YES!

The latest in voter suppression in Pennsylvania today

1) Judge orders partisans to stop asking voters for ID outside Homestead polls

2) Watchdog: Evidence of Unlawful Voter Purge in Pennsylvania

3) Video of 2012 Voting Machines Altering Votes in PA:

Vote like your lady parts depend on it!

Announcement!

I'll be on the Lynn Cullen Show this morning at 10:30.

It's my understanding that we'll be discussing such profound topics as:

• Cato vs Rand - Given the seemingly endless conflicts between the Cato Institute and the Ayn Rand Institute, we'll be looking into the most irritating conflict of them all: Who spends more on high priced hookers (male AND female)?  Cato says Rand, Rand says Cato.  We report, you decide.
• Kirk or Picard - Given that Shatner wore a toupee when he commanded the USS Enterprise and Stewart did not, who's gazpacho would be zestier?  The RAND Corporation (NOTE: NOT the "Rand Institute" from the above) did a study in the mid-90s and discovered that in fact Stewart's would be zestier, though in a head-to-head cook-off between Nimoy and Frakes, Nimoy's chili would win.  Go figure.
• Ginger or Mary Ann - this one is obvious, don't you think?

Or maybe we'll just talk politics.  Did you know there's an election today??? GO VOTE!

Again, 10:30 this morning.

Evidence Suggests PA GOP Poll Watchers Targeting African American Precincts

Via an email from SEIU:

Evidence Suggests PA GOP Poll Watchers Systematically Targeting African American Precincts

WASHINGTON, DC – After receiving information indicating that the Pennsylvania Republican Party and the Pittsburgh Tea Party may be systematically sending poll watchers to predominantly African American precincts in Pittsburgh, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Common Cause, The Advancement Project, The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the ACLU, together with a number of local community groups, sent a letter to Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas Perez, who is responsible for enforcing the Voting Rights Act, asking that the Justice Department “make every effort to ensure that voters at these targeted locations are able to cast their ballots freely and fairly” and also to ask the Pennsylvania Republican Party about the source of its lists and the basis of its targeting.

“We have seen their list and it strongly suggests that the Pennsylvania Republican Party is coordinating with the Pittsburgh Tea Party to target African American voters for intimidation at the polls,” said Nicole Berner, SEIU Associate General Counsel. “The Pennsylvania Republican Party has serious questions to answer about where they are putting their poll watchers and why.”

Full text of the letter after the fold.

He'd sell us off for parts

Just a reminder:

Progressive Endorsements!

Keystone Progress here

Planned Parenthood here

NARAL here

Marcellus at the Polls (anti fracking) here


And, file this under "It must run in the family" from my nephew, Will:

Alternative Candidates for Congress: Senate here

Alternative Candidates for Congress: House here and here

Endorsements? We Got Your Endorsements, Right Here!

The Post-Gazette:

In Washington

For Senate: Democrat Bob Casey

For The House -

• 12th District: Democrat Mark Critz
• 14th District: Democrat Mike Doyle
• 18th District: Republican Tim Murphy 

In Harrisburg

For State Senate - 

• 37th District. Democrat Matt Smith

For The State House -

• 16th District: Democrat Robert Matzie
• 20th District: Democrat Adam Ravenstahl
• 22nd District: Democrat Erin Molchany
• 25th District: Democrat Joseph Markosek
• 30th District: Democrat David Tusick
• 32nd District: Democrat Anthony DeLuca
• 33rd District: Democrat Frank Dermody
• 39th District: Democrat David Levdansky
• 44th District: Democrat Mark Scappe
• 45th District: Democrat Nick Kotik

For other statewide offices -

• Pa. Attorney General:  Republican David Freed
• Pa. Auditor General:  Republican John Maher 
• Pa. Treasurer Democrat Rob McCord

And for President:  Democrat Barack Obama And The Tribune-Review:

In Washington

For The White House -

• For president: Republican Mitt Romney

For The Senate - 

• Pa.: Democrat Bob Casey Jr.
• Ohio: Republican Josh Mandel
• W.Va.: Republican John Raese

For The House (PA) - 

• 3rd Congressional District: Republican Mike Kelly 
• 9th Congressional District: Republican Bill Shuster
• 12th Congressional District: Either Republican Keith Rothfus or Democrat Mark Critz 
• 14th Congressional District: Republican Hans Lessmann 
• 18th Congressional District: No endorsement 

For The House (OH) - 

• 6th Congressional District: Republican Bill Johnson • For U.S. House

For The House (W. VA) - 

• 1st Congressional District: Republican David McKinley

For other statewide offices - 

• Attorney general: Republican David Freed 
• Auditor general: Republican John Maher 
• Treasurer: Republican Diana Irey-Vaughan

There you have it.

Let's Keep Going, Heather...

Yesterday, I wrote about Allegheny County Person-at-Large Heather Heidelbaugh's climate change skepticism/denial.

As I like Heather a great deal personally, I want to help her out of her self-imposed scientific illiteracy.

We should start, perhaps, with Businessweek:

An unscientific survey of the social networking literature on Sandy reveals an illuminating tweet (you read that correctly) from Jonathan Foley, director of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota. On Oct. 29, Foley thumbed thusly: “Would this kind of storm happen without climate change? Yes. Fueled by many factors. Is storm stronger because of climate change? Yes.” Eric Pooley, senior vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund (and former deputy editor of Bloomberg Businessweek), offers a baseball analogy: “We can’t say that steroids caused any one home run by Barry Bonds, but steroids sure helped him hit more and hit them farther. Now we have weather on steroids.”

In an Oct. 30 blog post, Mark Fischetti of Scientific American took a spin through Ph.D.-land and found more and more credentialed experts willing to shrug off the climate caveats. The broadening consensus: “Climate change amps up other basic factors that contribute to big storms. For example, the oceans have warmed, providing more energy for storms. And the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed, so it retains more moisture, which is drawn into storms and is then dumped on us.” Even those of us who are science-phobic can get the gist of that.

Weather on steroids that "amp up" the factors that contribute to big storms.  Hurricane Sandy is but an example.  But what's the evidence to back that up?

Back in July, NOAA released it's annual "State of the Climate" report and with it came a press release and in that press release we find this:

Worldwide, 2011 was the coolest year on record since 2008, yet temperatures remained above the 30 year average, according to the 2011 State of the Climate report released online today by NOAA. The peer-reviewed report, issued in coordination with the American Meteorological Society (AMS), was compiled by 378 scientists from 48 countries around the world. It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments on land, sea, ice and sky.

“2011 will be remembered as a year of extreme events, both in the United States and around the world,” said Deputy NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D. “Every weather event that happens now takes place in the context of a changing global environment. This annual report provides scientists and citizens alike with an analysis of what has happened so we can all prepare for what is to come.”

So what's in that report?  Let's go to the climate indicators for some answers.

We can ask the question: Have the oceans warmed?

Yes, yes they have.  Take a look:

NOAA says of this graph:

The temperature at the surface of the ocean has been rising over time. The blue line in the graph above shows how far above or below the 1981-2010 average (dashed line at zero) the sea surface temperature has been each year since 1950. The data shown are one of several ocean temperature records included in State of the Climate in 2011, each of which shows similar anomalies. Each year in the past decade, the sea surface temperature has been warmer than the 1981-2010 average, an indicator of long-term climate change.

And has the atmosphere warmed?

Yes, yes it has.  Take a look:

NOAA says of this graph:

Earth’s average annual surface temperature is higher today than it was when record-keeping began in the late 1800s, an indicator of long-term, global-scale climate warming. The red line shows how far above or below the 1981-2010 average (dashed line at zero) the combined land and ocean temperature has been each year since 1880. The data shown are one of several temperature analyses included in the State of the Climate in 2011, all of which show a warming trend.

So there's the evidence (rising sea and air temps) that climate scientists are now saying contribute to making big storms worse.

So unless, Heather, you can claim the evidence is wrong or how the conclusion based on them is wrong, you're kinda stuck with the idea that climate change is not a hoax.

We can keep going if you like...

For Undecided Voters of the Caucasian Variety

 

Reminder: G.O.T.V. Kick-off Rally Today!

Watch the Steelers, have a bite and a brew, and pick up election day materials -- what could be better?

WHAT: EUGENE DEPASQUALE FOR PA AUDITOR GENERAL - STEELERS PARTY & RALLY
WHEN: Sunday, November 4th, 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM
WHERE: James Street Gastropub (former James Street Tavern), 422 Foreland Street, Northside

http://www.eugene4pa.com

Heather Heidelbaugh, Climate Science Denier

I usually try to catch 4802 Friday nights on WQED and usually it's quite entertaining.

This weekend was no exception.

For this weekend, Allegheny County Council Person-At-Large Heather Heidelbaugh reasserted something she'd said on QED way back in 2009: that she's a climate science denier.

Here's what she said in 2009. In a discussion of The 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, she said with a laugh:

I'm sorry I don't buy it at all.  I think it's a complete hoax.  I think all the emails that came out - this is, this is socialism, Ok?  It's redistribution of wealth

At this point John McIntire and I both said:

It's science.

Heather continued:

It's not science.

When host Chris Moore asked whether she thinks it's an extortion plot to get money out of rich nations she said:

Yes, absolutely.

And then after that, she countered the whole of climate science with the question: Can you explain why it's getting colder in the last decade?

This is an argument scientists (real ones) like to call "going down the up escalator."  Here's a graphical explanation:

See? Going down the up escalator.  Simple.

This week, she didn't go nearly as far into anti-science but she did say:

A lot of the climatology science has been discounted as a hoax.

When it was pointed out to her that NASA disagrees, she said:

No. When you talk to a lot of very credentialed scientists, they don't believe this. Nor do I.

C'mon Heather.  You're way smarter than that!

If you need any help, you can start here.  NOAA bases it's conclusion that climate change is undeniable on 10 key indicators:

• Air Temperature Near Surface (Troposphere).
• Humidity. 
• Temperature Over Oceans. 
• Sea Surface Temperatures.
• Sea Level. 
• Ocean Heat Content.
• Temperature Over Land. 
• Sea Ice. 
• Glaciers.
• Snow Cover.

Each with multiple data sets and each pointing to the same conclusion: The Earth is warming up and we caused it.

It's not socialism.  It's not a hoax.

It's science.  And even if you don't believe it, it's still true.

Heather Heidelbaugh, Allegheny County Council Person-at-Large and Climate Science Denier.

Romney Vs. Sandy

Old (Wrong) Voter ID Posters Displayed in Police Station in the Lower Hill in Pittsburgh

In addition to posters wrongly telling PA citizens that they must show photo ID before they can vote on Tuesday being displayed in a place where the unemployed gather, apparently, they are also being displayed in a police station in a predominately African-American neighborhood in Pittsburgh.

From a good source:

"...I saw two of these posters on a bulletin board in the lobby of the District 2 police station on Centre Avenue in the Lower Hill."

Hey! Anyone see these outdated, misleading posters still being displayed on government property in, oh I don't know, Mt. Lebanon, or say, Fox Chapel, or Cranberry Township? (Please stop laughing.)

The Bishops Speak...

And guess who they want Catholics to vote for (without actually saying it, nudge-nudge wink-wink)?

From Selena Zito at the Trib:

Roman Catholic bishops in Pennsylvania are urging the faithful to remember the church’s teachings on marriage, education and religious liberty when voting on Tuesday, calling this presidential election a “historical challenge.”

The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference chose All Saints’ Day to issue its election statement reminding Catholics that “most urgent political issues — ranging from the economy, immigration and abortion to global security — raise profoundly moral questions.”

“Because politics is the place where competing moral visions of a society meet and struggle, our democracy depends on people of conviction fighting for what they believe in the public square, yet doing so with an abiding respect for one another,” the bishops said.

Here's the statement.

And even though this is Zito is political reporter here, Zito the conservative columnist just can't resist the conservative spin:

The bishops warned against efforts to redefine the nature of marriage, to exclude parental authority in school choice, to encroach upon Catholic health care and social services and to erode religious liberty — an apparent reference to a Health and Human Services mandate on contraceptives and federal funding for abortion in Obamacare. [Emphasis added.]

There is no federal funding for abortion (except for rape and incest and when the life of the mother is in danger) - the Hyde Amendment has guaranteed that for decades.

And if there's any question whether federal funds can be used in Obamacare, there's an Executive Order that answers that question:

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. 300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, section 508(d)(1) of Public Law 111-8) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

How could political reporter Selena Zito not know this?  And if she does, then it's simply dishonest to write what she wrote.  (Again, which is it with these folks at the Trib?  Incompetence or dishonesty?)

But let's move on to the Bishops' statement.  When they write:

Religious liberty itself – “our first, most cherished freedom” – is no longer secure. At first glance, this may seem otherwise because religious freedom is so deeply ingrained in our national history. But democracy has no special immunity to losing its soul by little steps. As Alexis de Tocqueville, the great chronicler of early American democracy, observed more than 150 years ago, “it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life” – because the more the state provides, the more it inevitably controls.

Events have proven this true. In recent years a pattern of legislative and judicial actions has emerged in our country that undermines religious liberty and jeopardizes the contributions of religious bodies in the public realm. Government policies that seek to impose morally repugnant services on religiously affiliated medical providers...

And:

Consider today’s aggressive efforts to redefine the nature of marriage, to exclude parental authority in the choice of the best education for their children, and to force Catholic healthcare and social services to end their ministries unless they violate their religious identities through mandated support of practices contrary to the very sanctity of human life. [Emphasis added.]

Who do you think they want Catholics to support?  Notice how they framed the issue.  Now look at reality.

What's being discussed here is not The Church being forced to "end their ministries" in anyway.  It's about access to insurance (that they're not paying for) for women (who may or may not be Catholic but who work for a Catholic institution) who want contraceptives.  That's what the bishops oppose.  And in doing so, they're imposing their own faith in the name of religious liberty.

Amazing how faith, yet again, gets in the way of reality.

Keith Rothfus Spreads The Big Lie

In this ad about 21 seconds in, candidate for Congress Keith Rothfus says we need to "stop Obamacare's $700 billion cut."

We already know that's a lie.

PA CareerLink Office in Robinson Displaying Poster Saying You Must Show Photo ID to Vote

A reader sent me this photograph taken today by cell phone, November 1, 2012:

(Click photo to enlarge)

This was photographed at the Allegheny West CareerLink office at Robinson Plaza Two, Suite 410, Pittsburgh, PA 15205. For those who are fortunate enough not to know it, in order to collect unemployment in PA, many are required to attend mandatory session/s at a CareerLink center.

The information on the poster is wrong as there is a temporary injunction against needing to show photo ID at the polls for the election on November 6, 2012 and it may therefore suppress the vote.

This needs to be taken down IMMEDIATELY! (Why was it still up?)

I will be calling them.

UPDATE: I left a message for the center's directory, Tiffany (didn't catch the last name). She's either at the Downtown office /out to lunch. I also spoke to someone at the ACLU about this.

UPDATE 2: Everyone, please call them to complain: (412) 809-3500!

UPDATE 3: Tiffiany did leave a message for me today (Nov. 2) and we are now playing phone tag.

Details, Ladies and Gentlemen. Details...

It's long been the habit of the The Tribune-Review's editorial policy to, shall we say, mislead its readership by, um, conveniently omitting inconvenient details while trying to prove a point.

Take for example today:

The big guns of big liberalism are using Hurricane Sandy to make big, bogus and politicized arguments for an even larger federal government. “A big storm requires big government,” blared a New York Times editorial even before the storm had run its course on Tuesday. Of course, it was a setup to bash Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for supposedly wanting to gut FEMA. Actually, he wants to streamline FEMA and give more direct control to the states to make its response to disasters more effective. And never mind that it’s Barack Obama who, in his fiscal 2013 budget, actually proposed cutting the federal disaster agency’s budget by more than $10 billion. But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of promoting the failed president you’ve endorsed, right? [Bolding in original.]

I don't think we need to unweave the braintrust's weasel words regarding Romney "gutting" FEMA.  He's on record saying that it's "simply immoral" to fund FEMA if it means raising the deficit.

Though he's flip-flopped again and said (but only after being questioned - repeatedly - by reporters):

"I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters," Romney said in a statement supplied by his campaign Wednesday. "As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters."

Huffingtonpost goes on to say that there's no indication in the statement whether he'd still fund FEMA by cutting other guv'ment programs.

Given the state of veracity coming out of Mitt's mouth, what do you think?

The braintrust's distraction I wanted to look at, however, is this one:

And never mind that it’s Barack Obama who, in his fiscal 2013 budget, actually proposed cutting the federal disaster agency’s budget by more than $10 billion.

Not sure where they got the "$10 billion" part - seeing that the budget request for FEMA for fiscal year 2013 is only $13.5 billion.

Note, of course, there's no mention of what the Romney/Paul budget for FEMA would look like.  From the Washington Post:

The president has proposed cuts to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for 2013 that would reduce overall funding by about 3 percent, with $1 billion trimmed from the Disaster Relief Fund but more money given to state and local programs.

President Obama met in August with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, left, and FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate, right, to review the federal government’s preparations for Hurricane Irene.

By comparison, Romney and running mate Rep. Paul Ryan have supported far steeper cuts to discretionary spending overall—a broad pool of programs that includes FEMA funds and disaster relief. Although it’s unclear whether the GOP ticket would specifically spare FEMA from broad-based cuts, Ryan’s budget would make it harder to fund disaster relief because the aid would have to be offset by budget cuts elsewhere.

And about those Obama budget cuts:

Under President Obama’s 2013 budget proposal, FEMA’s Disaster Relief Funds would be cut by $1 billion, bringing funding levels down to $6.1 billion from $7.1 billion in fiscal year 2012, a 14 percent cut. An administration official says the drop reflects decreasing tail-costs from Hurricane Katrina and stresses that the 2013 request is $500 million beyond the disaster fund’s anticipated needs, according to a Congressional formula based on the cost of disaster aid.

Overall, Obama’s budget would reduce FEMA funding by $453 million — a 3 percent cut from 2012 that would bring the agency’s total funding down to $13.5 billion, according to FEMA’s budget estimates. The Disaster Relief Fund would see the single biggest cutback, but staff salaries and expenses would also be cut by $200 million, along with smaller cuts to emergency food and shelter ($20 million) and radiological emergency preparedness ($39 million). However, funding for state and local programs and flood insurance would see a big uptick. [Emphasis added.]

Huh. Would you look at that.  The budget proposal is for less than last year, but still more than FEMA's anticipated needs ay-und there's a "uptick" (i.e. more money) for local programs.

Now go back and take another look at how Scaife's braintrust characterizes it.

Funny what they leave out, huh?

They Did It Again!

In trying to find campaign fraud, THEY COMMIT CAMPAIGN FRAUD.

This time it's the nutballs at WND.

In an attempt to show how easy it is for a foreign national to donate money to the Obama Campaign, this is what the geniuses at WND did:

One $15 donation was made at BarackObama.com using a confirmed Pakistani IP address and proxy server. In other words, as far as the campaign website was concerned, the donation was openly identified electronically as coming from Pakistan.

Upon clicking the “donate” button, WND staff selected the $15 amount and were taken to a page on the campaign website asking for a first and last name, city, state, zip code, email address and phone number.

The information submitted was: “Osama bin Laden, 911 Jihad Way, Abbottabad, CA 91101.”

So they donated some cash in the name of Osama bin Laden - a foreign national. A dead foreign national at that!

Too bad it looks like that's illegal:

§ 110.4Contributions in the name of another; cash contributions (2 U.S.C. 441f, 441g, 432(c)(2)).
(a) [Reserved]
(b) Contributions in the name of another.
(1) No person shall—
(i) Make a contribution in the name of another;

Do these guys have ANY brains at all?

Happy Halloween! Now help get out the damn vote!

 You know what's at stake! There's lots of ways to help in this last week. If you don't, something very scary could happen! To volunteer, you can go to http://www.barackobama.com and One Pittsburgh will also set you up to help. Here are some great events that you can attend leading up to the election:

 

WHAT: UNITED STEELWORKERS' STEEL BLITZ FOR BARACK
WHEN: Friday, November 2nd, 11:00 AM
WHERE: USW Headquarters, 60 Blvd. of the Allies, Pittsburgh, PA 15222

 

WHAT: ED GAINEY FOR OBAMA PRE-ELECTION RALLY WITH FRIENDS
WHEN: Friday, November 2nd, 6:00 PM to 8:30 PM
WHERE: Kingsley Center, 6435 Frankstown Avenue (at the corner of East Liberty Boulevard and Frankstown Avenue)
For questions or directions, contact Leeretta or Lori at 412-945-0024. Facebook event page here.

WHAT: PEDUTO FOR OBAMA GET OUT THE VOTE CANVASS
WHEN: Saturday, November 3rd, 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM
WHERE: Meet at the home of Natalie Greene, 4425 McCaslin Street, Greenfield
For more information or if you have any questions, please contact: info@billpeduto.com 

WHAT: JOHN MCINTIRE DANGEROUSLY LIVE COMEDY SHOW
WHEN: Saturday, November 3rd, 10:30 PM
WHERE: Cabaret Theater, 655 Penn Ave, Pittsburgh, PA (Downtown)
RSVP on Facebook (or just show up)
 

WHAT: EUGENE DEPASQUALE FOR PA AUDITOR GENERAL - STEELERS PARTY& RALLY
WHEN: Sunday, November 4th, 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM
WHERE: James Street Gastropub (former James Street Tavern), 422 Foreland Street, Northside
For more information or if you have any questions, please contact: info@billpeduto.com