How Do You Figure Out Who To Vote For? How Do You Figure Out Where Politicians Stand On Ed Snowden?

The easiest-- and laziest-- way to vote without following exactly what our political elites are doing every day, is to just vote against all Republicans and for all Democrats. It's certainly what Democratic Party leaders like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Steve Israel, Steny Hoyer and Michael Bennet want you to be... but those are all people who I would never vote for in a million years, not even against the worst Republicans conjured up from the pit of hell. But I do follow what our political elites are doing every day.

Another way to figure out who to vote for and who to vote against would be based on an issue. Say you're a student with a Stafford Loan, for example, is a few days you may have to drop out of college because conservatives are forcing the loan rate to double. You can't just vote against all Republicans and for all Democrats. 4 Democrats, for example, voted with most Republicans to increase the rate: Jared Polis (New Dem-CO), Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY), Joe Garcia (New Dem-FL) and Scott Peters (New Dem-CA). And 8 Republicans voted against the awful bill, although most of them-- Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Tom Graves (R-GA), Marlin Stutzman (R-IN), Mo Brooks (R-AL), Vern Buchanan (R-FL) and Tom Cotton (R-AR)-- voted against it because it doesn't inflict enough pain on students. Only Walter Jones (R-NC) and Michael Grimm (R-NY) crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats because they realized John Kline's bill was unfair and harmful to the country. Still, most Democrats proved good on this and most Republicans proved bad. That's normal.

Like in the case of raising the minimum wage. That was defeated in Congress and it was defeated by Republicans, right/ Well, yes but... there were six Democrats who hate working people as much as Republicans do and voted NO: John Barrow (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog/New Dem-OR) and Bill Owens (New Dem-NY). If raising the minimum wage is important to you, you don't want to be caught dead voting for those 6 reactionaries. Safe voting against every single Republican, though. Not even one voted to raise the minimum wage! So again, most Democrats were good, all Republicans were bad. But that isn't always the case. When it comes to trade policies, war and peace and other issues involving the Military Industrial Complex and civil liberties, the political elites move out of the partisan divide assumptions. If these are important issues for you, you can't just vote for Democrats. Tons of them-- not a handful-- as bad as Republicans.

Last April, after the CISPA vote in the House, I asked a simple question: who betrayed us? CISPA passed 288-127, 92 mostly conservative Democrats joining all but 29 Republicans. Nancy Pelosi and Grayson rallied 98 Democrats against it. Even Obama opposed it! Among the Democrats making common cause with Boehner and Cantor Thursday were many of the usual suspects, Blue Dogs and New Dems, led by Steny Hoyer, Steve Israel, Jim Himes, Allyson Schwartz and Ron Kind. So 92 bad Democrats and 98 good Democrats... a little close for comfort, isn't it? Allyson Schwartz (New Dem-PA) is running for governor of Pennsylvania now. You want to trust her? There are much better Democrats in the primary. Colleen Hanabusa (New Dem-HI), a very corrupt shill for the Military Industrial Complex, is running against progressive Senator Brian Schatz. He opposed CISPA and she was for it. There's no Republican in the equation, just one good Democrat and one very bad one. Steve Israel and Steny Hoyer were able to lead a lot of conservative freshmen and cowardly freshmen along with them as they crossed the aisle. Do you want to vote for them next year? Some, like Patrick Murphy, Scott Peters, Kyrsten Sinema and Sean Maloney, have a clear pattern across issues of always voting with the Republicans and need to be defeated. Others, like Hakeem Jeffries, Joyce Beatty, Tony Cárdenas, Marc Veasy and Lois Frankel are usually pretty good and shouldn't be judged on just one bad vote.

• Ron Barber (New Dem-AZ)
• Joyce Beatty (OH)
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
• Julia Brownley (CA)
• Cheri Bustos (IL)
• Tony Cárdenas (CA)
• Tammy Duckworth (IL)
• Bill Enyart (IL)
• Bill Foster (New Dem-IL)
• Lois Frankel (FL)
• Pete Gallego (Blue Dog-TX)
• Joe Garcia (New Dem-FL)
• Steven Horsford (NV)
• Hakeem Jeffries (NY)
• Robin Kelly (IL)
• Derek Kilmer (New Dem-WA)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
• Ann Kuster (NH)
• Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM)
• Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)
• Sean Maloney (New Dem-NY)
• Grace Meng (NY)
• Patrick Maloney (New Dem-FL)
• Donald Payne (NJ)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Raul Ruiz (CA)
• Brad Schneider (New Dem-IL)
• Kyrsten Sinema (New Dem-AZ)
• Eric Swalwell (CA)
• Dina Titus (NV)
• Juan Vargas (New Dem-CA)
• Marc Veasey (TX)
• Filemon Vela (New Dem-TX)

Or you can play a mental game. Take something that matters to you and guess where your congressman would stand on it. For example, Saturday, Julian Assange, writing from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London explained how Ed Snowden's ordeal is just beginning. Congress hasn't voted on it yet. A couple dozen have spoken out against Snowden's persecution and quite a few have been screaming for his head, few as grotesquely as Peter King (R-NY) and Mike Rogers (R-MI), but lots... and on both sides of the aisle. Read Assange's letter and figure out where your congressmember would stand.

It has now been a year since I entered this embassy and sought refuge from persecution.

As a result of that decision, I have been able to work in relative safety from a US espionage investigation.

But today, Edward Snowden’s ordeal is just beginning.

Two dangerous runaway processes have taken root in the last decade, with fatal consequences for democracy.

Government secrecy has been expanding on a terrific scale.

Simultaneously, human privacy has been secretly eradicated.

A few weeks ago, Edward Snowden blew the whistle on an ongoing program-- involving the Obama administration, the intelligence community and the internet services giants-- to spy on everyone in the world.

As if by clockwork, he has been charged with espionage by the Obama administration.

The US government is spying on each and every one of us, but it is Edward Snowden who is charged with espionage for tipping us off.

It is getting to the point where the mark of international distinction and service to humanity is no longer the Nobel Peace Prize, but an espionage indictment from the US Department of Justice.

Edward Snowden is the eighth leaker to be charged with espionage under this president.

Bradley Manning’s show trial enters its fourth week on Monday.

After a litany of wrongs done to him, the US government is trying to convict him of "aiding the enemy."

The word "traitor" has been thrown around a lot in recent days.

But who is really the traitor here?

Who was it who promised a generation "hope" and "change," only to betray those promises with dismal misery and stagnation?

Who took an oath to defend the US constitution, only to feed the invisible beast of secret law devouring it alive from the inside out?

Who is it that promised to preside over The Most Transparent Administration in history, only to crush whistleblower after whistleblower with the bootheel of espionage charges?

Who combined in his executive the powers of judge, jury and executioner, and claimed the jurisdiction of the entire earth on which to exercise those powers?

Who arrogates the power to spy on the entire earth - every single one of us-- and when he is caught red handed, explains to us that "we’re going to have to make a choice."

Who is that person?

Let’s be very careful about who we call "traitor."

Edward Snowden is one of us.

Bradley Manning is one of us.

They are young, technically minded people from the generation that Barack Obama betrayed.

They are the generation that grew up on the internet, and were shaped by it.

The US government is always going to need intelligence analysts and systems administrators, and they are going to have to hire them from this generation and the ones that follow it.

One day, their generation will run the NSA, the CIA and the FBI.

This isn’t a phenomenon that is going away.

This is inevitable.

And by trying to crush these young whistleblowers with espionage charges, the US government is taking on a generation, and that is a battle it is going to lose.

This isn’t how to fix things.

The only way to fix things is this:

• Change the policies.
• Stop spying on the world.
• Eradicate secret law.
• Cease indefinite detention without trial.
• Stop assassinating people.
• Stop invading other countries and sending young Americans off to kill and be killed.
• Stop the occupations, and discontinue the secret wars.
• Stop eating the young: Edward Snowden, Barrett Brown, Jeremy Hammond, Aaron Swartz, Gottfrid Svartholm, Jacob Appelbaum, and Bradley Manning.

The charging of Edward Snowden is intended to intimidate any country that might be considering standing up for his rights.

That tactic must not be allowed to work.

The effort to find asylum for Edward Snowden must be intensified.

What brave country will stand up for him, and recognize his service to humanity?

Tell your governments to step forward.

Step forward and stand with Snowden.

Sleazy New Dem Colleen Hanabusa Challenges Progressive Hawai'i Senator Brian Schatz

Lately I've been bombarded with e-mails from sleazy New Dem Colleen Hanabusa, who's giving up her House seat to challenge progressive Senate incumbent Brian Schatz. Thursday it was "Today, Colleen will make a very important announcement about the future of Hawaii and we wanted you to be the first to know." Yesterday it was "After months of careful consideration, meeting with my friends and family to talk story and listening to people from across Hawai'i, I was proud to share with you a few days ago that I am beginning my campaign for the United States Senate... But before I can have the honor of serving you in the Senate, I must ask for your support now."

Oh, sure! Schatz's lifetime ProgressivePunch crucial vote score is 94.12, a sterling record. Hanabusa's score is a blah 81.99. What does that mean in the real world? Here's an example: Schatz has been a vocal opponent of CISPA.

Hanabusa, who never strays far from a line laid out by her Big Business supporters, voted with the Republicans-- both in 2012 and again this year-- in favor of CISPA.

Sure, she can be counted on to vote with Democrats on issues like Choice (though not marriage equality) but when it comes to roll calls where she smells money... that's when we see the kind of Democrat Hawai'i doesn't need. This is how bad she is: Colleen Hanabusa was one of the only Democrats in Congress to vote with the GOP against the Environmental Protection Agency and to actually join Buck McKeon's sickeningly corrupt Drone Caucus, along with a freak show of some of Congress' most crooked and extremist Members, like McKeon himself, as well as Steven Palazzo (R-MS), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Don Young (R-AK), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Mike Pompeo (R-KS), Joe "You Lie" Wilson (R-SC), and Mo Brooks (R-AL). No one assigned her this; she chose to associate herself with this group of misanthropes in the hope of ingratiating herself with the arms industry and getting some cash for her ambitious politician plans. And that's worked out well for her-- and for the drone manufacturers. She pushes their agenda inside the Democratic caucus and they keep a steady stream of legalistic bribes flowing in her direction.

All of the big drone manufacturers give to pro-war politicians in both parties but all of them give way more to Republicans than to Democrats. Hanabusa has been one of their favorite Democrats and the arms manufacturers are helping finance her challenge to Schatz. Of the half dozen biggest drone makers, all 6 gave money to Hanabusa last year.

• Northrop Grumman's 2 PACs- $20,000
• BAE Systems- $10,000
• Honeywell International- $7,500
• General Atomics- $$1,000
• Raytheon- $6,000
• Lockheed Martin- $7,000

Very few Republicans-- otherside of McKeon himself, of course-- have collected as much cash from the drone makers as Hanabusa. All of these companies are traditional honeypots for right-wing Republicans. She's very comfortable in those circles.

UPDATE

If you'd like to help make sure Brian stays in the Senate... we have a new addition.

Big Brother Never Goes Away-- CISPA Is A Real Danger To American Liberties

If you watched Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on CNN's State of the Nation yesterday, you may recall him warning that the government is approaching a "dangerous line" when it comes to violating the Constitutional mandates on certain guaranteed liberties, like privacy. Chaffetz, who wasn't one of only 29 Republicans who joined most Democrats in opposing Mike Rogers' Big Brother CISPA legislation April 18, seemed to take issue with a dullard colleague of his, Marsha Blackburn who wants more intrusion, not less. (She was out shopping for new platforms with Michele Bachmann at Hu's Shoes's on M Street when the vote was taken, so isn't on the record one way or the other.) “We have a very dangerous line," Chaffetz retorted, "I don’t want my federal government going in and searching my Facebook page."

As we mentioned the day after the vote, Boehner and Cantor lined up all the little zombies, like Chaffetz, to vote for CISPA, which Obama has threatened to veto. The NO-votes came predominantly from progressive Democrats plus an odd assortment of Republicans-- libertarians like Justin Amash (R-MI), Jimmy Duncan (R-TN), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Raul Labrador (R-ID) and Walter Jones (R-NC), delusional paranoids like Steve Stockman (R-TX), Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI), Ted Yoho (R-FL), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Paul Broun (R-GA), what's left of their moderate wing, like Chris Gibson (R-NY) and... well Chris Gibson's about it, and then the usual Boehner-haters who just want to be on record opposing him and Cantor as much as possible, like Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) and Jim Bridenstine (R-OK). Amash explained the anti-Boehner position on his Facebook page last Friday:

I voted no on H R 624, Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). This year's version includes marginal improvements over last year's bill, which I also opposed, but these changes don't go far enough to protect people's private data, and many of the bill's most significant problems remain unaddressed. Like last year, the bill overrides federal and state privacy laws and contracts. It exempts private entities from all federal and state liability when they share "cyber threat information" with the federal government-- a term broadly defined to mean any information "directly pertaining to... [a] threat to [] a system or network," which could include your personally identifiable information, such as e-mails.

Under CISPA, companies are actually *prohibited* from making legally binding commitments to protect users' personal data and e-mail. Without facing liability, companies have no means of assuring customers or employees that they will follow through on their privacy agreements, which means companies cannot easily compete in the area of user privacy. House leadership killed my bipartisan amendment to fix this problem, denying it a full vote on the House floor. My simple, quarter-page amendment merely asserted that CISPA's liability exemption did not give companies authority "to breach a contract with another party." It certainly would have passed unanimously or almost unanimously. By rejecting this amendment, the Committee on Rules voted to void private contracts and undermine the Rule of Law.

The bill also inappropriately allows the government to use the information it receives from private entities for purposes other than cybersecurity, such as protecting individuals generally "from the danger of death or serious bodily harm," investigating and prosecuting certain crimes, and protecting minors. And the government may search through the information it receives to find specific information pertaining to these items, trampling on our Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Rep. Jared Polis offered an amendment, which I cosponsored, that would have ensured the government could use information shared with it under CISPA *only* to prevent imminent cyber attacks, but again, the Committee on Rules rejected this important change.

Cybersecurity is a real concern for the federal government and many public and private entities. But CISPA goes far beyond what is necessary to ensure the government and the private sector have the information and tools needed to protect against cyber threats. Just a few simple changes (many of which were offered as amendments but rejected by the Committee on Rules) would have made CISPA more protective of your privacy and civil liberties while still reducing legal barriers to timely sharing of actual cyber threat intelligence. House leadership rejected these changes without even permitting a vote on the amendments.

CISPA's author, Mike Rogers, who likened Amash and his allies to "14-year-old tweeters in their basement," wants to run for the open Michigan Senate seat. Amash could dash his hopes

CISPA... Who Betrayed Us Yesterday And What It Means Now

2 who spoke up against Big Brother yesterday: Amash (R)  & Grayson (D)

We tried explaining CISPA on Wednesday when the House voted on a few amendments to CISPA that were permitted by Pete Sessions' very fascistic Rules Committee. The serious amendments that were offered by champions of individual liberty-- opponents of CISPA-- like Justin Amash (R-MI) and Alan Grayson (D-FL) were not allowed to even be voted on, ruled inappropriate by Sessions (R-TX). Amash's disallowed amendment was meant to "permit a company to provide through contract that it won't share personally identifiable information with the government." Sessions tossed it out unceremoniously. Grayson's amendment insisted on Constitutionally mandated search warrants.

Grayson’s amendment intended to protect Americans from cyber-security-related searches without a warrant, in keeping with the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a warrant prior to conducting searches and seizures.

CISPA adds provisions to the National Security Act of 1947 related to cyber threat intelligence and information-sharing. The legislation has raised considerable privacy concerns amongst civil liberties groups, who worry that CISPA lacks provisions requiring the government to obtain a warrant when conducting searches based on cyber threat intelligence. The Obama Administration announced yesterday that it would not support CISPA in its current form, because of privacy concerns.

Despite these concerns, the House Committee on Rules rejected Grayson’s amendment, and offered no explanation for its rejection.

..."I offered a simple, straightforward amendment that would have protected American citizens from unreasonable and unconstitutional searches by the government under CISPA,” he said. “I’m disappointed that the Rules Committee refused even to allow this important amendment to be voted upon by the full House of Representatives."

CISPA passed Thursday afternoon 288-127, 92 mostly conservative Democrats joining all but 29 Republicans. Nancy Pelosi and Grayson rallied 98 Democrats against it. Obama has threatened to veto it in its current form. Among the Democrats making common cause with Boehner and Cantor Thursday were many of the usual suspects, Blue Dogs and New Dems, led by Steny Hoyer, Steve Israel, Jim Himes, Allyson Schwartz and Ron Kind. Some of the worst of Israel's right-of-center freshmen who backed CISPA Thursday were:

• Ron Barber (New Dem-AZ)
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
• Bill Enyart (IL)
• Pete Gallego (Blue Dog-TX)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
• Ann Kuster (NH)
• Dan Lipinski (IL)
• Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)
• Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Kyrsten Sinema (New Dem-AZ)
• Eric Swalwell (CA)
• Juan Vargas (New Dem-CA)

Rob Zerban, who came closer to defeating Paul Ryan-- a big CISPA backer-- is probably going to challenge him again in 2014. Zerban is an advocate for Internet privacy and he opposed the bill. Right after the vote, he told me "I wish the Tea Party Republicans would get their story straight. With so many Senate Republicans citing privacy concerns while voting against bi-partisan, common sense background checks for gun purchases, it is the height of hypocrisy for House Republicans to turn around today to vote for expanding privacy violations in the name of a nonexistent threat to security. CISPA is the solution to a problem that doesn't exist, while expanding background checks for gun purchases could literally save lives. We need real representatives who want to solve real problems. The families of the victims of the Newtown shooting deserve better, and the people of Wisconsin deserve better."

Nick Ruiz is also up against a senior Republican CISPA backer, John Mica in the central Florida district just north of Orlando. Ruiz is also a dedicated privacy defender and he also said he would have voted against the bill: "John Mica voted: Yes, to government spying. I would have voted: No, to government spying. Which is to say, no, to intrusive Big Brother spying on citizens' private information as collected by private corporations for commercial purposes. Its been said that this bill effectively 'deputizes' corporations to spy on citizens and give that information to the government. It's interesting that the CISPA cyber-gestapo bill tellingly splits Democrats right down the middle. Alan Grayson, reliably held the line with a 'no' vote. And some of the far less reliably progressive Democrats (Pelosi, Wasserman Schultz et al.) came through with the correct 'no' vote, because they probably perceived it was 'safe' to do so. On the other hand, some of the more reliable progressives (Hastings, Brown, etc.) came out with an incorrect 'yes' vote.

"In the end however, it's clear that a whole swath of progressively-backed shills (Kuster, Kirkpatrick, Payne, Sinema, Murphy, Frankel, etc.) let America down with an incorrect 'yes' vote to government spying. And that is what is entirely unacceptable for the progressive community. And it's obvious why that is: an analysis by the Sunlight Foundation reported that the interests supporting the bill 'spent 140 times as much lobbying Congress as those on the other side of the debate and have dozens of former Capitol Hill insiders working on their behalf.' We can do better than people like this, who respond to lobbying pressure with open arms."

Andrew Zaleski at Technically Baltimore fleshed out what Nick was alluding to with the Sunlight Foundation report.

Supporters of the bill include big companies like Microsoft and Google, as well as major telecommunications firms, including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable. And, according to the political finance research organization MapLight, those supporters contribute a significant amount of money to the campaigns of national politicians in favor of CISPA:

• Pro-CISPA organizations and companies outspent CISPA opponents $55 million to $4 million in campaign contributions to House representatives from July 2010 through June 2012, two months after CISPA advanced through the House of Representatives the first time it was introduced, according to MapLight data compiled from OpenSecrets.org

• House Intelligence Committee members have benefited the most: they’ve received on average 15 times more money in campaign contributions from CISPA supporters than CISPA opponents, a fact Congressman Mike Rogers, CISPA sponsor and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, unwittingly tweeted-- and then deleted from his Twitter feed-- in late March.

Maryland’s own 2nd District representative Dutch Ruppersberger-- ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and co-sponsor of CISPA-- has received $162,510 from interest groups that support CISPA, with $22,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T, Comcast and Verizon alone, according to the MapLight data. Those contributions were made between July 2010 and June 2012.

The ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers says this is another example of "corporate money drowning out the voice of the people. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act-- or CISPA-- is a vaguely-worded bill that could allow private e-mails, posts on social media, or personal information to be read by federal intelligence agencies like the NSA or law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. Even worse, following an intense lobbying campaign by private corporate interests, House Republicans have not allowed critical privacy amendments to fix the core problems with the bill... If CISPA becomes law, the federal government could have access to anything from private medical records to personal family e-mails.  And the large companies involved in sharing this private information will not be held responsible if they fail to make the right decisions with your personal information and about cyber threats."

Before the vote, Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) offered a Motion to Recommit-- backed by every Democrat plus libertarian Walter Jones (R-NC). It was designed to fix some of the flaws in CISPA:

•        This measure prohibits employers, a prospective employer, or the federal government from asking for the release of social networking passwords.

•        This final amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a mechanism to control Americans’ access to the internet through the creation of a national internet firewall.

•        This measure requires an annual report on the number of Americans whose privacy has been breached by attack or intrusion.

More Bits, More Pieces Than I Actually Intended: Rubio And The Know Nothing Caucus

Bob Perry ist tot

What do you say when the poisonous snake who financed swiftboating drops dead? It never seems good form to cheer that anyone dies. It's possible that right-wing Texas billionaire Bob Perry was kind to a grandchild or a pet, although, publicly he'll always be associated with the money-- a minimum of $65 million-- that went into financing a neo-fascist resurgence within the Republican Party. He gave tens of millions to right-wing causes and candidates and the one Democrat he seems to have liked enough to contribute to is extreme right-wing Blue Dog, Henry Cuellar. Perry was a longtime crony of Karl Rove's and financed his shady operations-- like his series of checks:

Who's Going To Unmask Marco Rubio?

If there was a Democratic version of Bob Perry, he'd be underwriting a good solid look into the sordid past of slimy Florida politician with national ambitions, Marco Rubio. To date the vetting of Rubio-- who was knee deep in Tallahassee filth including organized crime and cocaine-- has been handled with kid gloves by novices who come to idiotic conclusions like “I don't think there's been a knockout blow," without ever tying him to his roommate, David Rivera, one of the most corrupt men to have ever served-- albeit just one term-- in the U.S. Congress. The dossier on Rubio is all about his voting record and good-two-shoes ethics violations, stuff no one cares about. One biographer, Manuel Roig-Franzia, gets close... but no cigar.

Rubio's record contains plenty of fodder for his opponents to use, even if there isn't another major revelation lurking in his past. He pointed specifically to Rubio's friendship with Rep. David Rivera, a Florida Republican reportedly under investigation by the Justice Department, IRS, and state law enforcement for his lobbying practices and potential money laundering. Rivera and Rubio bought a house together in 2005, and Rubio has publicly expressed support for his friend throughout the investigation.

"You never know, there could be an indictment in that case, which could affect Rubio," he said. "Nobody knows the extent to which their business is entangled, but they certainly have had co-mingling of business interests since they own a rental property together. Of course, all of this is in the land of the hypothetical."

Haters Gotta Hate... The GOP Has Plans For Immigration Reform

Yesterday Rubio and the rest of the Senate's immigration Gang of Eight presented their outline for a way to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform. Before they had presented it another little gang, this one not bipartisan, in the House was already plotting to crap all over it. Led by notorious bigot Steve King (R-IA), the House's worst Know Nothings are trying to derail reform and ship 11-14 million immigrants back to their original homelands. The other 5 members are fringy crackpots Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Lou Barletta (R-PA), Mo Brooks (R-AL), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). King: “The meetings of the Gang of Eight and the secret meetings in the House of Representatives-- the people who have been standing up for the Constitution and the rule of law haven’t been invited to those meetings." Paranoid and off-balance, former drug addict Dana Rohrabacher added, "We’ve got all the rich guys and the elitists talking to each other. Unfortunately us regular folks don’t have that kind of coordination.”

Sources close to House conservatives say that King is working behind the scenes to sour his right-wing colleagues on the Gang of Eight’s plan, and he made calls over the weekend to finalize his strategy with members and conservative activists. Insiders say King is confident that conservatives will come to reject the Gang’s plan once they actually read it and see how it will lead to legalization for people who entered the country illegally, even though it is expected to also include enforcement triggers.

...Gohmert says Boehner’s indecision about how the House will handle immigration reform gives conservatives an opening to press the speaker to follow “regular order,” by which lawmakers would put the bill through the full committee process, instead of rushing it through with minimal hearings. The House Judiciary Committee is likely to play an especially important role, and its chairman, Bob Goodlatte (Va.) told ABC News on Sunday that it’s “absolutely important” that the bill moves through his committee, and not get pushed from “the top down.”

Goodlatte’s emphasis on slowing down the process plays to King’s favor, since he has long been an influential player on Judiciary’s subcommittee on immigration and border security, and he knows how to snag up a bill with hearings and amendments. In the coming days, look for King’s group to keep making “regular order” their rallying cry. “[Boehner] has pledged, absolutely, we’re following regular order,” Gohmert says. “The speaker would make himself a liar if he didn’t follow regular order.”

Rohrabacher agrees with the Texan’s observation. “There would be a revolt among Republicans if [Boehner didn’t] follow regular order,” he says. For the moment, though, the sentiment is more wishful thinking than a warning. The challenge for King’s Gang of Six is to make their case beyond a hearing room in Rayburn and to get fellow conservatives in the House and among the public to share their agitation.

Like the other five, Rohrabacher knows they’re in a difficult spot-- a group of rabble-rousers with limited political capital inside the House trying to stop legislation that GOP grandees and many prominent conservatives have largely blessed. But he believes that the fight against comprehensive immigration reform is far from over. “What the leadership would like to shove down our throats, in terms of immigration reform, is bad policy and bad politics,” he says. “In the long run, the Republican party would be destroyed.”

Bad Couple Of Days For Mark Sanford

First a judge demanded he show up at court to explain why he was caught trespassing at his ex-wife's house. And then-- as part of the revulsion that this no-bounds egomaniac is their candidate-- Greg Walden, Cantor and Boehner decided the NRCC will no longer back his congressional run in SC-01. Colbert's sister was already ahead in polls asking about the May 7th election but with the DCCC pouring money into the district (about half a million into airing the ad below, for example), the withdrawal of the NRCC could really hurt Sanford's chances.

"At this time, the NRCC will not be engaged in this special election... This is an unfortunate situation but this is what happens when candidates aren’t honest and withhold information,” is how Republican Party operatives are phrasing it.



Wheel Spinning In The House

Monday Jason Chaffez's proposal that "persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be ineligible for Federal employment" needed a 2/3s majority and was defeated 250-159 even though 35 Democrats-- mostly Blue Dogs and New Dems-- joined all but 7 Republicans. Making common ground with the Republicans on GOP issues has become a hallmark of the New Dems and several of their leaders-- Chairman Ron Kind and vice-chairs Jim Himes and Allyson Schwartz-- were among the gaggle who broke with the Democrats on this. The worst of the freshman New Dems-- Patrick Murphy (FL), Suzan DelBene (WA), and Scott Peters (CA)-- went along on that ride as well.

Ro Khanna Is Wasting His Time And His Donors' Money

Another slimy Democrat who would like to get in on that kind of action is opportunist Ro Khanna, currently trying to unseat progressive champion, Mike Honda. Daily Kos came across some disturbing news for Khanna, whose claim to fame is that he's an effective bundler of cash from the Indo-American community. "This is pretty awesome. After rolling out endless endorsements from powerful elected officials throughout California and even nationally, here's Rep. Mike Honda's capper: an article in the newspaper India Abroad headlined 'Five desi stalwarts pitch for Honda'... five Indian-Americans who have run for Congress all over the country in recent years: Raj Goyle (KS-04), Upendra Chivukula (NJ-07), Ashwin Madia (MN-03), Ravi Sangisetty (LA-03), and Manan Trivedi (PA-06)... [T]his may be a case of politics (and ideology) winning out over ethnicity. Not only is Honda the more liberal of the two, but he's done a great deal during his many years of service to support the broader pan-Asian community. And in their letter jointly endorsing him, this quintet of former candidates praised him both for 'fighting for our communities' and for individually helping their campaigns. This all makes you wonder what Khanna's 'base' looks like, to the extent he even has one. Silicon Valley tech types eager to have one of their own in Congress? I think wealthy nerds and venture capitalists will only take you so far, though, particularly when your opponent has the network that Honda does-- and the ability to call in lots and lots of favors."

CISPA Vote In The House Today




Mike Rogers' and Hoyer puppet "Dutch Ruppersberger's "Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act" (H.R. 624) has 25 Republican sponsors and 12 Democratic ones, mostly conservative corporate whores. If the bill were ever to be enacted-- which isn't likely-- it would override every existing computer privacy statute to allowing private corporations to share personal information with the government to help with vaguely defined "cybersecurity purposes," for which they would be immune from prosecution. The last time it passed the House, almost a year ago (248-168, most Democrats voting NO and most Republicans, being part of the Big Brother Authoritarian Party, voting YES) it was successfully filibustered in the Senate 4 months later and was never voted on.

The new bill has a few superficial protections that protect no one and satisfy no one. One of the leading Republicans fighting against CISPA is Michigan libertarian Justin Amash, who also voted against the bill in 2012. He still has overriding privacy concerns.

Critics have called the legislation, which seeks to streamline the sharing of data between private corporations targeted by cyberattacks and the federal government, a serious overreach of government power.

On his Facebook, Amash wrote he would oppose CISPA when it is brought to a vote.

"The bill grants corporations and other entities broad immunity to share your personal and confidential data (e.g., e-mails) with the government," Amash wrote. "CISPA overrides contracts and even federal and state privacy laws."

CISPA has been likened to two widely unpopular bills considered by Congress during the 2011-12 session: the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, and the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act, or PIPA.

Those bills, which sought to curtail Internet piracy and illicit trafficking of intellectual property, died in Congress after a groundswell of online activism from critics who said they threatened innovation and amounted to government censorship.

President Obama is strongly suggesting that he would veto the bill if it passes the way Rogers and Ruppersberger wrote it. Even the White House recognizes it is way too broad and allows too much personal information to be turned over to the government without warrants. The White House is "concerned that the bill does not require private entities to take reasonable steps to remove irrelevant personal information when sending cybersecurity data to the government or other private sector entities. Citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held accountable-– and not granted immunity-– for failing to safeguard personal information adequately.”

And About That 311 Platinum Award Contest?

Please don't forget the Blue America Save Social Security contest, in which you can win a 311 platinum award and your favorite congressional candidate can win $1,000 check from our PAC. It's pretty neck and neck between most of the candidates now... so your "vote" could make all the difference.

Conservatives Don't Understand-- Or Don't Care-- That Protecting Online Privacy Is Crucial

Thursday Nancy Pelosi led almost all the Democrats against voting for Mike Rogers' invasive, pro-corporate Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, H.R. 3523. In the end it passed the House 248-168. There were 42, mostly conservative, mostly extremely corrupt, Democrats-- led by money-grubbing DCCC chair Steve Israel-- who crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans. They passed 28 Republicans crossing in the other direction.

Most of the for-sale Blue Dog scum-- remember, Israel is an "ex"-Blue Dog although "relapsed" is probably a better description-- voted with Boehner and Cantor as they usually do. Blue Dogs who buy into the GOP practice of taking corporate campaign cash for votes all backed CISPA: Altmire (PA), Barrow (GA), Bishop (GA), Boren (OK), Boswell (IA), Cardoza (CA), Chandler (KY), Cooper (TN), Costa (CA), Cuellar (TX), Donnelly (IN), Kissell (NC-- yes, he finally made it official 2 weeks ago and joined), Matheson (UT), McIntyre (NC), Peterson (MN), Ross (AR), Schrader (OR), Scott (GA), Shuler (NC), and Thompson (CA) as did ultra-conservatives not formally associated with the Blue Dogs, like Critz (PA), Hochul (NY), Lipinski (IL), Owens (NY), Ruppersberger (MD), and Towns (NY).

Open Secrets shedsd some valuable light on which corporations have been paying off which Members of Congress to vote for this bill.

A list of companies and organizations that have sent letters of support for the bill to the House Intelligence Committee, where the legislation was created, meshes closely with the list of top lobbying groups so far this year-- not to mention groups that lobbied on SOPA and PIPA.

For example, AT&T, which sent this letter, spent more money lobbying in the first three months of 2012 than any other single corporation ($7 million, second only to the mega-trade organization Chamber of Commerce, which also lobbied on CISPA though to a lesser extent). The telephone utilities industry as a whole, which includes AT&T and Verizon (which sent this letter) spent $15.3 million in the first quarter of this year, increasing its lobbying expenditures by 35 percent over the previous three months. The total laid out for lobbying by the computer/Internet industry, which includes some of the biggest backers of CISPA, SOPA and PIPA, fell 6 percent in the first quarter-- but at $32.1 million, the industry was still the sixth-largest spender on lobbying amont all industries so far in 2012.

It's hard to assess how much each of these companies spent lobbying Congress specifically on CISPA-- or other hot-button Internet bills-- because many of these companies have a variety of issues they're pursuing on Capitol Hill, but are required to report just one dollar amount covering everything. AT&T, for instance, spent its $7 million talking to lawmakers about 121 separate pieces of legislation... [Mike] Rogers has received at least $175,000 from organizations that have lobbied on the bill. That's about 15 percent of the total $1.1 million he has reported raising this election cycle. The top two groups: defense contractor SAIC (whose PAC has given Rogers $20,000 this election cycle) and Koch Industries (whose PAC has given Rogers over $14,500.)

The progressive Democrat running against Rogers in southern Michigan, Lance Enderle (you can help his campaign here) isn't the kind of Democrat who supports bills being pushed by the Koch brothers. He's an actual Democrat. This is what he told me this morning about Rogers' bill: “CISPA is not about protecting our national security, it is about invading personal privacy. When will the attacks on our Civil Liberties stop and the focus of economic and environmental stabilization begin? This is another fine example of Republican fear mongering introduced by Mike Rogers. This doesn’t surprise me coming from Mike, considering he voted for SOPA, PIPA, The Patriot ACT, NDAA, and from his position on the Select Intelligence committee he has called for the execution of Pfc. Bradley Manning. Mike loves to restrict our personal freedoms, hell I am more conservative than he is when you refer to the Constitution and our Civil Liberties... I have a question for Mike and his Republican cronies: When did corporations become our police force?”

Because of all the right-wing (and heavily bribed) Democrats voting with the GOP, the message that's seeped into the zeitgeist is "The House’s solid bipartisan vote for a cybersecurity bill sends a message to the Senate: Now it’s your turn to act." Obama's veto threat is flicked aside like a dandruff particle.

The White House, along with a coalition of liberal and conservative groups and some lawmakers, strongly opposed the measure, complaining that Americans’ privacy could be violated. They argued that companies could share an employee’s personal information with the government, data that could end up in the hands of officials from the National Security Agency or the Defense Department. They also challenged the bill’s liability waiver for private companies that disclose information, complaining that it was too broad.

Echoing those concerns were several Republicans and Democrats who warned of potential government spying on its citizens with the help of employers.

“In an effort to foster information sharing, this bill would erode the privacy protections of every single American using the Internet. It would create a ‘Wild West’ of information sharing,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee.

Said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas: “Until we protect the privacy rights of our citizens, the solution is worse than the problem.”

A more thorough analysis by Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic asserts that Americans are justified for feeling paranoid about Rogers' bill. "[I]f we're going to allow private companies and government to snoop into our private information for the narrow purpose of protecting national security," he suggests, "there needs to be a way to monitor what goes on so that there's at least the possibility that abuses could be caught." His main point is that "Critics of CISPA are right to be wary... because of the abysmal record that government and industry have amassed."

The Bush Administration engaged in illegal warrantless wiretapping for years. All the while, the National Security Agency collaborated with America's major telecommunications companies. AT&T gave government officials unsupervised access to all data flowing through major hubs, including email messages, phone calls, web-browsing data, and private network traffic.

When the NSA program was finally revealed, Bush Administration officials weren't prosecuted and jailed. In fact, Thomas Drake, an NSA whistleblower who complained about a separate warrantless surveillance project, was prosecuted by both the Bush and the Obama Administrations.
 
...In a statement objecting to CISPA as currently written, the Obama Administration stated that "citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held legally accountable for failing to safeguard personal information adequately." Damn right they do! But Obama has done nothing to hold anyone accountable for spying on Americans during the Bush years. And Bush-era abuses -- coupled with the failure to hold anyone accountable for them, the prosecution of whistleblowers, and ongoing warrantless surveillance -- are indirectly but powerfully relevant to CISPA.

Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) tried ameliorating the legislation with a Motion to Recommit that would instruct Rogers to amend the bill so that employers and government entities could no longer demand passwords to workers' social media accounts as a condition of employment. Republicans blocked it again, every Democrat voting yes-- even the worst Blue Dogs-- and every Republican voting no. Aside from protecting Facebook and Twitter accounts, Perlmutter's amendment would also protect freedom of expression on the Internet by prohibiting the Federal Government from establishing a national firewall similar to the "Great Internet Firewall of China.”