Dick Armey Credits Toomey With Sparking 'Conception' Of Tea Party

Via The Philadelphia Inquirer's Commonwealth Confidential:

Former Rep. Dick Armey (R.,Tex.), whose Freedom Works organization has helped the Tea Party grow, said Tuesday in Philadelphia that the movement was conceived the moment President George W. Bush endorsed Sen. Arlen Specter (then-R, now D) over Pat Toomey in the 2004 Republican primary.

[snip]

Naturally, Democrats would like to hang responsibility for some the more - er, unusual - Tea Party candidates around Toomey's neck. After all, he was head of the Club for Growth, a powerful advocacy group that has spent a decade pushing from the GOP candidates and officeholders deemed insufficiently pure in their conservatism.

Sestak's campaign said in a statement that Toomey and O'Donnell would be a "perfect match" in the Senate...

[snip]

"Congressman Toomey may not be a witch, but his policies are just as scary," said Sestak spokeswoman April Mellody. "Eliminating all corporate taxes, privatizing Social Security and shipping jobs to China are so out of touch with Pennsylvanians that if you didn't have a private plane, you'd need a broomstick to reach them."

Some New Poll Data

An astute reader of the blog brought this to my attention last night.

Jim O'Toole of the P-G wrote at Early Returns yesterday:

We told you about that DSCC poll showing Joe Sestak's bow edging ahead of the U.S.S. Toomey _nautical metaphor are obligatory when writing about the admiral's campaign. Now our pal, the trusty lookout Tom Fitzgerald of the good ship Inky, ahoys us with news of another internal Dem poll depicting a Senate regatta with the candidates in hailing distance of one another _ Sestak, 46 percent, Toomey 45 percent. Those ads charging that Toomey wants to take everyone's Social Security check and mail them to Chinese businessmen to buy risky derivatives might be working.

Here's the piece from Fitzgerald at philly.com:

Democrat Joe Sestak has clawed his way into a statistical tie with Republican Pat Toomey in the Pennsylvania Senate race, according to two new internal Democratic polls.

Toomey was leading Sestak 46 percent to 45 percent among likely voters in a poll conducted for Sestak's campaign by David Petts, of the Washington firm Bennett, Petts and Normington, and obtained by The Philadelphia Inquirer. The survey of 800 likely voters was conducted Oct. 4-6, and results were subject to a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

And adds some details for that DSCC poll:

Also, a poll conducted for the Democratic Senatatorial Campaign Committee by Garin-Hart-Yang over the last week showed Sestak leading Toomey 44 percent to 42 percent. When "leaners" were pushed to make a choice, Sestak went up 47 percent to 44 percent. The poll was based on 606 likely voters.

A few caveats from Chris Bowers at the dailykos:

This is the first poll in a while to show Sestak ahead in Pennsylvania, and it’s an internal poll. However, my research on polling averages suggests that including internal polls in the final averages actually increases the accuracy of the averages. Also, it is the first Pennsylvania poll that will be included in the final Senate Snapshot, since the majority of its interviews were conducted on or after October 8th. [Italics in original]

Before you say that all this is meaingless, I'll give Fitzgerald a pre-emptive retort:

DSCC's Republican counterpart certainly is acting as though numbers are moving in this race.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee launched its first ad on behalf of Toomey Wednesday. Entitled "interview," it shows footage of Sestak, a Democratic congressman, saying he supported a bigger stimulus, a public health-care option and the so-called cap-and-trade energy bill.

And these are supposed to convince me not to support Joe Sestak?

Scaife's Brain Trust Must Think Its Readers Are Idiots

They really do.

How else can you explain how they easily publish such easily debunked drivel - if only by expecting, I guess, their readers not to check their sources.

Case in point today:

What "conflict"?: So, let's get this straight: The New York Times insinuates that Ginni Thomas somehow has a conflict because, as wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, she advocates for such things as freedom, liberty and stopping government tyranny. Egads, if that's a "conflict," there's little hope for America.

Now if you actually go to the Times article (and see that? I linked to it so you can check my work), you'd see that whatever conflict is "insinuated", it's because of money and who her husband is - not, as Scaife's braintrust insinuates, because she advocates for freedom.

Take a look:

But to some people who study judicial ethics, Mrs. Thomas’s activism is raising knotty questions, in particular about her acceptance of large, unidentified contributions for Liberty Central. She began the group in late 2009 with two gifts of $500,000 and $50,000, and because it is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group, named for the applicable section of the federal tax code, she does not have to publicly disclose any contributors.

The Times points out that she gets paid from Liberty Central and that a spokesperson for the group said there are internal checks to make sure there are no conflicts of interest. No details, you'll just have to trust them on this. Of course we will.

More from the Times:

A federal law requires justices to recuse themselves in a number of circumstances where real or perceived conflicts of interest could arise, including in cases where their spouses could have a financial interest. But the decision to step aside is up to each justice; there is no appeal from the nation’s highest court.

“It’s shocking that you would have a Supreme Court justice sitting on a case that might implicate in a very fundamental way the interests of someone who might have contributed to his wife’s organization,” said Deborah L. Rhode, a law professor and director of the Stanford University Center on the Legal Profession.

“The fact that we can’t find that out is the first problem,” she said, adding, “And how can the public form a judgment about propriety if it doesn’t have the basic underlying facts?”

And then:

Steven Lubet, who teaches legal ethics at Northwestern Law School, said Mrs. Thomas’s solicitation of big contributions raised potential recusal issues for her husband. But he added, “There’s no reason to think that Justice Thomas would be anything other than extremely careful about it.”

“I think this is the world we live in, where two-career families are the norm and there are no constraints on the political activities of judicial spouses,” Mr. Lubet said.

Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, said: “There’s nothing to stop Ginni Thomas from being politically active. She’s a private citizen and she has all of her constitutional rights.”

But as for the big donors, Mr. Gillers, citing a 1988 Supreme Court decision, said, “She has to tell him because the public is going to assume he knows,” and, Mr. Gillers said, fair-minded citizens could question Justice Thomas’s objectivity as a result.

Whether those issues are solid is a separate question. But look back at what Scaife's braintrust was insinuating - that the Times said that Mrs Thomas had a conflict of interest because she was advocating for freedom.

Turns out that it's the flow of money that may constitute the conflict of interest for her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Do they think their readers won't check up on them? I guess so. They must be counting on it.

Will you vote for "Joe Seestix"?

I was just polled by a firm called Issues & Answers about US Senate and gubernatorial races in Pennsylvania.

What was completely disturbing was that the interviewer could not pronounce "Sestak."

In fact, the first time she tried to say it I had to ask, "Do you mean Joe Sestak?" because I really wasn't sure who she was asking about. She pronounced it something like "seasicks" or "seestix" -- and continued to do so throughout the interview -- despite my correcting her each time.

How in the hell can the results be valid for the surveys that she's conducted?

They have call centers in IN, MI and VA. I did try their corporate offices in VA, but got voicemail, so for the hell of it, I called the first phone center listed and registered a complaint (I should have asked for her supervisor while I still had her on the phone).

Ironically, she had no problem with "Onorato."
.

Council Votes Down Mayor's Parking-Pension Plan In Preliminary Vote

(Any and all questions regarding this graphicshould be directed to Rev. Burgess.)
In a preliminary vote today, Pittsburgh City Council voted down Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's 50-year giveaway parking privatization plan for the city's pension problem.

Bill 956:

Resolution authorizing the City of Pittsburgh to enter into concession arrangements with LAZ Parking and J. P. Morgan IFF Acquisitions LLC, operating as Pittsburgh Parking Partners, LLC with respect to on street metered parking and the garages and lots owned by the City and the Public Parking Authority of Pittsburgh (the "Authority") pursuant to the Pittsburgh Metered Parking System Concession and Services Agreement and the Pittsburgh Public Parking Facilities System Concession and Lease Agreement, and to authorize certain actions and ancillary agreements contemplated by the Metered System Concession Agreement and the Facilities Concession Agreement including the conveyance of Mellon Square garage and five (5) surface parking lots to the Authority as required by the Facilities Concession Agreement and the conveyance of parking meters and other items of equipment to the Concessionaire as required by the Metered System Concession Agreement. (Parking Assets Lease)

Here's how the vote came down:

Yes:
Ricky Burgess

No:
Patrick Dowd
Darlene Harris
Bruce Kraus
William Peduto
Natalia Rudiak
Doug Shields

Abstain:
Theresa Kail-Smith
Daniel Lavelle

Some good news for a change

Video of the first Chilean miner (Florencio Avalos) to be rescued:


Ten of the 33 miners have been brought to the surface as of this moment.

(I have to say that I am very grateful that none of my relatives are still working in mines.)

UPDATE: And if you haven't seen it, Mario Sepulveda (the second miner to surface) hugged the president and handed out souvenir rocks before leading the crowd in a chant:


.)

Beginnings Of Another Zombie Lie

First I'll try to kill it. But I already know that such actions are futile.

For instance, they're still saying President Obama wasn't born in the United States. They're also saying he's the illegitimate son of Malcolm X (which, considering the fact that Malcolm X was an American Citizen, completely undercuts the "Obama is not an American" lie)

Anyway back to the zombie lie at hand.

From Greg Sargent at The Plum Line:

I suppose this is par for the course. But perhaps it should be part of the discussion that right wing commentators who claim lefty groups and unions are running ads funded by anonymous donors -- just as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other righty groups are doing -- are just flat out lying.

This lie is so easily debunked that Joe Scarborough actually retracted it today on Morning Joe after making the claim and getting corrected. Will Karl Rove and Fox News and others spreading this falsehood or letting it go unchecked do the same?

Scarborough, during a discussion this morning of the Obama-and-Dem-versus-Chamber dust-up, called on President Obama to demand disclosure from unions and MoveOn, claiming "blatant hypocrisy."

Sargent continues:

But the comparison is totally bogus. Under Federal law, unions disclose far more about their funding than other political groups do, and it just so happens that MoveOn's ads are funded by a Federal political committee that has to comply with the same disclosure requirements that candidate and party committees do.

And now the zombie:

On Fox News yesterday, Rove, who helped found two groups that are dumping millions in anonymous contributions into the midterms, compared his efforts to those of liberal groups like the National Resources Defense Council, the League of Conservation Voters, the Center for American Progress -- and, of course, the supreme boogeyman, MoveOn.

"Like a lot of liberal groups," Rove said, they "do not report their donors."

Karl Rove - Zombie liar.

RIP to Parking Privatization in Pittsburgh

Parking lease plan 'dead' in Pittsburgh City Council, Post-Gazette

Two more pension ideas offered, Post-Gazette

Councilman declares parking privatization 'dead' in Pittsburgh, Tribune-Review
.

PodCamp Video!

The PodCamp video has been posted.

Here it is:

Click To Play

PROFOUND apologies to Maria and Bram. I had no idea the camera was not going to be showing all of us.

God, I am so bald.

Speaking of My Friends at The Trib...

Vice President Joe Biden was in town yesterday.

Something very subtle and interesting happened in the coverage. First the set-up from Early Returns 2.0:

The White House, divvying up the pool duty today, has the Trib's Mike Wereschagin providing color from this evening's reception with Vice President Joe Biden stumping for gubernatorial hopeful Dan Onorato...

Then the P-G quotes the press pool story that Mike wrote.

He also wrote (not surprisingly) the Trib's coverage of the same event.

Reading both, I noticed some differences in the coverage. From the press pool:

On anonymous donors and the post-Citizens United fundraising landscape: “You don’t know where it’s coming from, but you know where it’s coming from. It’s coming from some of the biggest interests – the Mellon Scaife types of the world. Folks, these guys are playing for keeps. These guys are playing for keeps because they know we mean what we say, and we want to put the middle class back in the driver’s seat.” [Emphasis added.]

Try as I might, I just can't seem to find anything even remotely similar in the Trib' coverage.

I guess my good friends at the Trib didn't think that was an important enough detail to include in Richard Mellon Scaife's newspaper.

You'd Think They'd Learn

From the Op-Ed page of today's Tribune-Review:

Congress must ensure that successor organizations don't circumvent its ban on federal funding of the defunct national ACORN and its affiliates.

That defunding happened after video of Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now workers helpfully advising a purported pimp and prostitute made continuance of Obama Democrats' longtime ACORN love affair politically untenable. Now, Congress must ensure that old flame isn't rekindled.

They're basing this on the O'Keefe pimp tapes??
For those of you who don't know (and there maybe one or two) O'Keefe lied his way through the tapes:


They know the pimp story's crap, right? O'Keefe's pimp costume was no where to be found when he was taping in the ACORN offices. He never presented himself as a pimp. It was plainly dishonest. They know O'Keefe's a creep, right? The Pimp hoax was posted on Breitbart's website - they know Breitbart's a liar, don't they? Then why even touch the story? The clue (inadvertant projection as it is) can be found in the op-ed's last few lines:

ACORN's Washington sweethearts must think taxpayers -- and lawmakers -- have awfully short memories. Hopefully, enough remember ACORN scandals to deny federal funding to its renamed affiliates.

They're hoping YOU have a short memory and have forgotten that O'Keefe and Breitbart have no credibility whatsoever.

But then again, this is the Tribune-Review we're talking here.

I Met Pat Toomey Once - And I Thought He Was Smarter Than This

Honestly.

From Greg Sargent at the Washington Post:

As many people have already pointed out, some of the leading beneficiaries of this season of Tea Party craziness are Republican candidates who hold extreme views on specific issues but nonetheless come across as moderate and reasonable when compared to the likes of Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell.

Case in point: Pennsylvania Senate candidate Pat Toomey. In a local radio interview on Friday, Toomey said the degree to which human activity is to blame for global warming is being "very much disputed" and "debated."

And when asked about Global Warming, here's what he said:

My view is, I think the data is pretty clear. There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it's clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated. If we go down the road of legislation like this cap and trade bill...

Sargent asks:

Right, but who, exactly, is doing the disputing and the debating here?

I'd like to know that, too.

Could it be the American Association for the Advancement of Science?

No:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.

That was the first sentence of their statement on climate change from February, 2007.

The World Health Organization?

No:

There is now widespread agreement that the earth is warming, due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity.

That's from the Summary their 2008 report "Protecting Health from Climate Change."

How about NASA? Any dispute there?

No:

Most scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

And:

In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.

And don't even try to use the word "Climategate" here. THAT was the hoax.

Anyway, do I need to do this again? Ok one more.

How about the National Academy of Science? Any dispute there?

No:

A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems, concludes this panel report from the America's Climate Choices suite of studies.

Can someone ask Congressman Toomey where the dispute is? Or, in deed, what the dispute is?

I honestly thought he was smarter than this.

Libertarian Paradise, Part II

Apparently, some folks in Tennessee are fans of A Bit of Fry & Laurie (that would explain how they came up with the idea of "subscriptions" for fire protection):



(h/t to AMERICAblog.)
.

Pat Toomey And The Chamber of Commerce

I am sure you've seen a few Chamber of Commerce ads in this political season. The ones I've seen all seem to revolve around Congressman Joe Sestak.

Think Progress has done some good work on the CoC funding. Guess what they found?

In recent years, the Chamber has become very aggressive with its fundraising, opening offices abroad and helping to found foreign chapters (known as Business Councils or “AmChams”). While many of these foreign operations include American businesses with interests overseas, the Chamber has also spearheaded an effort to raise money from foreign corporations, including ones controlled by foreign governments. These foreign members of the Chamber send money either directly to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or the foreign members fund their local Chamber, which in turn, transfers dues payments back to the Chamber’s H Street office in Washington DC. These funds are commingled to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6) account which is the vehicle for the attack ads...

And then:

Here’s how it works. Regular dues from American firms to the Chamber can range from $500 to $300,000 or more, depending on their size and industry, and can be used for any purpose deemed necessary by the Chamber leadership. For example, the health insurance giant Aetna has reported that it paid $100,000 in annual dues to the Chamber in the past. But for specific advocacy or advertising campaigns, corporations can hide behind the label of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and give additional money. Last year, alongside their regular dues, health insurance companies like Aetna secretly funneled up to $20 million to the Chamber for attack ads aimed at killing health reform (publicly, health insurance executives claimed they supported reform). Last week, Politico reported that News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, gave an extra $1 million to the Chamber for its election season attack campaign.

Think Progress has a follow-up:

After consulting with the Chamber of Commerce’s chief lobbyist Bruce Josten, the New York Times and the Washington Post publish articles today largely dismissing concerns about the Chamber’s foreign sources of funding as a means to raise money to air political attack ads.

Both the Times and the Post articles fail to appreciate the scope of the Chamber’s foreign sources of funding, focusing instead too narrowly on independently-run, foreign-based “AmChams.”

Understandably, the Chamber of Commerce also focuses exclusively on the AmChams:

AmChams are independent organizations, created to represent American companies in overseas markets, and they do not fund U.S. Chamber political programs. Collectively, AmChams pay nominal dues to the Chamber – approximately $100,000 total across all 115 AmChams. Under our budgeting system, the nominal funds received from AmChams and business councils are used to support our international programs.

And so on. Think Progress points out:

In a statement provided to Sargent, the Chamber reveals that foreign-based “AmChams pay nominal dues to the Chamber — approximately $100,000 total across all 115 AmChams.” But “AmChams” are only a small piece of the puzzle.

Most of the Chamber’s foreign sources of funds come from large multi-national corporations who are headquartered abroad, like BP and Siemens. Direct contributions from foreign firms also are accepted under the auspices of the Chamber’s “Business Councils” located in various foreign countries. The Chamber states that only “a relative handful [of its 300,000 members] are non-U.S. based companies.” Relative handful? How many is that? And how much are they contributing?

Thanks, of course, to the lobbying efforts of the Chamber of Commerce and other pro-business elements of the right side of the political aisle, we may never know how much foreign money has made its way into the Chamber's anti-Sestak attack ads.

The Right was all up in arms when questions like these were raised in 2008. Look out! Lotsa scary foreigners are buying the election for Obama!! Ooo scary! Now? Not so much.

Go figure.

Jack Kelly Sunday

Ohmigod the conspiracies that haunt Jack Kelly's brain!

In this week's column, Post-Gazette Columnist Jack Kelly actually attempts to tie 9/11 terrorist Mohammad Atta, former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, and former Congressman Curt Weldon's loss in 2004 to current Congressman Joe Sestak to a vast Pentagon cover-up of the now infamous "Able Danger" intelligence unit. This vast conspiracy comes out of Jack's description of some heavy handed censorship of a recently penned book by Army Reserve Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer.

No, I kid you not.

We'll see, as we usually do with Jack's columns, that there's much more to the story than what Jack wants us to see.

Let's begin:

Last month the Department of Defense took the unusual -- and disturbing -- step of buying up the entire initial press run of a book it doesn't like, and then destroying it.

The book is "Operation Dark Heart," by retired Army Reserve Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, about an intelligence operation in Afghanistan in the early days of the war there.

Mr. Shaffer had submitted his manuscript to the Army for security review, which approved it. But the Defense Intelligence Agency weighed in late with objections.

This part, such as it is, is true. But the reason for it gets to the heart of the conspiracy haunting Jack's shadows. Take a look:

"Some of the redactions can't be explained by logic, so the only explanation that occurs is that they were trying to conceal what they were after," Mr. Shaffer told me.

What Mr. Shaffer thinks DIA is most interested in concealing are details about Able Danger, an Army data mining operation on which Mr. Shaffer worked before going to Afghanistan.

On the other hand, lest you think that that's the only thing Shaffer's said about the redactions, he told Fox News:

"Apparently, Defense Intelligence Agency took exception to the way the Army cleared the book," Shaffer told Fox News in an interview conducted before he was asked by the military not to discuss the book. He confirmed efforts to block the book, a move he called "highly unusual."

However, Shaffer explained on Sunday that the distinction between the Army and DIA's rules on redaction are traced to the public domain argument. He said while the Army review found that everything he puclished (sic) is in the public domain in some form, DIA notes that much of it is still classified.

"So that's the difference in standards," he said.

But let's move on to the conspiracy. The DIA retaliated against Shaffer:

DIA yanked his security clearance after charging him with "misuse of a government cell phone in the amount of $67" and the "misfiling of a travel voucher in the amount of $180.00." Then, because he'd lost his security clearance, the DIA fired him.

"Based on our investigation of security clearance retaliation it appears the Defense Intelligence Agency used the security clearance system in an improper manner against Lt. Col Shaffer," Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., then the chairman of a House Armed Services subcommittee, wrote in October 2006.

However, Shaffer himself had a somewhat different take on it and that it wasn't just about the $67 and the $180. From the New York Times:

Even before the Able Danger imbroglio, Colonel Shaffer admits in his book, he was seen by some at D.I.A. as a risk-taking troublemaker. He describes participating in a midday raid on a telephone facility in Kabul to download the names and numbers of all the cellphone users in the country and proposing an intelligence operation to cross into Pakistan and spy on a Taliban headquarters.

In much of the book, he portrays himself as a brash officer who sometimes ran into resistance from timid superiors.

“A lot of folks at D.I.A. felt that Tony Shaffer thought he could do whatever the hell he wanted,” Mr. Shaffer writes about himself. “They never understood that I was doing things that were so secret that only a few knew about them.”

But the biggest elements of Jack's scary conspiracy revolve around former Congressman Curt Weldon:

Bad things also happened to Rep. Curt Weldon, the Pennsylvania Republican who was Mr. Shaffer's chief supporter in Congress. Three weeks before the 2006 midterms, the FBI very publicly raided the home of Mr. Weldon's daughter, Karen, in an alleged investigation of corruption.

No charges have been filed against Karen Weldon or her father. The Justice Department won't say whether the investigation is continuing.

So the investigation into Weldon was a retaliation from the CIA/FBI/Pentagon to protect Able Danger?

Not really. From this Washington Post of 10/8/2006, we learn that the FBI was investigating Weldon's ties to Bogoljub Karic, a wealthy Serbian businessman who had close ties to former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic and that:

[T]he Karic family that year signed a contract with Weldon's daughter, Karen, and a business partner that called for monthly payments of $20,000 for "management, government and public relations," according to a copy of the March 2003 contract. In all, the family paid Karen Weldon's firm $133,858 that year for efforts she undertook to set up a foundation for it.

Curt Weldon's visit and that deal are under investigation by the FBI, according to a law enforcement source familiar with the probe. His efforts to assist clients of his daughter's consulting firm in their dealings with the federal government are the focus of that probe, according to sources familiar with it .

FBI raids of six locations in Pennsylvania and Florida on Monday, including one of Karen Weldon's home and another of her consulting and lobbying firm, were part of the bureau's search for evidence of whether the lawmaker used his influence to benefit himself or his daughter's firm, according to the sources.

And then there was this:

Besides looking at Weldon's Karic connection, the FBI is examining the lawmaker's contacts with a Russian-managed oil and gas company, Itera International Energy Corp., the sources said. The company's offices in Jacksonville, Fla., were searched on Monday.

Itera spokesman Steve Koegler declined to answer questions yesterday, but released a statement saying that the government had expressed interest Monday in "any records or information Itera might have with respect to Itera's business relationship with Solutions Worldwide." The name of the firm that Karen Weldon operates with one of her father's close political supporters, Charles Sexton, is Solutions North America Inc.

So yea, the raid was retaliation for Able Danger. Of course it was.

But we finally get to the heart of Jack's Able Danger haunting: Jamie Gorelick:

Why might Justice have wanted Mr. Weldon to go away? Perhaps because he said it was then Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick who was chiefly responsible for preventing the Able Danger team from sharing its intelligence with the FBI.

Know what a "zombie lie" is? It's just what it says. It's a lie that just won't die no matter how often you try to shut it down. Clinton raped Juanita Broderick. Obama was born in Kenya. Two of the more famous zombie lies.

This zombie lie is about the so called "Gorelick Wall." That's the "wall" that made it impossible for the Department of Defense to share information about the 9/11 attackers with the FBI - thus allowing the attacks to happen.

Only it didn't. The "wall" had nothing to do with the Department of Defense at all. As shown by Gorelick's memo dated July 19, 1995:

The procedures contained herein, unless otherwise specified by the Attorney General, apply to foreign intelligence (FI) and foreign counterintelligence (FCI) investigations conducted by the FBI, including investigations related to espionage and foreign and international terrorism. The purpose of these procedures is to ensure that FI and FCI investigations are conducted lawfully, and that the Department's criminal and intelligence

See that? The guidelines refer to foreign intelligence and counter intelligence investigations by the FBI - not the DOD (where Able Danger was).

Indeed Slade Gorton, Republican former Senator from Washington State and member of the 9/11 Commission stated as much 6 years ago in a letter to the editor of the Washington Times:

[Jamie Gorelick] had nothing to do with any "wall" between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies. The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else.

Congress created the walls that were in place before September 11 -- such as the National Security Act's prohibition on U.S. intelligence agency spying on Americans and the Posse Comitatus Act -- that have nothing to do with the Department of Justice memo.

A zombie lie at the heart of an irrational conspiracy theory from Jack Kelly.

It's Sunday. It's to be expected.

More On Toomey

There's a follow-up to this post. It refers back to
this article at the Scranton Times-Tribune where Congressman Pat Toomey was defending his plans to privatize social security (if only partially).

Wonkroom has done some work on this section where Congressman Wall Street explains his confidence in, well, Wall Street :

"I would argue that you don't really have to worry about a fluctuation in the stock market because this is a 45-year period of time, and you are gradually transitioning out of stocks as you get older and get closer to the point where you need to draw on those funds," he said.

The stock market would rise and fall, but over 45 years an investor from a private account would end up ahead, he said.

"If you don't believe in that, then you're giving up on the American economy," he said. "I mean, there's never been a 20-year period in our history where we haven't had a positive performance in the stock market, much less a 40-year period. If we don't have growth over a 40-year period, we got serious problems."

And now to the Wonkroom:

Toomey argued that “there’s never been a 20-year period in our history where we haven’t had a positive performance in the stock market, much less a 40-year period,” so anyone subject to his scheme wouldn’t have to worry. However, as Center for American Progress economist Christian Weller noted in 2005 (before the financial meltdown of 2008), there have been plenty of sluggish periods in the U.S. stock market, and accounts need to earn above and beyond the rate of inflation just to stay in the black

Weller's piece from 2005 can be found here. Weller stated back then that those private accounts would have to earn at least 3 percent above inflation in order for there to be any net gains on those accounts. He went on:

Even Wall Street agrees that on average, people will have a hard time meeting this target.

Meanwhile, of course, the money managers handling all that extra cash will still be collecting their fees.

So while it would be difficult, to say the least, for workers to get a net gain on the money in their private accounts, Wall Street still makes out very nicely indeed.

Toomey gets it wrong on Social Security, But can we see what a good deal this is for Wall Street?

Congressman Wall Street - wrong on Social Security.

Craig Smith Does It Again. Again.

Every Saturday, or so it seems, Richard Mellon Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review publishes yet another interview between staff writer Craig Smith and some more often than not prominent member of some more often than not prominent conservative think tank.

How ever many there are, one thing is for certain: Smith never discloses the financial connections between his boss, Richard Mellon Scaife, the foundations Scaife controls (the Allegheny, Carthage and Sarah Scaife Foundations), and the think tank employing the conservative he's interviewing.

This week, Craig Smith interviews Robert L. Pfaltzgraff Jr., founder and president of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis. Any reader of this blog will know that I've danced this dance before - more than a few times. Even so, I have to admit that the amount of money Scaife's funneled to this particular think tank is, even for me, surprising.

And it's all due to the alphabetical listing of beneficiaries on the Foundation Annual Report.

I started at the most recent reports and found that:

• in 2009, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $710,000 to the IFPA
• in 2008, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $860,000 to the IFPA
• in 2007, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $710,000 to the IFPA
• in 2006, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $735,000 to the IFPA
• in 2009, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $610,000 to the IFPA

By my count, that's $3.625 million.

As the letter "I" is rather close, alphabetically, to the letter "H" it wasn't that difficult for my little eye to spy up the list a wee bit to the Heritage Foundation. And what did I find?

This:

• in 2009, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $600,000 to the Heritage Foundation
• in 2008, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $600,000 to the Heritage Foundation
• in 2007, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $400,000 to the Heritage Foundation
• in 2006, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $800,000 to the Heritage Foundation
• in 2009, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $800,000 to the Heritage Foundation

By my count that's $3.2 million.

What does that tell us, my friends? It tells us that over the last 5 years, Richard Mellon Scaife gave close to a half million dollars more to the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis than he gave to the Heritage Foundation (where he's on the Board of Trustees).

He must really really like the IFPA. Perhaps there's a reason. Perhaps this is it. From the Media Transparency project at media matters:

Founded in 1976 with seed money from the Scaife Family Trust, with the initial goal of bringing awareness of the danger of international communism and the need for a strong defense for the United States...

None of which, of course, is disclosed when Scaife's staff writer, Craig Smith, interviewed Robert Pfaltzgraff, founder and president of the IFPA.

The circle jerk continues.

70

(October 9, 1940 - December 8, 1980)

Get On Board Lynn's Sanity Express

....

Really want to go to Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity in DC, but don't want to deal with the hassle of getting there? The Pittsburgh City Paper and Lynn Cullen have answered your prayers with Lynn's Sanity Express -- buses and metro passes to the rally leaving from multiple locations in the Pittsburgh area. You can find out all the details here (as well as order your tickets). Hmm, buses with Lynn Cullen, Chris Potter and like-minded folks headed to rally with Jon Stewart -- it's enough to make a tea-bagger weep. (And, don't forget to listen to Lynn Cullen Live at CPTV, Mon-Fri, 10:00-11:00AM.) [If this sounds like a paid advertisement -- it isn't -- I think of it more as a PSA for our readers. ;-) ]

Pat Toomey Defends Privatizing Social Security

From the Scranton Times-Tribune:

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Pat Toomey defended his proposal Thursday to ensure Social Security's future with a form of privatization and accused Democrat Joe Sestak of distorting his position.

"I've put a proposal on the table and the result is my opponent has mischaracterized it, attacked me for it and demagogued on it while he has said nothing about the long-term structural problems we've got with entitlements," Mr. Toomey told The Times-Tribune editorial board.

First Toomey's proposal: No change for anyone getting Social Security benefits now.

But (as we've seen before) for younger workers

Mr. Toomey would allow younger workers to voluntarily divert a portion of their Social Security payroll tax into private savings accounts they would control and invest any way they want. A young worker who did not want to do that could stay with the current system of a guaranteed benefit.

"Over the course of 45 years or so, the accumulated savings from putting a little bit of money away every week or every month for 45 years would add up to a very significant nest egg, and that could form the basis of a very significant portion of their retirement," he said.

Mr. Toomey said he would require the private accounts to be professionally managed with diversified investments to minimize the risk. The money would be shifted to less risky investments as a person approaches retirement age.

But it's not "anyway they want" is it? Congressman Wall Street would require the private accounts to be managed by Wall Street - and those requirements seem to include a schedule of some sort for moving the investments from greater risk to lesser risk as the person ages.

ut what if that person doesn't want to invest with Toomey's friends on Wall Street? What if that person doesn't want Toomey's friends on Wall Street to shift all that money around at the end of his/her life? What if that person wants to keep the money in a sack under the bed?

That person's outta luck, as the small-government/Club For Growth Toomey has already made those decisions. A conservative meme in the Social Security discussion is how the government is arrogant for deciding that it knows better how to invest a person's money. But Toomey's plan does the same thing - only this time Wall Street gets to play with the funds.

All in all a good plan from Wall Street's man, doncha think?

The Times-Tribune goes on:

Critics say removing the money to create private accounts would require massive new borrowing to pay current benefits, and people could lose in the stock market and be left with a diminished retirement. They point to the stock market meltdown of two years ago.

But Mr. Toomey said massive new borrowing will be required anyway to keep current benefits the same once the trust fund is exhausted. Borrowing would no longer be required once the number of retirees in the traditional system is small enough to reduce what the system must pay out to a figure that's less than the taxes the fund takes in.

He argues that would happen because retirees in the traditional system would want to shift once they see people with private accounts earning more for retirement.

So Toomey's plan would increase the deficit now with the massive new borrowing needed to cover the Social Security shortfall his plan will obviously cause. He says that eventually borrowing will no longer be required. But paying it back will. Where will that money come from?

Toomey doesn't say. In the mean time massive amounts of money will have been diverted to Wall Street.

Pat Toomey - Social Security privatizer and ever lasting friend of Wall Street.