, extracted from the middle class and those who comprise the labor pool of this nation, redistributing that money, that wealth, to the upper 1% and away from the 99%.
These paragraphs from a recent STrib article on how Mitt R-money's relationship with Bain is hurthing his campaign illustrate the issue:
But can the Obama campaign turn the argument over Romney and Bain into a broader challenge to the Republican claim that the only thing government can do to spur job creation is to get out of the way?
"Jobs" will remain the Romney battle cry for the rest of the campaign, but the success of the anti-Bain offensive points to an opportunity for Obama to engage in a kind of political jujitsu. He can argue that Romney's primary interest is not in job creation at all but in low-tax and deregulatory policies he would favor whether the economy was soaring or flat.
In a recent talk at the Center for American Progress, Stefan Löfven, the new leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, outlined a way to turn the debate around, arguing that job creation worldwide should be the focus of center-left parties. New policies on job creation should also be concerned with the quality and conditions of the jobs, how quickly the unemployed can be moved to new work, and how the unemployed are treated and assisted toward new opportunities.
Here are the questions voters should be encouraged to ask in 2012: Should government focus directly on innovative approaches to creating good jobs in a new economy?
Or should it be relegated to a position of powerlessness in which its only option is to concede ever more benefits to those -- including the financial wizards at Bain -- who are already doing very well indeed?
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , ,

Conservative Is as Conservative Does

Steve Sack is his usual brilliant self in giving not only the full picture, but the funny picture of that historic perspective. Well done!
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Abuse of Buy-back program

cross posted from Mikeb302000 blog:
The NRA is fond of promoting the insanity and poor critical thinking of the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people."  Lots of guns, especially in the wrong hands, kill lots of people, and/or ruin the lives of lots of people.  We have lots of guns, and we are adding more all the time.  I would argue that the more we do so, the less we rely on being a civil society under rule of law.
A more factually correct statement summing up the causal and correlational relationship between firearms and people killing people is that people using guns kill people. Sometimes the people they kill are other people, sometimes the people they kill are themselves, and sometimes they only wound, trheaten, harass or intimidate people.  While people use other implements, and even bare hands to do these things as well, it is true that few of those things are as inherently lethal or as capable of doing as much harm with as little effort, or are used as often.


The NRA tries to pretend that firearms are not lethal weapons; that is inherently dishonest. The NRA makes money for gun manufacturers by promoting a violent gun culture, one which advocates for gun violence in order to sell more guns for the gun manufacturers they represent. They promote laws which make it easier, not more difficult, for guns to be sold that go directly and indirectly into the hands of criminals and terrorists, because their goal is to sell more guns.
That they are not primarily focused on legal gun use, but rather on maiximizing gun sales is evident in the NRA having someone on their board like Ted Nugent, a chronic advocate for violence against individuals with whom he disagrees, and a serial violator of laws. That they intend to promote a violent gun culture where people take the law into their own hands is evident in the material and positions they take, as evidenced by their spokespeople and their statements and their advocacy for lax gun laws that make it legal to traffic in guns to people for illegal purposes.
Police should know what the quality is of the guns they purchase in these buybacks. The situation should be corrected so that an appropriate minimum and maximum are established depending on the state and quality of the firearm in these purchases to prevent this kind of abuse. But it is also a statement of their lack of character that this group would act this way; it is an indication of the contempt for the boundaries between legal and illegal firearms that this group would undermine an effort by the police to get illegal guns off the streets.

From MSNBC.com :

Chicago gun buyback unknowingly raises money for NRA kids' gun camp

By Isolde Raftery, msnbc.com
Chicago’s firearm buyback program, titled “Don’t kill a dream, save a life,” aims to get dangerous weapons off the street. But a pro-gun rights group gleefully says it used the program to turn in “non-firing junk” to raise money for a National Rifle Association youth shooting camp.
Guns Save Life, based in Champaign, Ill., three hours south of Chicago, turned in dozens of guns and BB guns it had collected – “rusty scrap metal,” the group called the load – taking home $6,240.
Of the 5,500 guns turned in on June 23, 60 came from Guns Save Life.
The Chicago Police Department program pays $100 for every gun and $10 every BB gun, air gun or replica, no questions asked. The money is given in the form of a Visa debit card.
“We are redirecting funds from people who would work against the private ownership of firearms to help introduce the next generation to shooting safely and responsibly,” John Boch, head of Guns Save Life, told the Chicago Sun-Times.
Boch said the money will go toward paying for ammunition for the youth camp.
Police spokeswoman Melissa Stratton was not amused, according to the Sun-Times.
“It’s unfortunate that this group is abusing a program intended to increase the safety of our communities,” Stratton said.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Mary Kiffmeyer, "I don't know who the Koch Brothers are" is a liar

Mary Kiffmeyer is the state ALEC chair.  She could not be in ALEC, and not know the relationship of the Koch Brothers within the organization.

One of the core leaders, founders. and funders of ALEC, more prominently since the corporate defections this year, notably WalMart, are the Koch Brothers who are among those that run ALEC.  They are prominent inside ALEC, they are prominently linked outside ALEC to the organization.  It used to be a secret, but it hasn't been hidden for quite a while now, unless perhaps one relies on Fox News for their information.
In the case of Kiffmeyer's claims in the Strib article below, her support for voter ID became a public issue on which she acted ONLY after ALEC made it a priority; and the amendment passed by the legislature, which she supports, does not appear to differ in any significant way from ALEC model legislation for voter ID. 
Add to that one of the major sources of funding to support the voter suprressive Voter ID legislation is funded directly and indirectly by the Koch Brothers, and it is clear that Ms. Kiffmeyer knows very well who the Koch Brothers are, and is acting at their direction and arguably benefits from the Koch Brothers support through ALEC.

In other words, it appears that Ms. Kiffmeyer is hoping that the good citizens of Minnesota are mostly low information voters who don't know the connection, and who don't read and compare ALEC model legislation with proposed ALEC legislation in Minnesota.
Thsi reminds me of an earlier exchange I had a few months back when Governor Dayton vetoed the Shoot First legislation.  My conservative blogger friend Mitch Berg insisted, and claimed to have verified it wth Rep. Cornish, that the Shoot First legislation was not ALEC legislation.  However he was unable to explain then how it was that Cornish had attended ALEC events and meetings, and that afterwards, the legislation Cornish proposed and which was passed in the legislature was so very similar to ALEC drafted legislation that it was almost word for word the same.
What this shows us is that we cannot believe the false assurances by ALEC members about whose bidding they are doing -- it isn't ours, it appears to be the Koch Brothers, and other ALEC special interst shady dealers from outside the boundaries of Minnesota. 
Corruption is defined by the world bank as public office used for private profit.  Kiffmeyer and Cornish could pose as model poster children over that definition.
Shame on Kiffmeyer, shame on Cornish and shame on every damned one of the Republican ALEC corrupt politicians.  And shame on anyone who promotes their lies about writing their own damned legislation or having their own independent ideas, or worst, the lies about who their significant influence is.  And double shame, shame on those who lie to help them do it; a willful failure to check out facts and multisouce is a lie by ommission, and that is still a lie.
With that much money and that much mendacity gong on, to borrow a phrase emphasized by Tennessee Williams in "A Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", we should be wondering who has to spend that much money and be that dishonest --- it certainly isn't for the greater good of Minnesota.  In Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, we have the characters Big Momma, and Big Daddy; in the Minnesota adaptation, we apparently have not only the other liars, but Big Oil Koch Brothers trying to run things for us through mendacity.
This appeared in the June 26, 2012 Star Tribune:
"This is an outside force, coming to Minnesota, telling us how our Constitution ought to be designed," added Carlson.
"Minnesota has the best record of openness, of honesty, of voter participation, of any state in the union," said Mondale. "This is a clean, solid, exemplary state. This constitutional amendment is designed to discourage voting."
The Republican-backed proposal, which is to be submitted to voters in November, would amend the state Constitution to require all voters to show a government-issued photo ID, would create a system of two-step provisional voting for those without proper ID on election day, and would mandate uniform registration requirements for all voters.
Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, R-Big Lake, a former election judge and secretary of state who has long pushed the amendment, said it is a homegrown movement to improve Minnesota's voting system. "I have no clue what the Koch brothers are," she said.
"It's ludicrous that I'm a blind little follower. ... My position on photo ID was an independent decision of my own, legislation that I worked on in my own way."
Carlson and Mondale said they became involved after reading about the proposed amendment and the push to get it on the ballot. Carlson blamed the issue on the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of conservative legislators and business leaders that offers model bills to state legislators. Kiffmeyer is listed as the state chair for ALEC in Minnesota.

"We pride ourselves in two parts of an election,'' Carlson said. "One is high voter turnout. The second is integrity. We've led the nation in both. Now we're subject to a campaign of total disinformation."

Kiffmeyer said she developed her support for the photo ID concept after years as an election judge, secretary of state and legislator, not by ALEC formula. She said that although Minnesota is correctly praised for the way it counts ballots once they are cast, the combination of same-day registration and no requirement of a photo ID creates opportunities for fraud.
                                                                      *  *  *

Except of courst that there aren't those documented instances where any voter fraud occurred that wuold have been prevented by voter ID.  And while it is an oft-repeated mantra on the right that the 2008 election for Senator was stolen by Democratic voter fraud, the only convicted instance of voter fraud was a person who voted for Republican candidate Coleman. 

When challenged to explain how Republicans know how anyone else voted, to identify the means they know not only that voter fraud is occurring where close and careful investigation can't find it, but that it was FOR a Democratic candidate, they have no answer.  Which means they don't want to answer, because that would be to admit that where we have secret ballots, they do NOT know that; it is just one of the fantasies and myths they embrace while rejecting objective reality and fact.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)