Under The Radar

SENATORS VOTE TO BAN WATERBOARDING, McCAIN NOT AMONG THEM:
The Senate approved an intelligence bill that bans waterboarding, "temperature extremes and other harsh tactics that the CIA used on al-Qaeda prisoners after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." The measure will limit the CIA "to using 19 less-aggressive interrogation tactics outlined in a U.S Army Field Manual." CIA Director Michael Hayden recently acknowledged that the agency had used the tactic of waterboarding on at least three prisoners nearly five years ago. Other administration officials, such as Attorney General Mike Mukasey, have refused to say that waterboarding is torture. The White House has even left open the possibility of using the technique in the future. While Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has previously called waterboarding "very exquisite torture" and co-sponsored a bill to ban any military use of the technique, he voted against yesterday's Senate bill banning waterboarding -- effectively siding with President Bush, who has vowed to veto the bill.

REP. LEWIS LEADS IN EARMARKS, DESPITE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION:
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), under investigation for funneling money to a contributor's clients, "was among the top lawmakers securing money for special projects in this year's spending bills," according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Lewis ranked second among all House members in "solo earmarks." Though the current status of the Lewis investigation is uncertain, in May 2006, "federal authorities in Los Angeles began looking into the relationship between Lewis and Washington lobbyist Bill Lowery, a former congressman from San Diego." In 2007, "Lewis collected $59,000 in donations from Lowery, members of his lobbying firm, and clients, some of whom received earmarks supported by Lewis." The investigation is an offshoot of the Randy "Duke" Cunningham case, in which the former congressman is serving jail time after pleading guilty to accepting bribes.

ADMINISTRATION SHUTS DOWN WEBSITE TRACKING U.S. ECONOMIC INDICATORS: With the U.S. economy faltering, conservatives have attempted to deflect attention from the crisis by blaming the media's negative coverage and insisting the United States is not headed toward a recession, despite what economists are predicting. The Bush administration's latest move is to simply hide the data. Forbes had awarded EconomicIndicators.gov one of its "Best of the Web" awards. As Forbes explains, the government site provides an invaluable service to the public for accessing U.S. economic data. Economic Indicators is particularly useful because people can sign up to receive e-mails as soon as new economic data across government agencies becomes available. While the data will still be available online at various federal websites, it will be less readily accessible to members of the public. The Bush administration has decided to shut down this site because of "budgetary constraints," effective March 1, even though Bush recently submitted a record $3.1 trillion budget to Congress for FY '09.

To Torture Or Not To Torture

CIA Director Michael Hayden has acknowledged for the first time publicly that the agency had used the tactic of waterboarding on at least three prisoners nearly five years ago. Waterboarding is an interrogation practice in which, "the victim's lungs fill with water until the procedure is stopped or the victim dies." As Malcolm Nance, a counterterrorism specialist who taught at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) school in California, told Congress, "Waterboarding is a long-standing form of torture used by history's most brutal governments, including those of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, North Korea, Iraq, the Soviet Union and the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia." Yesterday, "after years of dodging and dissembling, the Bush administration boldly embraced" its record of torture and said it would "definitely want to consider" using it again. "It will depend upon circumstances," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, adding that future acts of waterboarding would "need the president's approval," and the White House would notify "appropriate members of Congress."

LEGAL PARSING: In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. "Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago." Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge said in an interview this month, "There's just no doubt in my mind -- under any set of rules -- waterboarding is torture." But inside the Bush administration, such clarity has succumbed to legal parsing. "I would feel" waterboarding was torture "if it were done to me," Attorney General Michael Mukasey told Congress recently. But Mukasey, who promised to lead a legal review of the practice before being confirmed, is now refusing to brief Congress on the legality of waterboarding. Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told the New Yorker in January, "Whether it's torture by anybody else's definition, for me it would be torture." But McConnell said his comments should not be interpreted to reflect an official administration position. When he said waterboarding was "torture," McConnell explained to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), he meant he just personally didn't like water up his nose.

FROM DENIAL TO OPEN ADVOCACY: For years, the White House had done its best to deny the obvious: that it had employed waterboarding against prisoners. When Vice President Dick Cheney told a conservative talk radio host in Oct. 2006 that it would be a "no-brainer" to "dunk" an individual in water if it would save lives, the White House tried to dispel any notion that Cheney was embracing waterboarding. Now the White House strategy has changed -- "the administration has apparently decided that this is a debate they can win out in the open." The switch comes as Congress is considering legislation that "if passed, would require all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies to abide by the Army Field Manual's prohibition against waterboarding." The White House said yesterday it wants to retain the option to use waterboarding, even while President Bush has frequently claimed "we do not torture." "Torture is illegal," Fratto said after McConnell's testimony. "We don't torture -- we maintain and as we have said many times that the programs have been reviewed, and the Department of Justice has determined them to be legal."

SPOTLIGHT ON THE SENATE: In December, the House passed an amendment that extends the current prohibitions in the Army Field Manual against torture to U.S. intelligence agencies and personnel. Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member Christopher Bond (R-MO) has said he would lead an effort to remove that requirement when the legislation reaches the Senate floor. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who in the past has made a series of statements against the use of waterboarding, has placed a hold on the anti-waterboarding bill. A number of key Republican swing votes -- including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) -- will likely make the difference if the bill comes to a vote. McCain has previously called waterboarding a "horrible, odious" technique that "should never be condoned in the U.S."

Citizens United Sets It Sights On Obama

InfoCision Management Corporation client Citizens United has produced a film now in distribution attacking Hillary Clinton called “Hillary, the Movie”. Citizens United has embarked on a legal battle to advertise their film unconstrained by campaign finance laws. A Federal District Court ruled that the group could not air advertisements without attaching a disclaimer and disclosing their donor list. Claims that the film should be treated as a documentary prompted "outright laughter from the judges".[2] Citizens United now has its sights set on a new target: Barack Obama.

The group has budgeted about $1 million to produce a documentary film about Mr. Obama that is set to be distributed this summer. At the moment, Citizens United has its researchers poring over Mr. Obama’s records as a community organizer, state legislator and United States senator in the same way that it lied and disregarded Mrs. Clinton’s record. And with the absolute purpose of playing upon the ignorance of the people InfoCision will be calling for donations to get the barely literate suckers to cough up their last dime.

Citizens United was co-founded by Floyd Brown^[1] in 1988 and currently headed by David Bossie. Its offices are on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., near the White House. It has run smear ads of President Clinton's record on terrorism, and ads praising President Bush's terrorism record. Citizens United filed a Federal Election Commission complaint against Fahrenheit 9/11 using the same law it is now fighting against. "Obama is a completely clean slate,” David Bossie has said, “We will develop the image that we want the people to see. We’re doing the hard work of the research right now. The American people don’t know much about Obama, except that they like his speaking style.”

"Millionnaires' Amendment" On Trial

After twice battling Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.) and losing, Democrat Jack Davis is now challenging federal campaign finance law. The millionaire industrialist, who spent more than $2 million of his own money to unseat Reynolds in 2006, has persuaded the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the "millionaires' amendment." This measure in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 allows congressional candidates who face wealthy opponents to collect more money from individuals than the law would normally allow, ostensibly to even the odds. Davis says this provision protects entrenched incumbents from the only people who beat them: wealthy challengers. He says the additional disclosure requirements he faced limited his free-speech rights. The Supreme Court will consider a lower court's ruling that upheld the law, stating that it was Davis's choice to spend his own money and, in doing so, allow his opponent to collect more money from donors. The Supreme Court may also consider a case involving an anti-Hillary Clinton movie that the conservative group and InfoCision client Citizens United wants to advertise in key primary states. A three-judge panel said that advertising the movie should be considered direct advocacy against a candidate and, therefore, should be subject to campaign finance laws, including the disclosure of donors.
*Campaign contribution limits: http://www.opensecrets.org/basics/law/index.asp
*FEC primer on the millionaires' amendment: http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/MillionairesAmendment.html
*2006 Reynolds-Davis race: http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?ID=NY26&Cycle=2006
*2004 Reynolds-Davis race: http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?ID=NY26&Cycle=2004
*Citizens United Political Action Committee: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strID=C00295527&cycle=2008

"Aussie Taliban"David Hicks Released From Prison

David Hicks, the only Guantanamo inmate convicted of terrorism offenses by a US military tribunal, has walked free after more than six years in prison.

The 32-year-old left prison in his hometown of Adelaide on Saturday after he completed a nine-month-sentence in his native Australia struck under a plea deal.

Hicks was captured in Afghanistan in late 2001.

He spent five years in Guantanamo before becoming the first person to be sentenced under the alternate war crimes tribunals created by the Bush administration to try non-American captives.

The former kangaroo skinner admitted training with al-Qaeda and meeting its leader Osama bin Laden, whom he described as "lovely", according to police evidence given to the court.

Restricted movement

He was sentenced to seven years in prison in March, though all but nine months' prison time was suspended.

Hicks did not speak to reporters as he left prison in what constituted his first public appearance since being captured.

However, in a statement released by his lawyer, he thanked those who helped get him out of Guantanamo Bay, including the Australian public, and promised to uphold conditions of his plea deal and avoid doing "anything that might result in my return there."

Hicks will still be subject to a strict control order which includes a midnight-to-dawn curfew. He will not be allowed to leave Australia.

Under a plea bargain reached with US military authorities, Hicks agreed to a gag order which stops him from talking about his experiences for a year, ending on March 26.

He also forfeited any right to appeal his conviction and any money offered for interviews could be confiscated under Australian law.

Media reports last week said Hicks was unprepared for freedom, suffered agoraphobia and had retreated to solitary confinement in his Australian prison cell.

No apology

The Hicks case became a political issue in Australia where many activists and politicians criticised John Howard, the former prime minister, for allowing an Australian to spend years in a foreign prison without trial.

Under increasing pressure Howard raised the issue of Hicks with Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, when he was in Sydney earlier this year, and the tribunal proceedings against Hicks started soon afterward.

Kevin Rudd, Howard's successor, has recognised the plea deal and the strict conditions on Hicks' movements.

But in 2006 Rudds described Hicks' imprisonment as a "national obscenity" and that the Guantanamo prison should be closed.

No apologies

Terry, Hicks' father, had said on Friday his son would apologise for any wrongdoing he committed while in Afghanistan, but the statement contained no such apology.

Asked about the omission, Terry Hicks said his son had served his time and had nothing to be sorry about.

Around 20 supporters cheered at Hicks' release Saturday and held up signs that read, "Hicks is not a threat" - a reference to the strict controls on his movements.

Terry Hicks gave no indication of where his son would live or any plans for the future.

NRCC Pledge $2 Million To Their Cash Strapped Party

Republicans have pledged to give more than $2 million to their cash-strapped party fundraising arm to support candidates, according to officials at the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio several weeks ago announced the formation of the fund, which would be earmarked for candidates rather than retiring the committee’s debt. Boehner and David Dreier of California, whom he tapped to round up support, each gave $500,000.

The infusion of cash included $400,000 from Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan and $250,000 from Rep. Wally Herger of California, who are competing to succeed retiring Rep. Jim McCrery as the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee. McCrery, who announced earlier this month that he will not seek re-election next year, pledged $200,000.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin and Rep. John Mica of Florida each gave $100,000.

The NRCC had $3.6 million in debt and only $2.5 million in cash at the end of October, according to CQ MoneyLine. GOP officials say the new fund will give them a surplus.

“It will put us in the black for the first time,” said NRCC spokeswoman Julie Shutley.

She said recent special election wins in Virginia and Ohio spurred donations, though both districts have a strong Republican tilt.

“The energy and excitement surrounding the victories in two special elections this month is making for an early Christmas at the NRCC,” she said.

Caught in More Lies: Kathleen Willey

In a November 14 column discussing Kathleen Willey's new book Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Joseph Farah -- founder and editor of the right-wing news website WorldNetDaily -- asserted: "Many of us who crossed the Clintons -- whether it was because of what we wrote or whether it was because we didn't yield to unwanted sexual attacks -- feared for our lives as a result of winding up on their 'enemies list.' " He also claimed that "there were real-world consequences to being on the Clintons' enemies list," such as "losing jobs," "threats and harassment," "invasion of privacy," "break-ins and dead pets and flat tires," and "audits from the Internal Revenue Service." Farah added, "I am convinced, as is Willey, it could mean untimely death." Media Matters for America has documented numerous examples of media figures portraying the Clintons and their staff as ruthless and even violent.

In the book, Willey rehashes disproven conspiracy theories regarding former deputy White House counsel Vince Foster's 1993 suicide and suggests possible parallels between Foster's death and the suicide of her husband, Clinton fundraiser Ed Willey Jr., as well as the reported suicide attemptcharged with fraud and violating campaign finance laws in California. World Ahead Publishing, which published Target, and WND Books, WorldNetDaily's publishing imprint, became partners in October 2006. Also, in an interview with WorldNetDaily discussed in a November 5 article, Willey asserted that she "[m]ost definitely" suspects that her husband was murdered and that she "ha[s] suspicions" the Clintons were involved. of Norman Hsu, a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) who was

Farah also asserted that Willey's book "is perhaps the best expose of the personal, moral bankruptcy of both Clintons" and claimed that the book showed that President Clinton is "capable of just about anything -- including rape." As Media Matters has noted, on the March 15, 1998, edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, Willey alleged that Bill Clinton fondled her against her will in 1993 during a private White House meeting in which she asked for a paid position in the administration. Clinton denied making any sexual advance toward Willey. As the report by independent counsel Robert Ray noted, "Because the alleged incident arose in an employment context, Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled the allegations could be explored during discovery in Jones [v. Clinton]," the lawsuit in which former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones claimed that Clinton sexually harassed her.

Ray's report, however, concluded that "Willey's Testimony to the Grand Jury About the Alleged Incident Differed Materially from Her Deposition Testimony Given in Jones v. Clinton," noting that Willey "said at her deposition ... that [Clinton] did not fondle her." Ray also found that Willey contradicted herself on whether she had told others about the alleged incident and asserted that Willey gave false information to the FBI.

Neoconservatives and International Relations

With little notoriety, a major political storm is brewing over the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). On one side, an impressive coalition has formed, uniting the Bush administration, business groups, environmentalists, oil companies, a large bipartisan majority of U.S. senators, and 155 different nations under one tent. On the other side, a small contingent of knee-jerk isolationists is threatening to sink a seemingly non-controversial treaty that would "create a system for negotiating drilling, mining, and fishing rights." Revealing their core distrust of multilateralism, a familiar cadre of right-wing voices such as former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, neconservative hawk Frank Gaffney, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and others are aggressively attempting to thwart passage of the UNCLOS treaty. "The opposition to the Law of the Sea is based entirely on a visceral hatred for multilateral cooperation," writes Scott Paul, deputy director of government relations for Citizens for Global Solutions. "Its champions detest all forms of international organization and believe the purpose of international law is to constrain U.S. behavior." The same far-right ideologues who have argued that the United States should feel unencumbered by international law to go to war, torture, and pollute are now raising their heads in opposition to the UNCLOS treaty. For that reason, the convention is the "the perfect issue for progressives to rally around," writes The American Prospect's Kate Sheppard, because "it reveals the outrage from the outer edges of the right for what it really is: anti-cooperative isolationism that is both unfounded in fact and counter to American interests." Moreover, winning the battle over the Law of the Sea is an important step toward restoring America's international reputation and paving the path for future international agreements on climate change, weapons proliferation, and a host of other issues.

THE NEED FOR UNCLOS: Beginning in 1973 and ending in 1982, representatives from 160 nations met regularly under U.N. auspices to "hash out concerns about military navigation rights, territorial boundaries, environmental protections, and use of the ocean's resources." The convention also established tribunals that would resolve disputes that might arise between nations' interpretation of their sea rights. Since 1982, the Law of the Sea has languished without U.S. ratification. But new leadership in the Senate has bolstered hopes of passage. Seventy percent of the earth's surface is covered by ocean, and the mission of UNCLOS is to preserve marine resources for future generations. The treaty binds all nations to protect the "marine environment, protect fish stocks, and prevent pollution with as much care as the U.S. does." Former Republican Secretaries of State James Baker and George Schultz write that the longer the United States delays ratification, the more it "compromises our nation's authority to exercise its sovereign interests, jeopardizes its national and economic security, and limits its leadership role in international ocean policy." The UNCLOS would help address such issues as the current scrambling over the Arctic's mineral and energy reserves, helping stave off military confrontations that could arise.

HELD CAPTIVE BY THE FAR RIGHT: The far right has engaged in hyperbolic misrepresentations and fear-mongering to rally the activist base against the treaty. CNN's right-wing pundit Glenn Beck characterized it as a "socialist, globalist, elitist" accord. Inhofe, who annually leads an effort to defund the United Nations, called it the "greatest raid on sovereignty" in his lifetime. Bolton has been lobbying lawmakers to oppose the treaty, despite the fact that just a couple of years ago, he repeatedly advocated for it. Gaffney has formed the Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty, which is stoking fear in the right-wing base over the impact of a multi-national sea accord. Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) has pledged his opposition, explaining, "I'm not going to get in a twit about what the Swiss or Belgians may think about us." Sens. John Sununu (R-NH), Norm Coleman (R-MN), and George Voinovich (R-OH), who all voted for the Law of the Sea in 2004, are now reconsidering their votes in a clear pander to the activists. Even the Republican presidential candidates are chiming in. "Let's stop the Law of Sea Treaty," former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) said recently at the Values Voters Summit, drawing an ovation from religious conservatives.

A TEST FOR PROGRESSIVES: The battle of the UNCLOS treaty is a defining issue for progressives, both because it reveals the failed unilateralist approach and restores the principles of global cooperation. "You have an agreement that's endorsed by a Republican president, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Coast Guard, an overwhelming number of senators from both political parties, business groups, trade associations, and you already have 155 countries that are party to the treaty. It seems like if you can't get that through, I don't know what kind of treaty you can get through the Senate," said Spencer Boyer, director of international law and diplomacy for the Center for American Progress. Scott Paul, who has been spearheading the awareness campaign on the left, adds, "Winning the ratification battle would seriously de-fang the same pugnacious nationalists who are on the opposite side of almost every important foreign policy issue facing the U.S."

There They Go Again

During the "Grapevine" segment of the November 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News Washington managing editor and host Brit Hume asserted: "The Clintons' ability to withhold information from the public extends not just to the Clinton Presidential Library it seems, but also to the University of Arkansas library as well. Four enormous binders of data about the Clinton presidency -- and [Sen.] Hillary Clinton's [D-NY] role in it -- apparently will not be released to the public by the university library before next year's election." However, Hume provided no evidence of "[t]he Clintons' ability to withhold" from the public documents held by the University of Arkansas library. Indeed, as Hume later acknowledged: "The Clinton campaign says it has not had any contact with the University of Arkansas about delaying the release of the papers." In a November 6 ABCNews.com article on the papers, which Hume cited during his report, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper reported: " 'It's not a conspiracy,' [Tom] Dillard [head of the University of Arkansas Special Collections Department] told ABC News. No representative of the Clintons has been in touch with the Library, he said. 'No, absolutely not. No political campaign has been in touch with us. Nor have any individuals been in touch with us asking us to do anything different from what we would normally do.' "

Additionally, Hume claimed:

HUME: Last month, the library said the papers would not be made public until 2009 because they were not yet processed. But the library's annual report for '05-'06 says the processing is, quote, "nearing completion," and, one year later, the library newsletter said the Blair papers were, quote, "previously processed."

While Hume claimed that the university library's newsletter said the "papers were, quote, 'previously processed,' " the newsletter simply stated that university archivist Kerry Jones "previously processed the papers of the late Diane Blair." Tapper wrote that this "implied the job has been completed." However, Tapper also quoted Dillard saying: "All I can say is that was a preliminary estimation and neither of the collections that were reported on are finished, neither Blair nor Congressman Hutchinson's papers"; "They're just not ready."

The newsletter reported:

The Special Collections Department is gearing up to begin processing its largest manuscript collection, the papers of former U. S. Congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt. These records, more than 1,400 boxes of materials, document Hammerschmidt's 26-year tenure as the representative for Arkansas' third district, 1967-1993.

According to Timothy G. Nutt, the manuscripts and rare books librarian in the Special Collections Department, a staff of three processing archivists as well as an intern from the Honors College have been hired to process the collection. Leading the processing is Felicia Thomas, who previously worked on the papers of another former third-district congressman, Asa Hutchinson. Other processors are Kerry Jones, who previously processed the papers of the late Diane Blair, and Case Minor, a history graduate student. Will Puddephatt, an Honors College junior majoring in German and history, will serve as the project intern.

The library's '06-'07 annual report, which appears to cover the time period from June 30, 2006, to June 30, 2007, indicated that library staff worked on the Blair papers during that period:

The Libraries had the assistance of four Honors College interns this year in Special Collections. They assisted manuscript processors in working on various manuscript projects, including the Diane Blair Papers, the John Paul Hammerschmidt Papers, the Fay Jones Collection, the Larry Vonalt Papers, Cynthia Rodes Smith Correspondence, Henry and Katie Wood Collection, John M. Page Correspondence, the 20th Century Club Collection.

From the November 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

HUME: The Clintons' ability to withhold information from the public extends not just to the Clinton Presidential Library it seems, but also to the University of Arkansas library as well. Four enormous binders of data about the Clinton presidency -- and Hillary Clinton's role in it -- apparently will not be released to the public by the university library before next year's election.

ABC News reports the information was compiled by Clinton friend Diane Blair for a book, but Blair never wrote it and passed away in 2000. The Clintons have one copy of the papers, the other's at the university.

Last month, the library said the papers would not be made public until 2009 because they were not yet processed. But the library's annual report for '05-'06 says the processing is, quote, "nearing completion," and, one year later, the library newsletter said the Blair papers were, quote, "previously processed."

The Clinton campaign says it has not had any contact with the University of Arkansas about delaying the release of the papers.

Ann Coulter: The "irreligious" are "trying to stir up trouble with the religious"

On the October 30 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Alan Colmes said to his guest, conservative author and pundit Ann Coulter: "I haven't spoken to you since you made your infamous comment saying that people like me need to be 'perfected,' " adding, "So how about embracing one of the great Christian virtues, as Jesus discussed, humility, and apologizing to all those people you offended by that comment?" Colmes was referring to Coulter's statement, documented by Media Matters for America, on the October 8 edition of CNBC's The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch that "we" Christians "just want Jews to be perfected." Responding to Colmes, Coulter stated: "[I]f you're going to go around citing all the people I have offended, Alan, I have 1,000 Orthodox rabbis supporting me." Later, Colmes asserted: "You claim 1,000 Orthodox rabbis support you. I don't know who they are, but I can tell you, you know the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, and many others have condemned you for that. Do you care?" Coulter responded: "I wear it as a badge of honor. It's like citing the National Organization of Women to tell me how all women feel. The point is: This is the same old fight we see all the time with the irreligious trying to stir up trouble with the religious."

Coulter's response on Hannity & Colmes echoes remarks she made on the October 15 broadcast of Townhall Radio's The Michael Medved Show, where -- as Media Matters documented -- she claimed: "This is just the irreligious against the religious," while responding to criticism surrounding her comments on The Big Story. Coulter made a similar statement later that same evening on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, as Media Matters also documented.

Coulter's assertion that "I have 1,000 Orthodox Jews supporting me" is an apparent reference to an October 15 article published on LifeSiteNews.com -- a "non-profit Internet service dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family" that "emphasizes the social worth of traditional Judeo-Christian principles" -- which quoted Rabbi Yehuda Levin, a spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance for America and the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, saying: "She said nothing that in any way indicates anti-Semitism." The article characterized Levin as a "spokesman for some 1000 orthodox rabbis" and also quoted him as saying: "It is a fact that millions of Christians believe in evangelizing and preaching the gospel and it is their belief for a Jew to accept the tenets of Christianity and accept the divinity somehow completes them and brings them to perfection," and noted that "Levin stressed, 'That's obviously not our belief, that's not the traditional Jewish belief at all.'"

During the show, following Colmes' assertion that Coulter "doesn't want to own up to" her October 8 statement, Coulter said: "I gave a beautiful description of the Old Testament and the New Testament, but it's very frightening to secularists."

Fox & Friends' Doocy reported Obama's "patriotism problems"

During the October 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, while previewing a discussion of a clip of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in which Obama did not place his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem at a campaign event in Indianola, Iowa, co-host Steve Doocy asserted, "First he kicked his American flag pin to the curb. Now Barack Obama has a new round of patriotism problems," echoing an assertion made by the conservative blog NewsBusters. As Media Matters for America documented, during an October 3 interview with ABC-affiliate KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Obama was asked why he was not wearing an American flag pin on his lapel. Obama responded, "[R]ight after 9-11, I had a pin," adding: "Shortly after 9-11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security." NewsBusters noted in an October 20 post that Time magazine had photographed Obama without his hand over his heart during the national anthem, writing, "Turns out that not wearing a flag lapel pin isn't the only way Barack Obama chooses to show he's a different kind of Democrat."

During the segment that Doocy had previewed, co-host Gretchen Carlson asked, "[D]id you know that there is United States Code ... that talks about what your stance and hand-over-heart action should be ... when the national anthem is playing?" Doocy responded that, according to United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10 , Sec. 171, "During the singing of the national anthem, you've got to have your hand over your heart." Contrary to Doocy's assertion, however, 36 U.S.C. § 301(b)(1) (the current section of the U.S. Code dealing with conduct during the national anthem) does not compel the placement of the right hand over the heart during the performance of the national anthem (a requirement that would presumably be unconstitutional). Indeed, according to the code, "During a rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart" (emphasis added). Subsection (b)(2) provides: "When the flag is not displayed, those present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed there" (emphasis added). According to the website usflag.org, 36 U.S.C. § 171 contained the same provisions.

This is not the first time that Doocy has attacked Obama. During the January 19 edition of Fox & Friends First, Doocy asked of Obama, "Why didn't anybody ever mention that that man right there was raised -- spent the first decade of his life, raised by his Muslim father -- as a Muslim and was educated in a madrassa?" as the blog Think Progress noted. As Media Matters for America documented, during the January 22 edition of Fox & Friends First, Doocy issued a clarification: "We want to clarify something: On Friday of last week, we did the story from the Insight magazine where we talked about how they were quoting that Barack Obama, when he was a child growing up in Indonesia, had attended a madrassa. Well, Mr. Obama's people called and they said that that is absolutely false. They said the idea that Barack Obama went to a radical Muslim school is completely ridiculous. In his book it does say that he went to a mostly Muslim school but not to a madrassa."

RNC is Hunting Hillary Clinton

In an October 18 fundraising solicitation, Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Robert M. "Mike" Duncan cited an October 16 article in The Hill to claim: "If you needed further proof that Hillary Clinton will do anything to win, a Capitol Hill newspaper is now reporting that she eavesdropped on Bill's political opponents during his time as Governor of Arkansas." In fact, The Hill did not "now" report that Hillary Clinton "eavesdropped" on her husband's political opponents. Rather, in the Hill article, headlined "GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping," Alexander Bolton reported that "Republicans are focusing on an allegation in a recent book by two Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters, which suggests Clinton listened to a secretly recorded conversation between political opponents." The allegation -- which was sourced to an "[a]uthor interview with former campaign aide present at the tape playing in 2006" -- was first made by co-authors Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. in their book Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown, & Co.), published in June. Contrary to the RNC's claim, the allegation was not made "now" and it was not made by The Hill, which simply reported that Her Way alleges this and did not provide any independent confirmation that the eavesdropping allegation is true. As Media Matters for America has noted, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said on October 16, "This story is categorically untrue."

Politico reporter Ben Smith noted the RNC fundraising solicitation in an October 18 blog post. Quoting the RNC's claim that "a Capitol Hill newspaper is now reporting that she [Hillary Clinton] eavesdropped on Bill's political opponents during his time as Governor of Arkansas," Smith wrote, "Well, not really." He also wrote, "The allegation was reported in passing, and without a named source, in Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta's recent Hillary bio. I'm not sure about other reporters; it caught my eye, and I tried and failed to confirm it with veterans of that campaign. Anyway, it's not really sourced in a way that it could stand on its own, and got scant coverage when the book came out this summer."

As Media Matters for America documented, on October 16, the RNC and state Republicanorganizations highlighted the Hill article, and the Arkansas Republican Party issued a press release that "called on State Attorney General Dustin McDaniel to investigate the fact that New York Senator Hillary Clinton may have eavesdropped and recorded political opponents' telephone conversations while her husband was Governor of Arkansas."

As Media Matters noted, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported (subscription required) on October 17 legal impediments to the Arkansas Republican Party's effort to have McDaniel investigate Clinton's purported eavesdropping. According to the Democrat-Gazette, "There were at least two problems with the complaint, however. The law that [Arkansas] GOP Chairman Dennis Milligan said that now-U.S. Sen. Clinton of New York may have violated [during her husband's 1992 presidential campaign] wasn't on the books until 1993. And the complaint was filed 14 years too late."

The Sad Case Of Debbie Schlussel

In an October 11 post on her website titled "Nice Try, Media Matters Nazis, But Ann Coulter is No Anti-Semite," right-wing pundit Debbie Schlussel claimed that Media Matters for America is "anti-American, anti-Israel, and funded by [philanthropist] George Soros, a Jew who proudly worked for the Nazis rounding up Jews and sending them to their deaths." She also described Soros as "the billionaire atheist Jew who's lived his entire life like a Nazi."

To support her claim, Schlussel linked to an April 18 post in which she smeared Soros (a Hungarian-born Jew who survived the Holocaust) as "a fake Holocaust survivor, who -- instead of 'surviving' the Holocaust -- helped the Nazis perpetrate it." In the same post, Schlussel falsely claimed that Soros has funded Media Matters. In a May 1 blog post, she referred to Media MattersNazi-funded," linking to the same April 18 post. as "

In her April 18 post, she cited David Horowitz and Richard Poe's book, The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic PartyMedia Matters has noted, during the December 20, 1998, edition of 60 Minutes, interviewer Steve Kroft stated: "My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson." Kroft added, "Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews." Soros responded, "Yes, that's right, yes." He did not "brag[] ... of helping his adopted father round up Jews to send them to their deaths." (Nelson Current, 2006) to claim that Soros is a "war criminal and proud Jewish Nazi." Like Horowitz and Poe, Schlussel pointed to Soros' experience as a 14-year-old boy in Nazi-controlled Hungary to suggest that he collaborated with the Nazis. In that post, she claimed that "Horowitz details how Soros bragged on CBS' '60 Minutes' of helping his adopted father round up Jews to send them to their deaths at the camps and confiscate their property." Taking the smear further, she claimed in her October 11 post that Soros personally "round[ed] up Jews and sen[t] them to their deaths." As

Michael T. Kaufman wrote in a biography of Soros, Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire (Knopf, 2002), that Soros' father attempted to protect his family from Nazi persecution by paying an employee of Hungary's Ministry of Agriculture named Baumbach to take in Soros, "ostensibly as his godson." Soros accompanied his "godfather" as he went to oversee the confiscation of property from Hungarian Jews, as Media Matters has noted.

In the October 11 post, Schlussel was responding to controversy over right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's October 8 interview with CNBC host Donnie Deutsch in which she asserted that "we" Christians "just want Jews to be perfected," as Media Matters documented. Schlussel said of the October 8 edition of Deutsch's show, The Big Idea, that "one of the two viewers watching this incredibly boring show was a Media Matters monkey trained to tape Ann's every word and think of ways to twist it."

Schlussel also wrote in her post, "I believe Donny Deutch [sic] was lying about his own religious status" in the interview, and that she "doubt[s] that" he is a "practicing Jew," because "his show is on live during the Jewish Sabbath, and keeping the Jewish Sabbath is the most important commandment for a religious Jew to keep." During the interview, Coulter said to Deutsch: "Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not." Deutsch responded: "I actually am. That's not true. I really am."

Additionally, Schlussel claimed, "True religious Jews are not offended by Ann's comments," and added, "It's only the Jewish libs, like Deutch [sic], who are feigning this shock and outrage. That's because she's a threat to their real religion: liberalism."

Jim Angle And His False Claims

On the October 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle falsely claimed that proposed revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which the House Judiciary Committee passed on October 10, would, for the first time, require the federal government to obtain a court order to intercept the communications of terrorism suspects abroad when they call the United States. Angle asserted that "even requiring warrants for terrorists calling the U.S. from abroad is a major departure, something the law has never required since it was passed some 30 years ago." In fact, with few exceptions, FISA, as originally enacted in 1978, required the government to obtain a court order to conduct "electronic surveillance," which FISA defines in part as "the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States." It was only in August that Congress passed the Protect America Act (PAA), which categorically excludes from FISA's definition of "electronic surveillance" any "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States." The PAA is set to expire in February of 2008.

David Kris, an associate deputy attorney general from 2001-2003 whose "portfolio include[d] national security policy and FISA," noted in a May 2007 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the interception of a landline telephone call between a person abroad and a person in the United States, regardless of whether either of them was the target of the surveillance, would be "electronic surveillance" under FISA if the interception occurred in the United States and would therefore require a court order in most circumstances. Discussing the application of FISA's "electronic surveillance" definition to a hypothetical landline call between two people, A and B, Kris wrote that "[i]t is ... 'electronic surveillance' under [then-]current Subsection (2) [of FISA's definition of "electronic surveillance"] if the contents of the call are acquired from a wire (not a radio signal), whether or not the government is targeting either A or B (or anyone else), as long as at least one of them is in the United States, the acquisition of the content occurs in the United States, and neither A nor B consents."

Angle also asserted that under the proposed FISA revisions, the government would need to obtain a separate court order to eavesdrop on each overseas terrorism suspect because they could call someone inside the United States. Angle reported that "Democrats want to replace the current law with one that would require the NSA to obtain warrants on foreign terrorists if they call someone in the U.S., which Republicans on the Intelligence Committee say is impossible." He then aired a clip of Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) saying: "If I'm targeting you, I don't know who you're going to call next. Are you are going to call an American next? Are you going to call someone in the U.K. next? And I need a warrant for everybody because I don't know who you're going to call next." Angle then asserted that this "[m]ean[s] thousands of court orders would be needed for almost everyone the U.S. wants to intercept, even if they're all foreigners, on the chance some would call the U.S."

During the Special Report "All-Star Panel" segment, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes similarly asserted that the bill "would require for the first time terrorists making calls or sending emails or working on the Internet from overseas, that you would need a warrant if they contacted an American. Well, the problem is, as Heather Wilson, the congresswoman from New Mexico said, 'You don't know when they're going to call Americans or not.' " Host Brit Hume then said, "So, yeah, if you're eavesdropping on somebody and they pick up the phone, you don't know who they're going to call." Barnes replied, "Sure. So you'd have to have a warrant on them -- on these terrorists from overseas, period, because you wouldn't know when they're going to call an American."

In fact, Section 105B of the bill approved by the House Judiciary Committee would allow the government to apply for a single "blanket warrant" that would authorize the government for one year to "acquire the communications" of any person the government reasonably believed to be a non-"U.S. person" (citizens and permanent residents) outside the United States. From the bill:

''SEC. 105B. (a) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General may jointly apply to a judge of the court established under section 103(a) for an ex parte order, or the extension of an order, authorizing for a period of up to one year the acquisition of communications of persons that are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States and not United States persons for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information (as defined in paragraph (1) or (2)(A) of section 101(e) [of FISA]) by targeting those persons.

On October 10, the committee amended the bill to also require that government submit to the FISA court "a description of ... the guidelines" it will use to "ensure" that the government applies for an individualized court order "when a significant purpose of an acquisition [under the "blanket warrant"] is to acquire the communications of a specific person reasonably believed to be located in the United States." The author of that amendment, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), explained in a statement to the committee:

I hasten to add, Mr. Chairman, that neither the bill nor our amendment requires the Government to obtain a FISA order for every overseas target on the off chance that they might pick up a call into or from the United States. Rather, the bill requires, as our amendment makes clear, a FISA order only where there is a particular, known person in the United States at the other end of the foreign target's calls in whom the Government has a significant interest such that a significant purpose of the surveillance has become to acquire that person's communications.

While Angle noted that the bill "would allow blanket warrants that last a year," he did not describe what they would authorize or attempt to reconcile that fact with Wilson's assertion that "[i]f I'm targeting you, I don't know who you're going to call next. Are you are going to call an American next? Are you going to call someone in the U.K. next? And I need a warrant for everybody because I don't know who you're going to call next."

LA Times did not mention that GOP is behind CA electoral-vote initiative

A September 26 Los Angeles Times article reported that a "newly created Missouri company has made the first public donation to date -- $175,000 -- to a proposed California initiative that would alter how the state allocates its electoral votes," referring to a controversial proposal to award California's electoral votes by congressional district. The article continued: "The donation arrived Sept. 11, one day after Missouri attorney Charles Hurth III created the company, TIA Take Initiative America." However, the Times did not note that the initiative was proposed by a lawyer with ties to the California Republican Party and was endorsed by the party's state convention. Nor did the article report that Hurth has donated to the campaign of GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. Indeed, the word "Republican" appears nowhere in the article.

By contrast, a September 25 Sacramento Bee article on Hurth's donation noted that the ballot measure was "written by prominent Sacramento GOP attorney Tom Hiltachk." The Bee also reported that "Hurth is not a major political donor but gave Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani $2,000 in March." Indeed, this information is publicly available.

Hiltachk, who submitted the ballot measure to the California attorney general's office on July 17, is managing partner of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk and formerly served as legal counsel to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), as Media Matters for America has documented. Further, Bell, McAndrews senior partner Charles H. Bell Jr. is general counsel to the California Republican Party.

Hiltachk has played a role in several Republican campaigns to pass ballot initiatives that would benefit that party. He served as counsel to Ted Costa, the former chairman of the Sacramento County Republican Central Committee who filed the petition seeking the 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis (D). Hiltachk also represented and served as a spokesman for Rescue California, a ballot-measure committee that spent $3.6 million promoting the recall initiative. The Bee reported in a July 1, 2004, article that Rescue California "gathered 1.3 million of the signatures that got the measure on the October 2003 ballot." On October 7, 2003, Davis was recalled from office and replaced by Schwarzenegger. Hiltachk also served as treasurer of Governor Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team, a ballot-initiative committee that supported measures to mandaterequire employee consent for the use of union dues for political purposes. judicial redistricting of California's congressional districts and

Further, the September 26 Times article reported that "Kevin Eckery, a spokesman for the ballot measure, said he was not sure who was behind the donation," but did not note, as the Times did in an August 6 article, that Eckery is a "Republican consultant."

CNN's Costello failed to ask NRA's LaPierre about Ted Nugent's slurs against Obama, Clinton, Feinstein

On the September 21 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, contributor and guest host Carol Costello interviewed National Rifle Association (NRA) executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, but she did not ask LaPierre about controversial remarks made by musician Ted Nugent -- an NRA board member -- during an August concert at Anaheim's House of Blues. As Media Matters for America noted, in video footage from the concert, Nugent held what appeared to be two assault rifles and boasted that he told Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "to suck on my machine gun" and said that he told Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "you might want to ride one of these into the sunset." Also during the concert, Nugent called Obama a "piece of shit," referred to Clinton as a "worthless bitch," and called Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) a "worthless whore." Portions of Nugent's remarks were aired on the August 28 and 30 editions of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck.

LaPierre and Costello discussed live remarks by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and taped remarks by Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) to the NRA's "Celebration of American Values" conference.

The National Rifle Association listed Nugent as a member of its board of directors whose term would expire in 2007. As Media Matters noted, according to Nugent's biography on his personal website, he has been a member of the National Rifle Association's board of directors from "1995-present." In addition, Nugent frequently performs at the NRA's annual convention. The AP quoted Nugent speaking at the NRA's annual convention in 2005, urging National Rifle Association members to be "hardcore, radical extremists demanding the right to self defense."