VIDEO: VOTER FRAUD IN PHILADELPHIA? What’s behind fears of voter fraud? 4NOV16

THE drumpf/trump-pence campaign is loosing, and they have already declared a rigged election system and voter fraud for their their defeat. The republican member of the Philadelphia, PA Election Commission, Al Schmidt, debunks the accusations of massive voter fraud in Philadelphia and the entire myth of rigged elections. Here is yet another report debunking both, this from the +PBS NewsHour .....

What’s behind fears of voter fraud?

Published on Nov 4, 2016

In 2012, Mitt Romney received zero votes in inner-city Philadelphia. Some Republicans believed such an extreme result indicated fraudulent voting behavior, and this election season, Donald Trump and his supporters have revived that hypothesis. William Brangham speaks with officials in Pennsylvania for analysis of the 2012 data and explores what motivations might lie behind fraud concerns.

TRANSCRIPTS

JUDY WOODRUFF: Meantime, allegations of widespread voter fraud are nothing new, but they’ve taken on a renewed intensity in this campaign. While there’s virtually no evidence for the claims, Donald Trump and his supporters insist the voting process is rigged.

Our William Brangham takes a look at those accusations and how they’re being heard by the accused in the battleground state of Pennsylvania.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This past weekend in Allentown, Pennsylvania, a group of Donald Trump’s supporters staged a rally at a busy intersection.

WOMAN: We’re not going to take it anymore!

CARROLL HAAS: I’m here to support Trump, and pray that Hillary goes to prison for all that she has done.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: These voters argue Trump is exactly what the country needs right now, and they think the media isn’t treating him fairly and is overlooking Hillary Clinton’s flaws.

Many are also deeply suspicious that the election is somehow going to be stolen from them.

LARRY NAUSBAUM: I think the machines are rigged. I watched on YouTube how they rig the machines, where you vote Republican, and it turns up Democrat.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Trump has made this same charge repeatedly over several months.

DONALD TRUMP (R), Presidential Nominee: We’re in a rigged system, folks. We’re in a rigged system.

We’re going to watch Pennsylvania. Go down to certain areas and watch and study and make sure other people don’t come in and vote five times.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: There’s no evidence for the kind of widespread fraudulent voting that Trump says is going on right now. But his supporters, people like Tom Carroll, say if you don’t believe rigged voting occurs, just look at Philadelphia.

TOM CARROLL: It is absolutely rigged. Philadelphia is a perfect example. You had wards in 2012 that had more than 100 percent turnout-

LARRY NAUSBAUM: In Philadelphia, there were 17 districts where there were 100 percent Obama votes, which is statistically impossible.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This is exhibit A for their case. In the 2012 presidential election between President Obama and Governor Romney, Obama won Pennsylvania, getting almost three million votes, compared to Romney’s 2.6 million.

But in Philadelphia, in these 59 divisions, known as precincts in most places, not one single vote was recorded for Mitt Romney, not one. Obama received 100 percent of the presidential votes.

AL SCHMIDT (R), Philadelphia Election Commissioner: I was struck the same way that anyone else was in wondering, how could this possibly occur? So, this is the voting system that we have in Philadelphia.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Al Schmidt is on the commission that runs and oversees elections in Philadelphia. He’s the only Republican on the three-person panel. After that election, he investigated: Was it possible that no one in those divisions voted for Mitt Romney?

AL SCHMIDT: I ran around the city to all these different precincts to look at, how could this possibly occur? We were chasing down members of the minority party and asking, did you in fact cast your vote this way or that way? You don’t have to tell us, but we’re looking into this. And we didn’t find a single one.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, you went around those areas trying to find Romney voters, and you couldn’t find any?

AL SCHMIDT: Correct.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Schmidt says these particular precincts are very small, they’re almost all black, and President Obama remains hugely popular.

In fact, John McCain back in the 2008 presidential race got less than 1 percent of the vote in these same areas.

So, you feel confident that the fact that there were no Romney votes registered in those particular areas is not evidence that someone somewhere was taking Romney votes and throwing them in the trash?

AL SCHMIDT: Correct. And even if you set aside everything I just said about the fact that you couldn’t find anyone who voted for him, that the precincts are very small, so the voting — the electorate there is very similar, you can’t subtract votes from our voting machines, period.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You just can’t do it?

AL SCHMIDT: You can’t.

SEAN HANNITY: In inner-city Philadelphia, Mitt Romney did not get a single vote.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But, still, that’s not how the story is perceived among Trump’s supporters and certain parts of the media. FOX News has cited Philadelphia’s 2012 results as clear evidence of fraud numerous times, same with other popular conservative Web sites like Breitbart, Infowars, The Blaze.

They all imply votes were stolen.

AUDREY STREIN: Hopefully, he can count on your vote this November.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Trump supporter Audrey Strein is one of those concerned about fraud. One poll showed that 49 percent of Trump supporters are not confident the vote will be counted accurately, compared to just 18 percent of Clinton supporters.

AUDREY STREIN: If we outnumber and get people, everybody to come out and vote, we can overcome any of the anticipated voter fraud.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: When she’s not running her roofing company, this mother of three, wearing her “Adorable Deplorable” T-shirt, tries to persuade undecided voters.

She says voting fraud won’t be a problem in her small town of Jamison, Pennsylvania, but she’s suspicious about urban areas like Philadelphia.

AUDREY STREIN: In the cities, you are going to have more Democrat majority. And when you have a dominant party, there’s no one watching the henhouse.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: To understand how accusations of possible fraud are being heard, we talked with voters in West Philadelphia, the same place where Romney received zero votes four years ago. Many saw these accusations as an attempt at voter suppression.

MANUEL GLENN: There is an individual in this race who wants to make the process so dirty, that wants to turn people off from the process, that they won’t come out and vote. And he feels that that’s his path to victory, because his voters are so fired up, they’re going to come out regardless, rain, sleet, snow, hell, hell or high water, return of Jesus, they’re going to vote.

ALFRED HAZLY: It goes back to World War II, and Joseph Goebbels, and Hitler in the ’30s: Tell the biggest lie you can, as loud as you can, for as long as you can, and, eventually, someone will start to believe it.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Greg Spearman is the Democratic ward leader for this area. He was here in 2012, and he will be here again next week on Election Day.

I asked him about the racial undertones of these accusations.

It’s usually white Republicans saying this about minority voting districts.

GREG SPEARMAN, Philadelphia Democratic Ward Leader: Sure.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Do you think race has anything to do with the…

GREG SPEARMAN: Sure. Race has something to do with most things in America. I think that’s the fire that Trump is stoking. His buzzwords are targeted for that mind-set.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: David Thornburgh is president and CEO of the Committee of Seventy, a group in Philadelphia dedicated to ensuring clean and fair elections.

DAVID THORNBURGH, President, Committee of Seventy: And what we really have in terms of our sense of election fraud is a series of anecdotes. You add all those up, and it doesn’t constitute the same kind of massive, systemic fraud that the Trump campaign is asserting is out there.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Philadelphia Elections Commissioner and Republican Al Schmidt says he has documented isolated cases of voter fraud. He wrote this report on examples from the 2012 primary election.

Philadelphia indicted 10 people for voter fraud since the report was published. They amounted to a dozen votes being improperly cast across the city.

AL SCHMIDT: It’s important to recognize the distinction between individual cases of voter fraud and allegations of widespread, systematic vote-rigging, and no one finding out about it, despite it changing the outcome of the presidential election. That’s pretty far-fetched.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The Clinton and Trump campaigns say they will do everything to ensure the legitimacy of this election, both nationwide and in this critical battleground state.

Lawyers and poll monitors from both parties will be out in full force next Tuesday. But for black voters here in Philadelphia, the accusation that they have committed fraud and will do so again is painfully familiar.

JAMIE FLETCHER: Being a minority, you expect it. It is just what comes — it just comes with skin color and where you live, so that’s just what it is.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m William Brangham in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

"2014 Federal Tax Refunds To Be Delayed Until October 2015." 30SEP14

THERE are so many stupid people on the net, stupidity fueled by hatred of the federal government, especially the Obama administration (racist hatred), that they will believe anything that reinforces their hate. This was put out on the net by the national report, a fake news agency but one with tea-bagger right wing views that seeks to manipulate and deceive the American electorate before the 2014 mid term elections with this post. Fanatics grabbed it and ran with it like it was gospel. Fools! From +PolitiFact .....

"2014 Federal Tax Refunds To Be Delayed Until October 2015."

— Chain email on Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 in a chain email

Viral claim says IRS will be delaying tax refunds next year, but it's fake news

By Nai Issa on Thursday, October 16th, 2014 at 3:19 p.m.

A reader asked us to check a chain email circulating the link to this article, which turns out to be another case of satire passed off as truth.

Readers recently forwarded us a claim they had begun seeing in their inbox -- and which their friends were believing. It was a link to a story headlined, "2014 Federal Tax Refunds To Be Delayed Until October 2015."
This would be a pretty big deal if true. Is it?
The short answer is: No.
It turns out that the article was published in September 2014 on a website called the National Report. Here’s a portion of the article:

"Normally when you file your taxes, whatever money is owed back to you is quickly repaid. The process of getting your money back has been made even quicker in recent years through the use of E-file and direct deposit of federal tax rebates. But starting in 2015, federal tax refunds for the 2014 fiscal year are going to take longer for Americans to receive. A lot longer.

"The deadline to have your federal taxes filed will remain April 15th, but under new directives issued to the IRS, no refunds are to be issued before October 15th, 2015. This means that early filers who normally receive their refunds around the beginning of February will have to wait an additional 7 months longer than normal to get the money owed to them.

"White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest defended the upcoming changes to IRS tax refund policy. 'It’s a minor cost saving measure initiated by the administration with bipartisan support,' said Earnest. 'The recommendation to initiate this new refund structure came out of the Committee On Ways And Means, under the leadership of Republican Congressman David Camp. Absolutely zero dollars are going to be kept that is owed to hardworking Americans. All you are seeing here is a policy change streamlining the way in which the IRS structures tax refund repayments. Americans who find this objectionable can always opt to bring their tax withholding more in line with the actual taxes they will owe in the future.' "

The article went on to quote two Republican senators critical of the move -- Rand Paul of Kentucky and John McCain of Arizona.
A lot of people appeared to believe it. The article was shared 647,000 times on Facebook since it was published. Forbes tax columnist Kelly Phillips Erb was among those who noted its wide reach.
There is one problem with the claim: It comes from a fake-news site.
The last time we checked a bogus claim from National Report, the site had a disclaimer that said "the views expressed by writers on this site are theirs alone and are not reflective of the fine journalistic and editorial integrity of National Report." This disclaimer has since been removed by the site.
Another, clearer disclaimer -- also removed -- has been archived by urban-legend investigation site Snopes.com. The disclaimer said, "National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental."
We reached out several times to the IRS to see if we could get an official disclaimer from the agency, but we never heard back.
Our Ruling
A chain email has been circulating with a link to an article headlined, "2014 Federal Tax Refunds To Be Delayed Until October 2015." However, the article comes from the National Report, a satire website. It is not accurate and was never intended to be. We rate the claim Pants On Fire.

About this statement:

Published: Thursday, October 16th, 2014 at 3:19 p.m.
Researched by: Nai Issa
Edited by: Louis Jacobson
Subjects: Taxes

Sources:

National Report, "2014 Federal Tax Refunds To Be Delayed Until October 2015," Sept. 30, 2014.
Forbes.com, "Taxpayers Freaking Out Over Hoax Claiming 2015 IRS Refunds Already Delayed," October 10, 2014
Snopes.com, "Terms of Endearment," May 20, 2014
Snopes.com, "Tax Defund," Oct. 1, 2014

The Chilling Anti-Government, Cliven Bundy-Loving Facebook Posts& videos of the Alleged Las Vegas Shooters 9JUN14

THE relentless anti-government propaganda from tea-baggers in office, right wing fanatics like oath keepers, the right wing media and white supremacist hate groups has and will continue to inspire more violence against the police and other government officials. Anyone who supports these people supports their violence and attacks on our police, government officials and our government. Anyone who supports these people has the blood of the murdered police officers in Las Vegas on their hands and will share the responsibility of further bloodshed by these people. This is home grown terrorism rooted in racism, prejudice, hatred, and ignorance, and are a greater threat to our Republic, our Constitution, than any of those who have been held by our government in Gitmo could ever be. From +Mother Jones .....

The Chilling Anti-Government, Cliven Bundy-Loving Facebook Posts of the Alleged Las Vegas Shooters

Jerad and Amanda Miller's Facebook and YouTube likes included the NRA, Rand Paul, FreedomWorks, and other right-wing champions—and videos justifying the killing of police officers.

—By David Corn, Dana Liebelson, and Asawin Suebsaeng

| Mon Jun. 9, 2014 1:01 PM EDT

The suspects in Sunday's shooting spree in Las Vegas that claimed the lives of two police officers and a shopper were a young married couple who espoused extreme pro-gun and anti-government views on their Facebook pages and who had spent time at the ranch of Cliven Bundy, whose standoff with the federal government made him a cause celebre in the so-called "patriot" movement.
The suspects, who killed themselves at the scene of their shooting rampage, have been identified as Jerad and Amanda Miller.
In a chilling Facebook message published a day before the shootings, Jerad Miller declared, "The dawn of a new day. May all of our coming sacrifices be worth it."
Jerad Miller was eager to support Bundy, who was confronted by federal officials after years of refusing to pay grazing fees. On April 9, he wrote on Facebook:

I will be supporting Clive Bundy and his family from Federal Government slaughter. This is the next Waco! His ranch is under seige right now! The federal gov is stealing his cattle! Arresting his family and beating on them! We must do something. I will be doing something.

During his time on Bundy's ranch, he told a reporter: "I feel sorry for any federal agents that want to come in here and try to push us around or anything like that. I really don't want violence toward them, but if they're gonna come bring violence to us, if that's the language they want to speak, we'll learn it." Not long after the couple made their pilgrimage to Bundy's ranch, Miller noted on Facebook that he and his wife were asked to leave because of his criminal past:

I was out there but they told me and my wife to leave because I am a felon. They don't seem to understand that they are all felons now for intimidating law enforcement with deadly weapons. So don't tell you that they need people. We sold everything we had to buy supplies and quit our jobs to be there 24/7. How dare you ask for help and shun us dedicated patriots.

Jerad Miller's Facebook "likes" include the NRA, American Patriot Media Network, Support the 2nd Amendment, The Patriot Party, Rand Paul 2016, Ron Paul, the Washington Examiner, Legalize Weed, Draft Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Heritage Foundation, FreedomWorks, American Crossroads, and Allen West.
In a June 2 Facebook post—something of a manifesto—Jerad Miller indicated that he supported the arguments of the anti-government patriot movement that claims freedom and liberty in the United States are currently threatened. He wrote:

We can hope for peace. We must, however, prepare for war. We face an enemy that is not only well funded, but who believe they fight for freedom and justice. Those of us who know the truth and dare speak it, know that the enemy we face are indeed our brothers. Even though they share the same masters as we all do. They fail to recognize the chains that bind them. To stop this oppression, I fear, can only be accomplished with bloodshed. May the best men of our beloved nation stand and fight tyranny, without fear and without regret. May we stand proud as free men instead of kneeling as slaves. May we offer our children a free and just world with our blood, sweat and tears as payment. Let our wives and lovers take vengeance upon our enemies in our absence. We cannot fail in this endeavor of Liberty, if we do we risk leaving our orphaned children to the will of tyrants. We, cannot with good conscience leave this fight to our children, because the longer we wait, our enemies become better equipped and recruit more mercenaries of death, willing to do a tyrants bidding without question. I know you are fearful, as am I. We certainly stand before a great and powerful enemy. I, however would rather die fighting for freedom, than live on my knees as a slave. Let it be known to our children's children that free men stood fast before a tyrants wrath and were found victorious because we stood together. That we all cast aside our petty differences and united under the banner of Liberty and Truth. May future generations look back upon this time in history with awe and gratitude, for our courage to face tyranny, so that they could live happy and free.

A few days later, Miller shared a photo that proclaimed, "The police have never attacked a pro gun rally."
On her YouTube page, Amanda Miller liked videos called, "Shooting Cops," "Citizens Can Shoot Police," and "When Is It Okay To Shoot a Cop." She posted a video of Jerad Miller interviewing people at the Bundy ranch. Her Facebook page contains photos of a woman posing with guns and she shared a picture of the "best coffee table ever"—it was a table with a drawer full of guns.
A sample of their posts is below:
Jerad's posts from June:

Jerad's post from May:

Jerad's posts about attending the Bundy rally in April:

From Jerad and Amanda Miller's wedding day:

YouTube Likes from Amanda

Here's Jerad interviewing people at the Bundy Ranch standoff:

http://youtu.be/4HkSAewoESg

David Corn

Washington Bureau Chief

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter and Facebook. RSS | Twitter

Dana Liebelson

Reporter

Dana Liebelson is a reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. Her work also appears in Marie Claireand The Week. RSS | Twitter

Asawin Suebsaeng

Reporter

Asawin Suebsaeng is a reporter at the Washington, DC, bureau of Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. You can also follow him on Twitter. Email tips, insights, and anger to asuebsaeng [at] motherjones [dot] com. RSS | Twitter

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

• Watch Jon Stewart Explain the Insanity of America's Acceptance of Mass Shootings

  "It's like America has a dog that's always shitting inside the house, and we solved the problem by getting a brown rug."

• How the Obama Administration Failed the Victims of the First Fort Hood Attack

  And why the survivors of the latest shooting rampage may face a similar struggle for medical care and benefits.

• Guns Are for Shooting "All Black People" and Other Horrifying Quotes From the NFL's Dolphins Investigation

  The toxic, racist, and homophobic bullying that drove one player to quit.

• A Guide to Mass Shootings in America

  A deranged college student murdered six people and injured 13 others in Santa Barbara on Friday.

Jessica Dutro, Oregon Mom, Allegedly Killed 4 Year Old Son Because She Thought He Was Gay & ATHLA, Anti-Gay Harlem Church, To Be Protested By LGBT Activists 27&26MAR14

MAYBE I have just missed it, but I really want to know, where is the outrage over the death of this child from the pro-life community? And the Christian community? I am sickened just thinking about the terror and pain this poor 4 year old child experienced just because his mother thought he was going to be GAY. I just can not comprehend how anyone can do something like this to a child. Yes, I am aware the heinous crime of child abuse and neglect could be considered rampant in this country, but to beat a 4 year old child to death because his mother thinks he was going to be gay? This is what happens when extreme fanatical religious conservatives rant and rave about the LGBT community and promote violence against the LGBT community, and then their views are spread by right wing fanatics for their own political gain. Dear God, forgive us for allowing this to happen....

http://youtu.be/D-EJUzV1Fo4 
An Oregon mother is facing murder charges after allegedly subjecting her 4-year-old son to deadly beatings because she thought he was gay.
As the Associated Press is reporting, Jessica Dutro, 25, has been charged with murder, murder by abuse and second-degree assault in connection with the 2012 death of her son, Zachary Dutro-Boggess. (Watch a 2012 KOIN news report on the case above)
Prosecutors say Zachary died on Aug. 16, 2012 of blunt-force trauma to his abdomen and a delay in medical treatment, according to reports.
Dutro, who is on trial in Washington County Circuit Court, allegedly pointed to her perception of her young son's sexuality in a Facebook message addressed to her boyfriend, Brian Canady, at the time.
Using a slur, she wrote that she believed Zachary was going to be gay, and suggested Canady, 24, "work on" her son: “He walks and talks like it. Ugh.”
Earlier this month, Canady pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter, and second-degree assault, in connection with Zachary's death, The Oregonian previously reported. At the time of his arrest in 2012, Canady admitted to kicking Zachary in the abdomen while wearing shoes, according to The Portland Tribune.
Dutro's 7-year-old daughter and 3-year-old son are also said to have shown signs of physical abuse, according to The Oregonian. Still, her attorney Chris Colburn has argued that while his client was an "unusual" parent, she is not guilty of murder.
The case follows that of James Larry Cosby, a Texas father who has been charged with two counts of tampering with evidence in connection with the death of his daughter, Britney Cosby, and her girlfriend Crystal Jackson, both 24, according to KHOU. He is currently being held in the Galveston County Jail on a total of $500,000.00 bonds.
An anti-gay church is New York City is about to become the subject of several demonstrations by queer NYC advocacy organizations in response to its vehemently homophobic rhetoric.
The ATLAH Worldwide Missionary Church in Harlem has made waves on the Internet during the last several weeks for a series of controversial signs, as well as the outspoken anti-gay views of pastor Dr. James David Manning. Now, the homophobic church will become the subject to two demonstrations, one on Thursday, March 27, and another on Saturday, March 30.
According to a Facebook post by Jennifer Louise Lopez, a lesbian who confronted church leaders last week, on Thursday "the NYC LGBT New York City Anti-Violence Project will be meeting across from the church at 3pm to 5pm." On Saturday, ACT UP NYC, ETNYC and others "will be meeting up directly in front of the church at 11:30am during their warship service."
The ATLAH Worldwide Missionary Church first made headlines in late February when religious leaders posted a polarizing sign that read "Obama has released the homo demons on the black man. Look out black woman. A white homo may take your man."
The church then later replaced the sign with one that read "Jesus would stone homos," along with "Stoning is still the law" and Bible verses Matthew 5:17-19, Deuteronomy 17:5-7, Leviticus 20:13 and John 8:1-11.

Following the posting of this second sign, Lopez approached the church and knocked on the door to informing the church leaders that she was there for her stoning. The man who answered the door ultimately told Lopez that he didn't have any stones but she should come back the next day.
The church's anti-gay pastor, Dr. James David Manning, later came out in defense of his church's billboards, claiming that "I never said that I would stone homos. I never said that I would ask anyone else to stone homos. I never said that. What I did say is what the Bible says."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/27/oregon-mom-gay-son-murder_n_5044807.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/anti-gay-harlem-church-protest_n_5035773.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

ROBERT REICH: Why won't Bill O'Reilly debate me? 26SEP13

ROBERT REICH is a progressive, not a communist. wimpy loud mouth bill o'reilly hides on his faux news show attacking many on the left as well as progressive, social justice programs and policies championed by the left and Democrats (and a few brave Republicans). Robert Reich wants to go on o'reilly's show to debate him about o'reilly calling Reich a communist and the whole issue of the state of politics in America, but o'reilly is afraid and will not have Reich on his show. Click the link and sign the petition to o'reilly telling him to man up and debate Robert Reich on his show.....
In case you missed it, Bill O'Reilly slammed me on Monday night for mentioning, in a New York Times op-ed, that he called me a "Communist" on his FOX News show.

In that op-ed, I referred to his "Communist" name-calling as an example of the kind of incivility that now passes for political debate in America -- of which O'Reilly is a part. O'Reilly took umbrage that I would even bring it up. Apparently he thinks it's perfectly fine to call me names but offensive for me to criticize him for doing so.

Yet O'Reilly refuses to have me on his show to debate any of this -- either his initial charge that I'm a Communist, or his indignation that I mentioned it in last weekend's op-ed. When he first claimed I was a Communist I challenged him to a debate -- a civil debate. He refused. He still refuses. He won't even debate the topic of my op-ed -- the increasing shrillness and divisiveness of Fox News and other media outlets, which are only adding to the vitriol of American politics.

Why won't O'Reilly debate me? What is he afraid of? I don't know but I need your help. Please sign my YouPower petition and tell Bill O'Reilly that instead of talking about me, he should have the courage and decency to debate me.

Democracy for America members like you can change the conversation in this country, as we did last night when I joined Howard Dean on a special DFA conference call about my new film "Inequality for All." I really enjoyed the call -- and especially the insightful questions asked by DFA members across America.

Help me keep up the momentum by signing this petition and sharing it with your friends today. 

Thanks for spreading the word,

Robert Reich
Former Secretary of Labor

UPDATE: 13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News & The Truth About Attacks on Our Diplomats & FOTZE Megyn Kelly Says Media Issued 'Collective Yawn' On Benghazi, Even Though It Was Covered Extensively 9MAI13, 3OKT12&10MAI13

THANK YOU +Bob Cesca for providing more evidence for what should be obvious. This is a witch hunt created by the gop / tea-bagger right wing extremist in Congress and fox "news".  The main stream media is almost as guilty, "reporting" the story without questioning the "facts", just like they did in the months of bush-cheney-fox news propaganda leading up to the Iraq war. From +HuffPost and +Mother Jones....
 The Republican inquisition over the attacks against Americans in Benghazi has never really gone away, but it appears as though in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and the House Oversight Committee's Benghazi hearings this week there are renewed psycho-histrionics over Benghazi.

Lindsey Graham and Fox News Channel in particular are each crapping their cages over new allegations from an alleged whistleblower, while they continue to deal in previously debunked falsehoods about the sequence of events during and following the attacks. Fox News is predictably helming the biggest raft of hooey on the situation -- turning its attention to Hillary Clinton in an abundantly obvious early move to stymie her presidential run before it even begins.

So I thought I'd revisit some territory I covered back in October as a bit of a refresher -- especially since it appears as if no one, including and especially the traditional press, intends to ask any of these obnoxious, opportunistic liars about why they're so obsessed by this one attack yet they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly "keeping us safe."

The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they're being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

A few observations about this timeline. My initial list was quoted from an article on the Daily Kos which actually contained several errors and only 11 attacks (the above timeline contains all 13 attacks). Also, my list above doesn't include the numerous and fatal attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad during the Iraq war -- a war that was vocally supported by Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Fox News Channel.

Speaking of Graham, I ran a search on each attack along with the name "Lindsey Graham" in the hopes of discovering that Graham had perhaps commented about the attacks or raised some questions about why the administration didn't prevent the attacks or respond accordingly to prevent additional embassy attacks. No results. Of course. Now, this could mean the search wasn't exhaustive enough. But one thing's for sure: neither Graham nor any of his cohorts launched a crusade against the Bush administration and the State Department in any of those cases -- no one did, including the congressional Democrats, by the way.

This leads us to the ultimate point here. Not only have numerous sources previously debunked the Benghazi information being peddled by the Republicans and Fox News (for example, contrary to what the Republicans are saying, yes, reinforcements did in fact arrive before the attack on the CIA compound), but none of these people raised a single word of protest when, for example, American embassies in Yemen and Pakistan were attacked numerous times. Why didn't the Bush administration do something to secure the compounds after the first attacks? Why didn't he provide additional security?

Where was your inquest after the Karachi attacks, Mr. Graham? Where were you after the Sana'a attacks, Mr. Hannity? What about all of the embassy attacks in Iraq that I didn't even list here, Mr. McCain? Do you realize how many people died in attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates when Bush was supposedly keeping us safe, Mr. Ailes? Just once I'd like to hear David Gregory or George Stephanopoulos or Wolf Blitzer ask a Republican member of Congress about the above timeline and why they said nothing at the time of each attack. Just once.

Nearly every accusation being issued about Benghazi could've been raised about the Bush-era attacks, and yet these self-proclaimed truth-seekers refused to, in their words, undermine the commander-in-chief while troops were in harm's way (a line they repeated over and over againduring those years).

So we're only left to conclude the obvious. The investigations and accusations and conspiracy theories are entirely motivated by politics and a strategy to escalate this to an impeachment trial. In doing so, the Republicans have the opportunity not only to crush the president's second term, but also to sabotage the potential for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Even if they never arrive at that goal, they have in their possession a cudgel formed of horseshit -- a means of flogging the current administration with the singularly effective Republican marketing/noise machine, including the conservative entertainment complex. Very seldom does this machine fail to revise history and distort the truth. Ultimately, they don't even need a full-blown impeachment proceeding when they have a population of way too many truthers and automatons who take all of these lies at face value -- not to mention dubiously sourced chunks of "truth" proffered by radio and cable news conspiracy theorists who, if nothing else, are masters at telling angry conservatives precisely what they want to hear: that the probably-Muslim president is weak on terrorism. And so they'll keep repeating "Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate!" without any regard for history or reality. Like always.

Cross-posted at The Daily Banter.

Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast.
BobCesca.com Blog with special thanks to Thomas Soldan.
Special thanks to the team at www.mausoleums.com.
Subscribe to the uncensored and totally raw Bob & Chez Show After Party podcast.

Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-benghazis-that-occurre_b_3246847.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications

The Truth About Attacks on Our Diplomats

Shocker: When terrorists attack US interests abroad, they don't distinguish between administrations that are "projecting weakness" or practicing "peace through strength."

—By Adam Serwer

| Wed Oct. 3, 2012 

Protesters throw rocks at the US Embassy in Cairo, September 2012. Amanda Mustard/ZUMAPress

To hear Republicans explain it, the protests at US embassies around the world and the attack on a US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead are a result of the Obama administration "projecting weakness."

"When we project weakness abroad, our enemies are more willing to test us, they are more brazen and our allies are less willing to trust us," said vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan at an event in Colorado last week. "[T]hat will not happen under a Mitt Romney administration because we believe in peace through strength." Ryan was referring to potential defense cuts, so if Al Qaeda pays enough attention to American budget politics to base its strikes on funding cuts then they probably know Ryan projected weakness by voting for them in the first place. Romney adviser Richard Williamson went so far as to suggest to the Washington Post last month that under a President Romney, no protesters would dare defile an American embassy. "In Egypt and Libya and Yemen, again demonstrations—the respect for America has gone down, there's not a sense of American resolve and we can't even protect sovereign American property," he said.

As the details behind the Benghazi attack come to light, it's becoming increasingly clear that the White House's initial assessment of the attack as spontaneous rather than preplanned was inaccurate. But behind thecomparisons to Jimmy Carter and the references to "peace through strength" is a dubious policy critique: not just that Obama is Carter and Romney is Reagan, but that somehow sufficient man-musk from an American president can dissuade any potential terrorist from laying his finger on an American diplomat.

It's true that during Carter's term, several major attacks occurred at US embassies. The most famous is the 1979 takeover of the US embassy in Tehran, but rumors that the United States was involved in the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, led to attacks on embassies in Pakistan and Libya as well—in late November, after Reagan was elected president.

Wendy Chamberlin, a career foreign-service officer who was serving as the US Ambassador to Pakistan when Al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center on 9/11, says being a target is part of the job for diplomats serving in risky areas.

"High-profile targets like ambassadors have always been in danger because they're the symbol of the United States," Chamberlin says. "What you don't want to represent is that you distrust the people, that you don't want to engage with the people, that you hate being there. It's an important part of your mission and get out and mix with the population." Moreover, under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations it is actually the host country that is responsible for the security of diplomatic facilities, not the Marines. The primary responsibility of the Marine Corps' Embassy Security Group states that its "primary mission" is "to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States," while their "secondary mission" is to "provide protection for US citizens and US government property" during "exigent circumstances." Their first responsibility is to guard secrets, not diplomats.

“High-profile targets like ambassadors have always been in danger because they’re the symbol of the United States.”

Having Ronald Reagan in office didn't mean an end to attacks on US diplomatic targets. Despite Reagan’s refrain of "peace through strength," several high-profile attacks on US diplomatic facilities occurred on his watch, including the bombing of the US embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, by Islamic militants. Twice. According to the Global Terrorism Database compiled by the University of Maryland National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism(START), attacks on American diplomatic targets actually rose during Reagan's term—before beginning to subside in the mid-1990s.

"That follows the trend of terrorism generally," says Erin Miller, a research assistant at START who manages the Global Terrorism Database. "In the early 1990s there's a drop-off worldwide in terrorism against pretty much all target types." Miller cites the collapse of the Soviet Union, and a subsequent wane in leftist terrorism as one possible explanation for the downturn beginning in the mid-1990s.

The decline is probably not because terrorists were intimidated by Bill Clinton more than they were by George H.W. Bush. Two of the worst terrorist attacks on American diplomatic targets,Al Qaeda's bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, happened on Clinton's watch. It does however, make the Romney campaign's claim that having a Republican in office will frighten terrorists out of striking at American diplomats or staging violent protests at American embassies extremely dubious. The UMd. database lists 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets during the George W. Bush administration, including car bombs at the US embassy in Yemen and armed attackers assaulting a US consulate in Saudi Arabia.

It's currently unclear to what degree mismanagement, security lapses, or intelligence failures meant the United States failed to anticipate the attack on the consulate in Benghazi. But no matter which party is in office, no matter who is president, terrorism and violence are always going to be a potential risk for foreign-service officers serving in troubled areas. The important thing, Chamberlain says, is to stay engaged.

"Every ambassador and [foreign-service officer] understands the risks we take in being abroad," Chamberlin says. "I don't know any ambassador who hides in his embassy. Getting out with the public and speaking is our job, it's why we're there. If you don't want to do that you shouldn't go."

Reporter

Adam Serwer is a reporter at the Washington, DC, bureau of Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. You can also follow him on Twitter. Email tips and insights to aserwer [at] motherjones [dot] com. RSS | TWITTER

• The US Embassy Attacks, Explained

  Four Americans are dead. What went wrong?

• Obama Official Says No Evidence Gitmo Detainee Behind Benghazi Attack

  An administration official disputes a Fox News report that a former Gitmo detainee led the attack that killed the US ambassador to Libya.

• US Ambassador to Libya Killed in Benghazi; Romney Says Obama "Sympathizes" With Attackers

  Trouble in the Arab world.

• Corn on MSNBC: Why Won't Mitt Apologize for Politicizing the Libya Attack?

• Responding to Embassy Attacks, Romney Goes the Full D'Souza

  Romney's reaction to American deaths in Benghazi echoes Dinesh D'Souza's recent film.
  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/libya-consulate-embassy-attacks-obama-romney

Megyn Kelly Says Media Issued 'Collective Yawn' On Benghazi, Even Though It Was Covered Extensively

Where was fox "news" during the bush administration when there were 13 attacks on American embassies and consulates from JAN 2002 to SEP 2008, one of which resulted in the death of U.S. diplomat David Foy and three other Americans in Karachi, Pakistan on 2 MAR 2006? Foy was the target of suicide bomber that struck the consulate. Where was the outrage about these attacks and the absence of Congressional investigations? 

Megyn Kelly claimed on Thursday that the mainstream media issued a "collective yawn" about the Congressional hearings — a contention that drew scrutiny from some media-watchers.

Kelly quoted headlines from outlets like the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle and The Huffington Post which she felt underplayed the drama of the hearings.

"If you look at, sort of, across the mainstream media, it was a collective yawn," she said.

The Washington Post's Erik Wemple took the claim head-on in a Thursday blog post. Wemple—who has followed the Benghazi story very closely—noted that the hearings had been given top billing on the front pages of the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. These are probably the three most important and influential newspapers in the country, and they all had straightforward, non-dismissive headlines that Kelly did not cite, such as "In Riveting Account Of Benghazi Raid, Official Knocks Administration Response," and "Officials: Facts on Benghazi withheld."

In her segment, Kelly also criticized outlets for focusing on the Jodi Arias trial and the story of the three women kidnapped in Cleveland.

"When you look at what folks chose to concentrate on, they were much more interested in Jodi Arias and what happened in Cleveland," she said. "In neither case were four Americans killed in a terrorist attack on our country!"

Kelly failed to note that she was one of the anchors who turned their focus to Arias and Cleveland. On Thursday, Newsbusters rapped MSNBC's Chris Hayes over the knuckles for playing footage of Kelly updating viewers on both stories. The entire network also turned to Arias when she was declared guilty. Fox News even led the ratings with its Arias coverage.

The media's investigations into Benghazi continued on Friday morning, as ABC's Jon Karl published an exclusive story about the State Department's revisions of talking points. That would suggest that reporters are still looking into things.

Wemple wrote that Fox News was resorting to an old pattern:

Forgive Fox News for its analytical blindness. For years, the network has been shredding the mainstream media for ignoring its pet issues. It’s a mantra, a reflex response. So when contrary information pops up on street-corner newspaper boxes, on TV screens and on computer screens everywhere, we can excuse Fox News for not noticing. Give it a pass on this one.

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/megyn-kelly-benghazi-media-collective-yawn_n_3251813.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=051013&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief