Colorado Media Matters

KNUS host stated that transgender individuals who commit "fraud" about their previous gender identity are "at least gonna get [their] teeth kicked in"

Discussing the case of a transgender woman murdered in Greeley, allegedly by a heterosexual acquaintance, 710 KNUS host Trevor Carey on his March 14 broadcast stated that the victim, Angie Zapata, had committed "fraud" against the suspect by presenting herself as a woman -- and agreed with a caller that this was grounds for physical violence against Zapata or any transgender person who did the same thing. Carey said that "that man didn't deserve to die" and that "the transgender segment of our society needs to be telling their type" that "you don't commit fraud" because "you're at least gonna get your teeth kicked in."

Carey stated that Zapata had "faked a guy into" having "some sexual relations," and claimed that "rage" regarding "the fact that [Zapata] was living as a woman" had "so much to do with the murder."

According to a March 12 article in the Greeley Tribune:

Prosecutors will have to proceed without some key evidence in the murder trial of Allen Andrade.

Andrade is accused of killing Angie Zapata, a transgender woman found dead in her southeast Greeley apartment on July 17. Zapata, 18, was biologically a man named Justin Zapata, but she lived her life as a woman.

Police believe Andrade, 31, of Thornton killed Zapata when he discovered she was actually a man.

[...]

According to a police affidavit, Andrade told [Greeley Police Det. Greg] Tharp he met Zapata on the Internet and that they had arranged a date. The affidavit said he stayed at Zapata's apartment alone while she went out, and he realized Zapata was a man. When Zapata returned later, Andrade confronted her about being a man, eventually hitting her with his fists and knocking her to the ground, the affidavit stated.

Andrade, according to the affidavit, said he then hit Zapata with a fire extinguisher, and later, when she started to wake up, he hit her several more times until she died.

After referencing remarks he made on an earlier program that he said prompted a response from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) national advocacy group, Carey and a caller contended that Zapata had committed "fraud" against the suspect for presenting herself as a woman -- which was grounds, they said, for physical violence against Zapata or any transgender person who did the same thing.

From the March 14 broadcast of KNUS 710 AM's The Trevor Carey Show:

CAREY: Topic B for me tonight is transgenders. Now, you might have heard of the story that happened in Greeley where there was a man who was a transgender who was a man living as a woman; Angie Zapata was his name. Now, I got in a little bit of trouble; the Associated Press states that transgendered are to be referred to as "shes." The Weld County District Attorney's office in this case is referring to this victim as a she.

She faked a guy into, there was some sexual relations. It didn't go all the way, but there was some sexual relations that happened. And when this man found it out that it was another man, he beat the victim. The victim woke up from the beating gurgling blood, whatever, out the mouth. He took a fire extinguisher and finished the victim off. Then stole the victim's car, got caught, I think it was in Denver. Anyhow, he's in jail now. So the big issue is, do we call this individual a he or she?

So in a quote in the Greeley Tribune, I stated that I had said "he," "she," and "victim" all in the same breath almost once; I didn't know what to say. I talked to our news director, and he said, "I'm calling the victim 'the Greeley transgender.' " Of course, I stated in the article that that man didn't deserve to die, but we can't -- the fact that the man was living as a woman is the whole point of the story. It had so much to do with the murder -- the rage.

So then I get a call from GLAAD in Los Angeles from this guy saying, calling in referencing to the referencing of transgenders with the gay and lesbian, blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. And we got into a conversation; I found out, I asked him, "Are you homosexual?" he said, "Yes, I am." I said, "Do you wanna, you know, have you ever had the desire to have your manhood removed?" He said, "No." And I said, "Well, I'm glad to hear you're normal," and, you know, "you don't want to have that removed." I go, "If you were down in Trinidad strapped to a stretcher and they were coming at you with a saw to remove it, would you be screaming bloody murder?" He said, "Of course I would." I said, "because see, that's abnormal."

What you want to do in the privacy of your own life in your own bedroom, go ahead and do it. That's between you and God, whatever. But -- I'm not here to say my sin's worse than your sin, whatever you want to balance it out here. But at least you're normal in the state that you want to keep what God gave you. I think I said "junk in the trunk," and he got offended, but that's what I was saying, you know, you want to keep that.

I said, "Why is it that you guys don't see this as a mental illness? Why do you associate yourself with the transgenders?" 'Cause I got him to say it was abnormal. I said, "So if it's not normal, why wouldn't you want to help these people; there's obviously something going wrong in their head.

So I've invited him on the show; let's hope he comes on the show, 'cause I think that could be some lively discussion. I said to him -- [caller], I'm about to come to you in Littleton here -- but I said to him, "What if I just wanted one day to say, 'Hey, I'm black. My name is Dimitri; I'm black, I want a NAACP scholarship.' " Well, you're not black. Yes I am, because in my mind and in my heart I'm black. This is what he told me the transgender felt -- in his or her mind or heart, they felt like they were a woman, so they should be called a woman.

[...]

CAREY: And what the transgender segment of our society needs to be telling their type is, you don't commit fraud because --

CALLER: No, that's exactly what it was.

CAREY: A), you're at least gonna get your teeth kicked in, and B) -- [caller laughs] -- here's a story from Greeley that turned out very tragic, and you should pay attention to this, because --

CALLER: You know, when I was growin' up in Greeley, I grew up in Greeley, that kind of stuff didn't ever, you know, surface in this town. And it's just sad, you know; my heart just weeps for all, everybody that's concerned. But, you know, we gotta go back to basics. You're a man or you're a woman, and, like you said, if you're fraudin' somebody, then you deserve to have your teeth kicked in. Not necessarily hung or you're killed, but it just -- they shoulda known better, you know?

CAREY: Well, you do know, now, that Governor Ritter paid back the homosexual platform by passing the transgender law now, where a transgender can go into the restroom and use the restroom right next to your daughter?

CALLER: Yes, sir; I read about that, you know. And I was in Black Hawk and Central City, and they have them type of bathrooms up there. It's like: "What the hell am I doin'? Maybe I oughta go out and piss on somebody's car." [Carey laughs] You know? I don't know where I'm safe anymore. Maybe I oughta just be taken to jail for indecent exposure and pay the consequences there rather than --

CAREY: Well, in this economy, [caller], that's three square meals a day; you could get yourself a college degree, if you don't have one already. You could work out. I mean, that's -- what's a health club membership? Seventy bucks a month? You got cable. You got cable. You got, you know, you got some friendship, you know, you develop some --

CALLER: Ah -- no, I want my freedom more, you know? I want to smoke a cigarette when I want, and drink a beer and live my lifestyle the way that, you know, and be a man about things, and man up to it. But you, it all comes down to what you said about fraud.

CAREY: That's right, [caller]; we gotta roll though, buddy. Thanks for listenin' to the show; I appreciate it. [Caller] right there on The Trevor Carey Show, back in a minute.

Interviewing Minuteman Project's founder, KOA news anchors did not identify his organization's links to white supremacists

During their March 13 broadcast of Colorado's Morning News, Newsradio 850 KOA co-anchors Steffan Tubbs and April Zesbaugh interviewed Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist regarding violence among Mexican drug cartels on its border with the United States. But they failed to inform listeners that his organization has described itself as a "citizens' Vigilance Operation monitoring immigration, business, and government" and is best known for volunteer patrols along the U.S.-Mexico border that, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, have drawn support from white supremacist groups.

Further, responding to Zesbaugh's question: "[S]hould the U.S. send in troops?" Gilchrist repeatedly advocated that President Obama "call up Army Airborne Rangers [and] put them into Mexico regardless of Mexico's position on this." Neither Tubbs nor Zesbaugh questioned him regarding the concept of a unilateral U.S. military incursion "into Mexico" or his assertion that "[w]e don't need the permission of Mexico" to launch one.

Colorado Media Matters has documented two instances in which Gilchrist spread false and inflammatory information related to illegal immigration on KOA's sister station, 630 KHOW-AM, including the unsubstantiated and dubious claim that illegal immigrants kill 9,000 Americans each year.

The president reportedly told reporters at a March 11 news conference that he is "reviewing a request from Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) to send National Guard troops to the Mexico border in response to violence triggered by Mexico's fight against drug cartels."

From the March 13 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's Colorado's Morning News:

TUBBS: And this story should pique your interest. You know, this year already more than a thousand people have been killed in Mexico right along the border. Last year more than 5800 people killed in violence, according to official numbers, all involving drug lords and drug wars.

ZESBAUGH: And you've gotta wonder, as that drug problem continues to seep across the U.S. from Mexico, will the U.S. respond and send in National Guard troops, for instance? Let's get into that a little bit more now with a man who lives down there and knows all about it, founder of the Minuteman Project Jim Gilchrist, good morning.

GILCHRIST: Good morning, Steffan and April. Thanks for having me on AM 850 KOA Denver.

ZESBAUGH: What's your take; should the U.S. send in troops?

GILCHRIST: Absolutely. No doubt. Matter of fact, for, twice in the last seven months I've suggested that both presidents -- well, former President Bush and now current President Barack Obama -- seriously consider not only putting troops on the border, but deploying Army Airborne brigades, certain elements of them, into Mexico. We don't need the permission of Mexico to do this when the criminal cartels in Mexico are no different than the Al Qaeda cells in the Mideast that we're striking in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, so on and so forth.

I think Governor Perry of Texas certainly made a good suggestion when he requested at least a thousand National Guard or regular Army troops along the border. I think they need 7500 in Texas, not 1,000; that's only a token display of protection. They need 7500 in Texas and probably about 20,000 across the entire border.

TUBBS: Of course, though, Jim, there's the question of, do we have the man or woman power to do this? It's costing a lot of money and so forth. I wanna play devil's advocate with you.

GILCHRIST: Yes.

TUBBS: You say definitely troops are needed along the Mexico border, but don't you think there are people out there, and -- right or wrong, and maybe as cruel as it sounds -- people here in the country would say: "Well, let them kill each other in Mexico. It doesn't impact me here in the U.S." So how do you answer to that criticism?

GILCHRIST: They have their head in the sand if they have the attitude. It does -- what happens in Mexico does impact our domestic tranquility in the United States. And these criminal cartels who have operated almost with immunity for four decades have literally brought their multi-billion-dollar and their manpower influence to literally govern the country of Mexico, to our detriment. They're also bringing in and causing to be brought in billions of dollars of lethal drugs. They are killing Americans. Of course, they're killing a lot of themselves. Five percent of the Mexican population, I just read yesterday, according to the Department of Justice, are drug users now. Five percent.

The -- and I see them as a clear and present danger to the domestic tranquility and our national security. I don't see any difference between a criminal drug cartel raking in billions of dollars a year from U.S. drug users and Canadian drug users -- I don't see them any different than an Al Qaeda terrorist group. Both of them, their actions result in the same thing -- deaths of Americans.

And I say that the drug cartels and the illegal alien slave-trading cartels that are running Mexico, running its government and infrastructure, are a clear and present danger to the United States, and that qualifies them to be the recipient of our Army Airborne brigaides. And I don't want to sound like I'm way out there; I'm not calling for an invasion of Mexico, I'm calling for precision, surgical strikes against these criminal cartels. Law enforcement both south and north of the border know where these cartels are located; they know who the key players are, and it's time to take them out once and for all and stop this carnage in both countries.

ZESBAUGH: I imagine the Mexicans would love that kind of assistance if it were on the down low. They don't want to hurt tourism any more than it's already been hurt in their country. You got thousands of troops on the border, and don't you think that alerts Americans, hey, this is not a safe place to go?

GILCHRIST: That's correct. And if, as long as the criminal cartels control Mexico, and the violence, and the beheadings, and the Al Qaeda mentality continues to control Mexico, their tourism is going to vanish. Who wants to go into an area that's torn up with violence, terrorism, and a near-civil war? Nobody.

It is in Mexico's best interest -- if they wanna create a Mexican dream, just like we have this American dream in the United States, they have to accept the challenge that you have to exterminate -- yes, I said exterminate -- the criminal cartels, because they are getting more powerful than the government in Mexico, and that is certainly a recipe for the demise of Mexico and all its civility. And it is certainly a clear and present danger to the United States, and if -- how can we go -- let me paraphrase --

TUBBS: We've gotta wrap up too, we've got about 30 seconds left, so go ahead.

GILCHRIST: We cannot ensure democracy and security in the Mideast if we ignore those principles at home, and it is time for President Obama to call up Army Airborne Rangers, put them into Mexico regardless of Mexico's position on this, because we are protecting our own interests and our people, and put them in in surgical, precision strikes against these criminal cartels. And it's long overdue. That's my take.

TUBBS: Jim, you've given a lot of people from your take, a lot of thoughts this morning, and we hope to hear from our listeners. Always good to have you on, and we'll talk to you down the road.

GILCHRIST: Thank you. Minutemanproject.com.

TUBBS: There you go. The president, founder of the Minuteman Project, Jim Gilchrist, how do you feel about it?

7News questioned whether taking private funds for Ritter trade trip was "selling access," omitting that Owens did the same thing

In a segment aired on the March 10 broadcast of 7News at 10 p.m., reporter Tony Kovaleski of Denver ABC affiliate KMGH asked whether using private funds to help pay for Gov. Bill Ritter's November 2008 trade mission to Asia was "saving money, or selling access to Colorado's highest office" without noting that Ritter's predecessor, Republican Bill Owens, also used private funds to help pay for state trade missions. Although Kovaleski later framed the private funding for Ritter's trip as a possible violation of the state's constitutional Amendment 41 -- which did not exist during the Owens administration -- he did not address whether Owens' acceptance of such funding had been "saving money, or selling access to Colorado's highest office."

The report -- a version of which appeared on the KMGH website -- followed a March 9 Kovaleski report that criticized Ritter and other state officials for spending $78,000 in public funds on the November trade mission. In the follow-up, Kovaleski stated that "[e]thics watchdogs also question the money private companies contributed to the trip" while quoting Jenny Flanagan, director of Colorado Common Cause, as doing so and as speculating the funding might violate Amendment 41, which limits private gifts to government officials. In airing clips of his interview with Flanagan, Kovaleski also stated, "Documents uncovered in our investigation raise questions if the 11-day trade mission violated the people's trust in government. The issue centers on the private money that funded travel for public employees."

However, in raising the general question of whether accepting private funding "violated the people's trust in government," Kovaleski never noted that Owens a number of times also accepted private funding to help defray the cost of state trade missions -- and that Colorado Common Cause also had questioned that practice under Owens, even in the absence of Amendment 41.

The Owens administration's use of private funding to defray the cost of trade trips was well-documented by Colorado media. A November 25, 2005, Rocky Mountain News article (accessed through the Nexis database) reported that "private parties" paid "95 percent" of the cost of a trade mission earlier that month to Chile and Argentina:

Earlier this month, Gov. Bill Owens -- along with 46 officials and business executives from Colorado -- flew to South America on a trade mission. From Nov. 9-16, they visited Chile and Argentina, two of the top four South American trading partners of Colorado.

The mission's goal was to further boost business ties between those two countries and Colorado, especially in tourism, mining and high technology. Brian Vogt, the state's economic development director who was on the mission, spoke to the Rocky Mountain News about the trip:

[...]

On who paid for the trip

Vogt: The entire mission cost $100,000. And 95 percent of that was paid for by the private parties. The state paid only $5,000 for it, which was basically for staff support. The mission was a privately driven deal; we had private sponsors for all the major events. [emphasis added]

Further, an April 13, 2005, article in The Denver Post (accessed through Nexis) regarding a trade mission Owens and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper took to Canada also noted private contributions to Owens' trip:

Calgary, Alberta -- Gov. Bill Owens and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper might be considered Colorado's political wonders on trade missions, but their travels this week to Calgary, Alberta, could not have been more different.

Hickenlooper hopped onto a crowded United Airlines flight Monday, avoiding a meandering line of angry United customers by not checking a bag.

The flight included no meal, just soda and pretzels. And its takeoff was delayed for an hour.

Owens, in contrast, boarded a private charter at Jefferson County Airport at noon. He and four state staffers were treated to a three-course meal on the plane, including an entree with crab claws and a dessert tray. Denver financier Pat Broe donated the flight for state officials and other mission participants. [emphasis added]

A September 13, 2003, News article (accessed through Nexis) indicated that Owens also accepted trade mission funding from foreign governments:

Gov. Bill Owens will be heading to England and Scotland on a trade mission in early November, a spokesman for his office confirmed Thursday.

[...]

In addition to London, Owens tentatively plans to stop in Edinburgh and Glasgow, Scotland, during the trip, which is scheduled the first week in November.

Owens will be a guest of the British government, which is picking up the tab for his airfare, hotels, meals and ground transportation. Bob Lee, who heads the state's economic development office, will accompany him. [emphasis added]

Additionally, an April 15, 2001, Post article (accessed through Nexis) quoted Colorado Common Cause as objecting to Owens' having accepted "21 free business and first-class air tickets" worth "$180,176" for a European trade trip:

Gov. Bill Owens accepted 21 free business and first-class air tickets -- worth $180,176 at market rates -- for his recent economic mission to Europe.

They went to Owens, his wife, other state officials, and some of the 34 other public and private executives who participated. Owens said he has no qualms accepting these and other airline freebies to save taxpayer money.

Denver Mayor Wellington Webb on his mission to China this month adhered to a new city code banning such practices. Partly as a result, the cost to taxpayers for Webb's mission looks to be at least three times higher than for the state mission.

State policy, by contrast, allows acceptance of free flights.

The leaders' different approaches emerged as The Denver Post examined spending on their overlapping international ventures. Standards for spending on public-private trade missions are far from set as the missions multiply and gain greater acceptance.

Ethics monitors cry foul on taking free air tickets. "If you're in a position to take action, you should not be taking gifts, period," said Pete Maysmith, director of Colorado Common Cause. Corporations such as Lufthansa, which flew Owens and crew to Germany, offer gifts because "they are looking for something in return. That's the concern, and I think it's a very legitimate concern." [emphasis added]

[...]

In 1988, an executive ethics code established by Gov. Roy Romer, Owens' predecessor, barred executive officials from accepting "any fee, compensation, gift, payment of expenses, or any other thing of monetary value" if acceptance might result in preferential treatment to anyone, "loss of complete independence or impartiality," or the making of a governmental decision outside official channels.

Today state officials can accept free flights if they declare it on their expense forms, said Laurel Alpert, the statistics specialist in Owens' Office of Economic Development and International Trade. Owens said he on occasion has accepted free airline seating upgrades.

Maysmith of Common Cause questioned free upgrades too. "That's a gift," he said. "If the governor wants to fly business class, he ought to decide: Is that a valuable use of the citizens' dollars to do that? The question is, if you or I or any citizen of Denver book some ticket, are they going to coming walking up to us and say, 'Hey, do you want a free upgrade?' It's not going to happen, because we are not decision-makers. The governor is. Taking freebies is inappropriate."

From the March 10 broadcast of KMGH's 7News at 10 p.m.:

ANNE TRUJILLO (co-anchor): A dozen business leaders paid to travel with Governor Bill Ritter for a trade mission to Asia. As a result of an exclusive Call7 investigation, a government watchdog group says that money bought access to the governor and may violate a state ethics law. In tonight's "10:15 Difference," Call7 investigator Tony Kovaleski questions the governor on his use of private funds to help pay for 10 state employees to travel to Tokyo and Beijing. And Tony, last night the governor defended his spending of state dollars, and tonight the questions center on private contributions here.

KOVALESKI: It's how they paid for a portion of the trip here, Anne. The governor maintains that the private money saved taxpayers from paying for the entire trip. The issue: Is this saving money, or selling access to Colorado's highest office?

[begin video clip]

RITTER: I believe that it is important to do the business of this state.

KOVALESKI: Governor Bill Ritter is talking about a controversial trip he and nine state staffers took back in November.

RITTER: I made a commitment to work a lot on economic development, and in the world we live in, that's gonna involve international trips.

KOVALESKI: The governor and state officials spent $78,000 in state money on items like business-class flights and five-star hotels.

RITTER: I believe I can justify all that we did.

KOVALESKI: But the spending of state money isn't the only issue. Ethics watchdogs also question the money private companies contributed to the trip.

FLANAGAN: Here you've got a number of groups spending a good deal of money essentially still buying access to our governor, and that's a problem.

KOVALESKI: Jenny Flanagan is the director of Colorado Common Cause. Three years ago, voters overwhelmingly approved the organization's Amendment 41. It limits gifts to state employees.

FLANAGAN: The purpose of the amendment is to help restore trust in government.

KOVALESKI: Documents uncovered in our investigation raise questions if the 11-day trade mission violated the people's trust in government. The issue centers on the private money that funded travel for public employees.

FLANAGAN: They're buying that one-hour lunch, or in this case, an 11-day trip. That's the kind of access that most Coloradans just don't have.

KOVALESKI: $34,000 of state travel expenses was funded with participant fees and sponsorships from private businesses and others -- about $3400 a person if split equally between the 10 state travelers.

RITTER: Historically, this is how we've done economic development.

KOVALESKI: To their credit, the governor and his staff asked the state Independent Ethics Commission if they could accept the money for the trade trip.

RITTER: The commission actually validates that for us.

KOVALESKI: The commission approved taking the private cash, but required the state to follow specific criteria so that the contributions would not violate Amendment 41.

FLANAGAN: I think there are clearly ethical problems here, and, you know, the guidance from the ethics commission wasn't met in all respects.

KOVALESKI: The commission required that the privately funded travel satisfy a state purpose and that the contributors would not have issues before the governor. Flanagan questioned the state purpose of some travel. Case in point: $3600 from private businesses and others paid for these delegates, including state employees, to tour the Great Wall and the Forbidden City.

FLANAGAN: -- when the trip becomes travel for personal benefits, a junket, if you will, rather than a business trip for the purposes of our state. And that's the line that we want to be careful not to cross.

KOVALESKI: Should he have paid for that with his own personal dollars?

FLANAGAN: Yes, I think that would be appropriate.

KOVALESKI [to Ritter]: You went to the Great Wall, you went to the Forbidden City. How does the state benefit from that part of the trip?

RITTER: The benefit that accrued to the state from this is where I think the focus has to be.

KOVALESKI: Governor Ritter maintains that the private money wasn't a problem. And, he says, it saved taxpayer money.

KOVALESKI [to Ritter]: Sponsorship dollars contributed $3400 per state employee. Why is that not a violation of Amendment 41?

RITTER: It has to do with the fact that the benefit's comin' to the state. It doesn't come to me as an individual; it's not a gift that was contemplated by 41.

FLANAGAN: Here you have private entities who are seeking to influence a governor paying for personal travel. That's not allowed.

[end video clip]

KOVALESKI: We also found that American Airlines allowed the governor and his staff free access into its luxury Admirals Club lounge. A daily pass to the club costs more than $50, and the governor and some staff used the Admirals Club at least two times during the trip. Not huge dollars here, but Amendment 41 is really clear: No more than $50. And that's an issue.

TRUJILLO: So how has the governor's staff reacted to this information you've reported here?

KOVALESKI: Well, no comments today, Anne, on what we reported last night. But after 7News started questioning the apparent gifts, the governor's staff is now reviewing the facts, checking for possible violations, and considering repaying the state on that portion we're talking about at the Admirals Club. Not a lot of money, but the law is clear. That's what Colorado voters wanted, no more than 50 bucks.

TRUJILLO: All right, Tony. Thank you very much.

From the March 9 broadcast of KMGH's 7News at 10 p.m.:

MIKE LANDESS (co-anchor): With Colorado facing a $600 million budget shortfall, Governor Bill Ritter has called for everything from hiring freezes to delayed spending. So when the cost of a recent economic trip to Asia by the governor was revealed, it raised some eyebrows. Tonight on the "10:15 Difference," Call7 investigator Tony Kovaleski takes a closer look at what appears to be a mixed message on where to cut back spending.

KOVALESKI: Mike, it was a trip to secure a direct flight from Japan to Denver and bring new jobs to our state. Now, let's be clear, the $78,000 will not solve the state's current budget problem. The issue is the governor's apparent mixed message. He's now calling for cuts throughout the state, and back in November, the governor and members of his staff traveled in luxury -- to Asia.

[...]

KOVALESKI: It's clear to us the governor's staff knew that people might criticize this mission before it happened. Take a look at this memo written before the governor's trip. It's by his spokesperson; it reads: We need a pretty solid accounting of how much this trip will cost and if it can compare -- if they can compare, rather, this trip to Asias trip by Governor Owens.

Now, while the documents of Owens' trips no longer exist, sources tell us the former governor did not have taxpayers paying for business-class flights. Bottom line: There was a difference.

Conservative "news" website repeated former GOP candidate's misinformation about Apuan's past as protester

In an anonymous March 12 "Staff Report," the "news" website Face the State, operated by conservative activist Brad Jones, claimed that state Rep. Dennis Apuan (D-Colorado Springs) "faces heat" for his 2003 arrest during an anti-nuclear weapons protest at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs. The report parroted misleading criticism of Apuan by News Radio 740 KVOR host and former Republican congressional candidate Jeff Crank, repeating Crank's false suggestion that Apuan was concealing his past by declining to appear on his program.

In fact, as Colorado Media Matters noted after Crank made a similar attack during his March 7 broadcast, Apuan's antiwar activities were known to anyone who read local newspapers: A November 27, 2008, article in The Gazette of Colorado Springs reported, "Dennis Apuan may be best known in Colorado Springs as an organizer of demonstrations against the Iraq war"; a March 9, 2006, Gazette article identified him as a "peace activist"; and a February 13, 2003, article in the Colorado Springs Independent named Apuan as among those arrested in a protest at Peterson.

Further, Apuan was identified in a November 24, 2008, article by the online political news website The Colorado Independent as "a longtime peace activist" who had participated in the annual protest at the U.S. military's School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Ga. Apuan's biography on his personal website identifies him as "a program director and chairman of the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission," and the organization's website states that he has "served on Christian Peacemaker Teams" and "several members have participated in the annual protest at Fort Benning, Georgia."

From the March 12 Face the State Staff Report, "Apuan faces heat for protest arrest":

Freshman state Rep. Dennis Apuan, D-Colorado Springs, is coming face-to-face with his 2003 arrest for trespassing on Peterson Air Force Base during a protest against nuclear weapons.

Radio talk show host Jeff Crank, a Republican, learned of the offense last week and invited Apuan to appear on his show. Apuan declined the invitation and soon afterward House Democratic communications director Katie Reinisch sent out the following:

Statement from Rep. Dennis Apuan (D-El Paso)

Date: Fri, Mar 6, 2009

"Six years ago, long before I was an elected official, I participated in a peaceful prayer vigil at Peterson Air Force Base.

With a group of religious leaders, I peacefully expressed my opposition to the use of nuclear weapons. We had hoped to hand out prayer cards to soldiers and we chose to step over the line marking Peterson Air Force Base property. After just a few feet, four of us were arrested for trespassing. I was sentenced to 48 hours of community service, which I completed at my church teaching Sunday school.

I was peacefully exercising my first amendment rights to free speech."

Despite hosting an extensive array of press releases on his own Web site, Apuan did not include the release there. His site features patriotic themes, featuring a banner of flag waving Americans at the top. Also included is a photo of Apuan standing in front of a black hawk helicopter, which he flew in earlier this year as part of the state's "Military Day" celebration.

Apuan's district includes Fort Carson and is heavy with military personnel and families. His statement did not satisfy Crank, who accused Apuan of hiding behind press people. "The guy is a war protestor," he said. "He should come on my show and make a statement saying he stands by that decision or that it was a long time ago and dumb and now he supports the men and women in the military."

The anonymous author of Face the State's report did not address why Crank "learned of the offense" only in March 2009; various Colorado Springs news reports have documented Apuan's activities as a protester for years, often quoting Apuan himself. Apuan is program director for the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission. He was arrested and charged with trespassing in August 2003, along with three other activists who crossed a boundary line during a protest against nuclear weapons at Peterson. As the Colorado Springs Independent reported:

Looking down from his high municipal court bench, Municipal Court Judge Gary A. Seckman nodded toward 63-year old Esther Kisamore on Monday and told her, "Well, you got your wish. You're going to jail."

Kisamore, a longtime peace activist, was sentenced to seven days in jail last Thursday for trespassing onto Peterson Air Force Base in southeast Colorado Springs while trying to deliver a "prayer card" to the base last Aug. 9. The card was designed to prepare the base for peace, not war, she said.

[...]

On Dec. 6, Kisamore and three fellow activists, Barbara Huber, Dennis Apuan, and Dorothy Schlaeger, appeared in court and claimed their act of trespass was actually "a legitimate call to justice and conscience."

The four belong to a group of local peace activists that regularly subject themselves to arrest for trespassing at Peterson and other local military installations, arguing that their actions are compelled by the Nuremberg Principles, established in the wake of Nazi atrocities committed during World War II.

According to the activists, the principles demand that they intervene against the threat of a nuclear holocaust posed by the stockpiling of combat-ready nuclear weapons like the ones controlled from Peterson. Such weapons, they argue, violate international laws and treaties to which the United States is a party, and which supersede all local and U.S. laws.

That defense argument, however, has rarely been recognized as valid in U.S. courts, and Judge Seckman barred Kisamore, Apuan, Huber and Schlaeger from using it in their trial.

On Jan. 8, Seckman sentenced each of the four to 48 hours of community service.

Post editorial distorted bill regarding unemployment benefits for union members in a lockout

In a March 12 editorial, The Denver Post falsely asserted that a bill (H.B. 1170) regarding unemployment benefits for union workers locked out of the workplace by their employers would "extend[] benefits to workers who initiate the confrontation" and "create an incentive for unions to threaten companies with economic actions, such as walkouts or strikes, without having to bear the cost." In fact, as the Post reported the same day in its news pages, under the bill "employees would be eligible for unemployment benefits" not if they provoked the lockout but "[i]f the state decides management has barred its doors to squeeze concessions from workers."

The summary of the legislation contained in its fiscal note states in its entirety: "This bill allows an employee who is subject to an employer-initiated lockout to receive unemployment benefits." The text of the measure specifies that employees would be ineligible for unemployment benefits if "the lockout results from the demands of employees as distinguished from an effort on the part of the employer to deprive the employees of some advantage that they already possess":

An individual is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits for any week with respect to which the division finds that his or her total or partial unemployment is due to a strike or labor dispute in the factory, establishment, or other premises in which he or she was employed and thereafter for such reasonable period of time, if any, as may be necessary for the factory, establishment, or other premises to resume normal operations. For the purposes of this section, a lockout by any member of a multi-employer bargaining unit shall constitute a labor dispute if the lockout was initiated because of a strike or labor dispute involving any member of the multi-employer bargaining unit. If the unemployment is due to a lockout involving a multi-employer bargaining unit member or otherwise, the individual shall not be determined ineligible unless the lockout results from the demands of employees as distinguished from an effort on the part of the employer to deprive the employees of some advantage that they already possess. [emphasis added]

From the March 12 Denver Post editorial, "Unemployment bill is a stretch":

Sponsored by Rep. Edward Casso, D-Commerce City, the bill would allow union workers involved in "defensive lockouts" to receive unemployment benefits while they're off the job.

In a defensive lockout, for example, a union has threatened some type of action, such as a strike, and management responds by locking them out.

The idea of an unemployment benefit is -- as the phrase suggests -- to assist those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed. As increasing numbers of Coloradans are in need of this temporary assistance, the statehouse has no business handing these funds to unions.

Under current law, those who are "offensively" locked out (meaning the company has locked them out preemptively and without economic cause) already are covered under unemployment benefits.

This law would now cover those in defensive lockouts, forcing businesses to pay for both the union workers, as they fund unemployment insurance, and the temporary workers needed to fill the vacancies.

It would, moreover, create an incentive for unions to threaten companies with economic actions, such as walkouts or strikes, without having to bear the cost.

By extending benefits to workers who initiate the confrontation, government also will, effectively, take sides in the dispute by subsidizing labor.

While locked-out workers may be off the job, they are certainly not "unemployed." They are involved in a labor dispute. Their job is waiting for them when the dispute is over, with, more than likely, a higher salary than when they left.

From the March 12 Denver Post news article, "State may assign fault in labor lockouts":

The state would decide whether management or employees are at fault for lockouts during labor disputes under a bill that passed a House committee Wednesday on a 6-5 party-line vote.

If the state decides management has barred its doors to squeeze concessions from workers, those employees would be eligible for unemployment benefits.

KOA's Newman lied about Obama's answer to NY Times question "Are you a socialist"?

Newsradio 850 KOA's "Gunny" Bob Newman fabricated information about President Barack Obama during his March 10 broadcast, claiming that "The New York Times asked him if he was a socialist, and he really botched the first answer. And then later that day, he had to call back The New York Times to explain his first botched answer." In fact, a March 7 online Times article transcribing the interview and providing the full audio of it showed that when initially asked, "Are you a socialist as some people have suggested?" Obama answered, "You know, let's take a look at the budget -- the answer would be no."

Further, as Media Matters for America has noted, in his follow-up call, Obama criticized the Times' question, stating, "It was hard for me to believe you were entirely serious about that socialist question." Later during the call, the president said, "I think that it's important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we've actually been operating in a way that is entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word socialist around can't say the same."

Newman also questioned, "[W]hen is Obama gonna take responsibility for anything in his life?" then stated to a caller: "Well, he hasn't yet, to the best of my knowledge." He failed to bring up the national news reports of Obama's widely quoted mea culpa, "I screwed up and that's part of the era of responsibility," which followed the withdrawal of former Sen. Tom Daschle as Obama's nominee for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services after revelations Daschle had not paid some back taxes.

From the March 10 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Gunny Bob Show:

CALLER: Hey, Gunny, this is [caller]; I'm from Colorado Springs. I woke up this morning and heard on the radio how Barack Obama was accused of being a socialist and then he wasn't able to back it up, and it's --

NEWMAN: Well, he was asked a question. He, by, The New York Times asked him if he was a socialist, and he really botched the first answer. And then later that day, he had to call back The New York Times to explain his first botched answer.

CALLER: Thank you, Gunny, for clarifying that. The first thing that went through my mind was, we've elected a socialist man who thinks with his emotions; what country do we live in now? The USSA, the United Socialist States of America?

NEWMAN: Well, Obama is, after his first answer didn't fly, his second answer he eventually getting around -- got around to claiming he was not a socialist. And then implied that George Bush might be.

CALLER: Oh, he might be.

NEWMAN: Yeah. Because some, as "Barry" referred to them, some socialist policies were being in place by George Bush. And, but, you know -- my question is, when is Obama gonna take responsibility for anything in his life?

CALLER: I don't think he yet has.

NEWMAN: Well, he hasn't yet, to the best of my knowledge. Maybe on some minor things. But on major stuff, it's, everything else, everyone else was at fault. He's responsible for nothing. And if we don't listen to him, we are doomed. And it's not workin' out well for him so far. Thanks very much, [caller]. 303-713-8585.

I tell you, when The New York Times directly asks the president of the United States if he is a socialist, and the president's first answer causes him to call The New York Times back to fix his first answer with another answer [laughs] -- oh, my God. The New York Times did it. Not me. Not "Gunny" Bob. I didn't ask the man if he was a socialist. The New York Times did. So the question is out there.

KHOW's Boyles aired GOP lawmaker's falsehood that former Gov. Owens "never spent taxpayer dollars" on trade missions

During his March 10 630 KHOW-AM broadcast, Peter Boyles allowed his guest, state Sen. Ted Harvey (R-Highlands Ranch), to claim falsely that former Republican Gov. Bill Owens "never spent taxpayer dollars, and he never took an entourage" when he traveled "to promote trade" with Colorado. In fact, past news reports quoted an Owens administration official and other sources as confirming that Owens also "spent taxpayer dollars" and "took an entourage" when he traveled on state business, contradicting Harvey's purported contrast between Owens' travel practices and those of Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter.

During his conversation with Harvey, Boyles mentioned that KMGH 7News reporter Tony Kovaleski called him the previous day about a trip Ritter took to Asia last November. The KMGH website features a February 20 article in which Kovaleski and KMGH colleague Arthur Kane quoted Harvey criticizing the expense of the trip. The article reported, "While the documents of Owens trips no longer exist in state archives, sources familiar with the trips said Owens never used state money for business class travel on long trips."

Although records from the Owens administration available online appear to be mostly silent on whether the state paid for Owens' trips, a variety of contemporary news reports indicated that taxpayer money funded at least part of several trips for Owens and accompanying state employees. The Rocky Mountain News reported on July 28, 1999 (accessed through the Nexis database), that according to then-deputy press secretary Amy Sampson: "The state's international trade office will underwrite the expected costs of $8,600 for Owens and the five staff members accompanying him" on a trip to Europe:

Owens, on a European trade mission, has made time to discuss international affairs with two political icons: former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

''He really respects both of those ladies,'' said Amy Sampson, the governor's deputy press secretary.

''I know he's met Jeane Kirkpatrick before. It's his first meeting with Margaret Thatcher. The purpose of the trip is to drum up business for Colorado, but it's also a little diplomatic.''

Sampson said she didn't know what Owens discussed with Kirkpatrick and Thatcher.

Owens is leading a delegation of about 35 Colorado business leaders meeting with officials and entrepreneurs on a tour of Britain and Ireland.

The Coloradans have been promoting the state, particularly to high-tech firms, Sampson said.

The business leaders are paying their own expenses, Sampson said. The state's international trade office will underwrite the expected costs of $8,600 for Owens and the five staff members accompanying him, she said.

Before heading to England for the official start of the trade mission on Saturday, Owens flew to France and met Kirkpatrick at her home in Nice. She was ambassador to the U.N. under President Reagan from 1981 to 1985. [emphasis added]

Further, an April 15, 2001, Denver Post article (accessed through Nexis) indicated that an Owens trade mission to Europe that month came partly at taxpayer expense -- even though some costs were covered by tickets Owens accepted as gifts -- and included three other state officials traveling on public funds:

Gov. Bill Owens accepted 21 free business and first-class air tickets -- worth $180,176 at market rates -- for his recent economic mission to Europe.

They went to Owens, his wife, other state officials, and some of the 34 other public and private executives who participated. Owens said he has no qualms accepting these and other airline freebies to save taxpayer money.

[...]

Final accounting on this month's city and state missions is yet to be done.

But it's clear from preliminary city and state reports that Owens' acceptance of free flights minimized state spending. Owens piggybacked the opening of a Colorado trade office in Germany -- Colorado's fourth-largest trading partner - onto inaugural celebrations of Lufthansa's new direct Denver-Frankfurt flights.

State trade officials estimated costs to taxpayers for Owens' five-day mission at $9,355 -- including a side trip by Owens and two senior staffers to visit Colorado National Guard troops in the Balkans, airfare for three state officials who didn't use free tickets, lodging, meals and miscellaneous expenses.

An April 12, 2005, Post article regarding an Owens trade mission to Canada similarly disclosed that it was made at taxpayer expense, and that an entourage of five accompanied the governor at public expense:

Calgary, Alberta -- Top Colorado business and political leaders are getting some northern exposure as a three-day trade mission officially began Monday night.

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper and Gov. Bill Owens arrived in Calgary on Monday afternoon, a day late because of Sunday's blizzard. They'll have a busy three days of promoting trade between the natural resources industries in Colorado and Alberta.

[...]

Hickenlooper's staff estimates the public cost of the trip at nearly $5,000, including airfare for four people, hotel rooms at $100 a night, meals and contributions to a luncheon for Canadian companies. Owens' staff estimates its cost at $3,700 for airfare for six people, hotel rooms of more than $100 a night and meals.

From the March 10 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Peter Boyles Show:

BOYLES: We got Kovaleski, I got a call from Kovo yesterday about this trip to Asia these guys have taken.

HARVEY: Yep. Yep.

BOYLES: And so, yeah, tell that story; that's an interesting story. Kovaleski's gonna come on and join us.

HARVEY: Well, he went to, the governor and 11 of his staff members went to Japan and China to, on a trade mission, and they -- the governor flew in business class and one other person flew business class. And they stayed at the Ritz-Carlton, and they spent over 78, I think 73, $78,000 --

BOYLES: Yeah, I think hand dryer went on that one, too.

HARVEY: -- for a -- oh yes, definitely.

[Boyles laughs]

HARVEY: -- for a 10-day trip to Asia to promote trade with Colorado. Which, that is a legitimate role of the governor, to promote trade to Colorado. But when the previous governor, Governor Owens, did it, he never spent taxpayer dollars, and he never took an entourage. It was only a couple people; maybe the director of the department of economic affairs and one other person. And that was it. But he never spent taxpayer dollars.

BOYLES: Yeah.

HARVEY: And this governor, who, you know, the party of transparency, he's goin' over there with 11 people and spending $73,000 of taxpayer dollars.

BOYLES: [laughs] Kovaleski called me yesterday. Kovo called me up and said, "Hey, Boyles, this is like a classic."

KOA's Rosen allowed Tancredo's false claim that a permanent resident can sponsor "extended family, who then can come in and apply for status for their extended family"

During his March 10 Newsradio 850 KOA broadcast, Mike Rosen allowed Republican former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo to misrepresent U.S. immigration law. Tancredo asserted falsely that immigrants who obtain permanent resident status "can apply for status for all of their family" and specified falsely that "it's not just immediate family. It's extended family, who then can come in and apply for status for their extended family." He further stated, "It's literally hundreds that you provide amnesty for if you give it to anybody." In fact, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website document titled "Immigration Through a Family Member," a lawful permanent resident may petition only for a husband, wife, or unmarried son or daughter.

Colorado Media Matters has documented numerous instances in which the media have allowed Tancredo to make false and inflammatory statements related to immigration.

Contrary to Tancredo's assertion, which Rosen did not challenge, the USCIS states that not even U.S. citizens can sponsor "extended family" beyond spouses, children, siblings, and parents. Further, the USCIS document noted that all sponsors "must prove that they can support [the relative] at 125% above the mandated poverty line, by filling out an Affidavit of Support":

Eligibility

In order for a relative to sponsor you to immigrate to the United States, they must meet the following criteria:

They must be a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the U.S. and be able to provide documentation providing that status.
They must prove that they can support you at 125% above the mandated poverty line, by filling out an Affidavit of Support

The relatives which may be sponsored as an immigrant vary depending on whether the sponsor is a U.S. Citizen or a lawful permanent resident.

If the sponsor is a U.S. Citizen, they may petition for the following foreign national relatives to immigrate to the U.S:
Husband or wife
Unmarried child under 21 years of age
Unmarried son or daughter over 21
Married son or daughter of any age
Brother or sister, if the sponsor is at least 21 years old, or
Parent, if the sponsor is at least 21 years old.
If the sponsor is a lawful permanent resident, they may petition for the following foreign national relatives to immigrate to the U.S.:
Husband or wife, or
Unmarried son or daughter of any age. [emphasis added]

Rosen allowed Tancredo to distort U.S. immigration law while discussing Colorado legislation (S.B. 170) Sen. Chris Romer (D-Denver) introduced to allow undocumented immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition rates to Colorado's public colleges and universities.

From the March10 broadcast of Newsradio KOA's The Mike Rosen Show:

ROSEN: I think that Chris Romer and others that are supporting this bill are assuming that not too far down the road, Barack Obama and the Democrats will revisit immigration -- comprehensive immigration --

TANCREDO: Right.

ROSEN: -- reform and change the law such that someone who's here illegally can get on a path to citizenship.

TANCREDO: That is absolutely true that they are -- that's part of the DREAM Act, it's referred to as the DREAM Act; we always talk about it as the "Nightmare Act" -- but, yes, they probably will try. And what's important to understand that on the federal level when you do this, when you say that you are going to provide amnesty -- because that's what that is, of course; you'd be giving amnesty to any illegal alien here who's gonna go to college. Well, because of the nature of our immigration system -- that is, it is based almost entirely on what they call "family unification" -- that once you allow that person to come in and obtain status, provide -- I mean, be able to be here legally -- they then can, as I say, the way the system works, they can apply for status for all of their family. And it's not just immediate family. It's extended family, who then can come in and apply for status for their extended family. So it is not one person. It's literally hundreds that you provide amnesty for if you give it to anybody. Because, just the nature of our system.

ROSEN: This bill, Senate Bill 170, passed in committee on a 5-3 vote -- all five Democrats voting for it, all three Republicans voting against it. Where does it stand now in the full Senate?

Post editorial distorted proposed measure to repeal Arveschoug-Bird

In a March 10 editorial, The Denver Post characterized Senate Bill 228 as legislation that "would lift the state's 6 percent spending cap" without clarifying that the Arveschoug-Bird provision to which the newspaper referred limits annual growth in appropriations to the state's general fund, not overall appropriations.

As Colorado Media Matters noted after the Post published a misleading guest column attacking SB 228, the Colorado Legislative Council Staff fiscal note for SB 228 states, "The bill will not increase total state expenditures," although "it may change the purposes for which state money is spent."

Two days before publishing the editorial, the Post accurately explained the legislation in an article that provided a "midterm report" on the state legislature:

After a partisan 10-hour debate, the Senate gave initial approval to a bill that would remove the 6 percent annual growth limit on the state's general fund. But the measure, Senate Bill 228, also would eliminate a requirement that revenue exceeding the 6 percent limit be transferred to roads, an idea that Republicans and some House Democrats oppose. Final Senate approval is expected this week.

From the March 10 Denver Post editorial, "A roadmap for the rest of the legislative session":

Then, House lawmakers need to address Senate Bill 228, which would lift the state's 6 percent spending cap. We have long been in favor of asking voters to untie the knots that restrict Colorado's budget, and the spending cap is one of them.

However, we're not sure lawmakers have the legal authority to do this without voter approval.

Plus, just lifting the cap without addressing Amendment 23, which increases K-12 funding based on inflation -- which could skyrocket in coming years -- doesn't solve the state's conflicting budget problems.

In an earlier editorial, we had hoped lawmakers could amend the cap. But rather than descend into partisan bickering over SB 228, we'd rather see a coalition cobbled together to address more than just the spending cap, and to ask voters for approval.

Colorado media kicked off new coverage of EFCA introduction with same old falsehoods

In a March 10 "Staff Report" regarding the planned introduction of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) in Congress, the "news" website Face the State, operated by conservative activist Brad Jones, inaccurately claimed the legislation sought to "eliminate secret union ballots for workers," echoing a false assertion made repeatedly in Colorado by other right-wing media figures and in a variety of news reports. The legislation in fact retains the option for workers to hold a secret-ballot organizing election, while eliminating employers' right to require such a vote.

Denver NBC affiliate KUSA's Gregg Moss also echoed a misleading description of the legislation during a March 10 segment of Colorado's Morning News on Newsradio 850 KOA, stating it "would allow a majority of workers to establish a union at a company by signing cards requesting representation rather than holding a secret-ballot vote." Moss omitted that employees would retain the secret-ballot option and that current law already allows a union that shows it has the support of a majority of workers to represent them if their employer agrees to recognize the union.

From the March 10 Face the State report, "Card Check Bill Could Divide Colorado Dems":

A bill seeking to eliminate secret union ballots for workers has not yet received the full support of all of Colorado's newly elected congressional Democrats.

While Rep. Betsy Markey, a Fort Collins Democrat, has pledged her support as a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, her fellow newly elected Democrats, including Sen. Michael Bennet of Denver, and Rep. Jared Polis of Boulder, have yet to announce whether they will support the controversial Employee Free Choice Act.

"Rep. Markey supports the Employee Free Choice Act. She supported it during her campaign, and she is supporting it now," Markey spokesman Ben Marter told the Fort Collins Coloradoan.

The legislation, conversationally known as "card check" will be considered beginning today in the U.S. House. If successful, it would eliminate the confidential voting process currently afforded to workers faced with contemplating unionization. Under a new system, workers would be required to sign petition cards indicating support or lack of support for unionization.

As Colorado Media Matters has noted, the EFCA would eliminate an employers' right to insist that workers hold an election on whether to unionize; employees still would have the choice of whether to hold such an election. The House Committee on Education and Labor has described the claim that "[t]he Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's 'secret ballot' election process" as a "myth" and states:

The majority sign-up process has been a widely used path to union representation since 1935, but workers may only use the majority sign-up process currently if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act puts that choice in the hands of employees rather than their employer.

Moreover, contrary to the false suggestion of many EFCA opponents, NLRB records indicate that in the overwhelming majority of recent union election cases it has been workers -- not employers -- who have petitioned to hold secret-ballot elections, as Colorado Media Matters has noted.

Additionally, in claiming that the legislation is "conversationally known as 'card check,' " Face the State used terminology frequently employed by EFCA opponents without disclosing it as such.

Numerous Colorado media outlets, commentators, and politicians have parroted the same inaccurate talking point regarding the secret ballot, including 630 KHOW-AM's Dan Caplis and Newsradio 850 KOA's Mike Rosen, The Denver Post, Amy Oliver of 1310 KFKA and the Independence Institute, The Gazette of Colorado Springs, the Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction, and Colorado Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams.

Further, following its well-documented pattern, Face the State's March 10 report used inaccurate wording in a hyperlink to another news organization's article regarding EFCA. In this case, Face the State linked to a March 9 article on Politico covering the pending introduction of EFCA in Congress with text reading, "Under the new system, workers would be required to sign petition cards indicating support or lack of support for unionization." [emphasis added] In fact, nowhere did a phrase indicating workers would be "required" to do anything appear in the Politico piece -- itself misleading -- which stated:

The measure -- widely known as card check and formally as the Employee Free Choice Act -- would allow a union to form after enough workers in a shop sign cards, or petitions, rather than voting by secret ballot.

On KOA, Moss' description of the EFCA echoed that of a March 10 article in which The Wall Street Journal falsely suggested that a secret-ballot election is currently required before workers can form a union. The article asserted that the EFCA "would allow unions to organize workers without a secret ballot, giving employees the power to organize by simply signing cards agreeing to join." In fact, current law already allows a union that shows it has the support of a majority of workers to represent the workers if their employer voluntarily agrees to recognize the union.

From the March 10 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's Colorado's Morning News:

MOSS: Democrats will be introducing legislation today making it easier for workers to join unions, a change opposed by a lot of companies, even big ones like Wal-Mart and Starbucks. The measure known as the Employee Free Choice Act, or the "card-check" bill, would allow a majority of workers to establish a union at a company by signing cards requesting representation rather than holding a secret-ballot vote. Now, unions have made the measure their top goal in Congress this year. Businesses are worried about the impact it will have on the workplace as a whole and the potential increase of doing business.

On KVOR, former GOP candidates criticized Democratic lawmaker's civil disobedience as "just obnoxious" and "ridiculous"

On his March 7 broadcast, News Radio 740 KVOR host and Republican former 5th Congressional District candidate Jeff Crank joined call-in guest Catherine "Kit" Roupe, a former GOP candidate for the state House of Representatives, in criticizing Roupe's former opponent for engaging in peaceful demonstrations and for being arrested for an act of civil disobedience during a protest against nuclear weapons at Peterson Air Force Base several years before winning elective office. Roupe stated regarding the actions of state Rep. Dennis Apuan (D-Colorado Springs): "[T]he fact is, I'm trying to point out it is peaceful today, and then we have a little bit of civil disobedience, and then we have a little bit more civil disobedience, and the next thing you know you have this coercive behavior, do it my way or I'll -- and, fill in the blank."

Crank also criticized Apuan for co-sponsoring House Joint Resolution 1008, "recognizing military personnel from Colorado who are serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom and honoring those who have died while serving their country in Iraq and Afghanistan." Crank stated, "[D]on't go down and protest and step over the line and trespass on property, on federal military installation, and then sponsor a resolution supporting all of those soldiers. It's phony, and it's an absolute, complete fraud."

Moreover, Crank falsely claimed that Apuan "hid" his past and asserted that "if the soldiers and their families and military retirees" in HD 17 "had known that this guy was a war protester," he "wouldn't be servin' in the General Assembly right now." In fact, Apuan's antiwar activities were known to anyone who read local newspapers: A November 27, 2008, article in The Gazette of Colorado Springs reported, "Dennis Apuan may be best known in Colorado Springs as an organizer of demonstrations against the Iraq war"; a March 9, 2006, Gazette article identified him as a "peace activist"; and a February 13, 2003, article in the Colorado Springs Independent, named Apuan as among those arrested in a protest at Peterson.

Crank's guest during the program was Republican state Rep. Mark Waller of Colorado Springs, who stated that his wife worked at Peterson.

From the March 7 broadcast of News Radio 740 KVOR's The Jeff Crank Show:

ROUPE: Well, I really have a problem with Dennis speaking out and protesting. I don't have a problem with his special, his personal rights to be able to have free speech. But in protesting against our military, and protesting and crossing the line like he did at Peterson, that is civil disobedience. That's against the law, as you were so poignant to say. And civil disobedience takes us one step further, and one step further, and one step further. So it is not, as Apuan would put it -- he says he's antiwar, but this civil disobedience, this is war against our very laws that make the fabric of our nation. And so that kind of civil disobedience --"Well, you know, nobody's gonna arrest me; I'm just a little guy out here doin' a peaceful protest" -- that is just obnoxious. And it's ridiculous.

CRANK: Yeah, you know, did this stuff come out during the campaign?

ROUPE: Yes, it did. It did, in fact. And some people think that my pointing out that he has a violent behavior backlashed on me. And the fact is, I'm trying to point out, it's peaceful today, and then we have a little bit of civil disobedience, and then we have a little bit more civil disobedience, and the next thing you know, you have this coercive behavior, do it my way or I'll -- and, fill in the blank.

CRANK: Yeah. Yeah. All right, Kit; hey, thanks for your call; I appreciate it, and thanks for your willingness to serve and to run and all of those things. Look, here's the bottom line: I think that, while he has the right to do that, don't soldiers at Fort Carson and their families have that right to know?

It always amazes me that the left finds it OK to come in and attack George Bush personally over the war. That he was a -- you know, they believe that he was a liar, they believe that he had done all of these terrible things. That's OK. But somehow, someone on the right can't point out that when Dennis Apuan goes out and tries to protest the war -- you know, Mark Waller's wife is a missile launch officer in the United States Air Force, and this guy is out protesting the use of nuclear warheads that she is prepared on his behalf to deliver in case we ever as a nation need to do that. Thank God we've never had to.

But he, Mark Waller doesn't have a right to stand up and defend that? We all have a right to say what we wanna say. My point is this: I think if the soldiers and their families and military retirees in House District 17 had known that this guy was a war protester, guess what? He wouldn't be servin' in the General Assembly right now. He hid that. And I think the fact that he issued a statement to me instead of coming on this show and defending himself proves that this is a guy who doesn't, he doesn't wanna stand up. He's not proud of what he did.

Look, either come on the show and say, "I did it. I'm proud of it. I believe those things." Or come on and say, "You know what, I did it. I'm not so proud of what I did. I've changed my view, and I believe that those soldiers and sailors, airmen and Marines are right in what they do."

And lastly, don't bring up a subject like this. Don't protest; don't go down to the School of the Americas and protest six times -- the U.S. Army School of the Americas -- don't go down and protest and step over the line and trespass on property, on federal military installation, and then sponsor a resolution supporting all of those soldiers. It's phony, and it's an absolute, complete fraud.

Roupe's remark that she had "point[ed] out that he has a violent behavior" apparently referenced her campaign claims against Apuan. According to an October 16, 2008, article in the Independent:

She recently sent out a mailer to thousands of voters accusing her Democratic opponent, Dennis Apuan, of being a "violent, anti-war, anti-military protester." The ad went on to state that as a past director of the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission, Apuan was "responsible for organizing violent protests at home or as far away as New York City," and that he participated in "public protests at family events," and "spends free time protesting political party conventions and family parades."

[...]

For the record, Apuan says he's definitely not "violent" or "anti-military" -- assertions seemingly supported by facts. (A Colorado Bureau of Investigation search reveals no Colorado arrest record for Apuan, and he has openly supported programs to help returning veterans.) Apuan is opposed to the war, and he says the Roupe ad distorts two experiences related to that stance: He carried a banner opposing the war outside the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City, and he marched with peace supporters here in the 2007 St. Patrick's Day Parade.

Apuan, who defeated Roupe for the 17th House District seat by 539 votes, formerly was program director for the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission. He was arrested and charged with trespassing in August 2003, along with three other activists who crossed a boundary line during protest against nuclear weapons at Peterson in Colorado Springs. As the Independent reported:

Looking down from his high municipal court bench, Municipal Court Judge Gary A. Seckman nodded toward 63-year old Esther Kisamore on Monday and told her, "Well, you got your wish. You're going to jail."

Kisamore, a longtime peace activist, was sentenced to seven days in jail last Thursday for trespassing onto Peterson Air Force Base in southeast Colorado Springs while trying to deliver a "prayer card" to the base last Aug. 9. The card was designed to prepare the base for peace, not war, she said.

[...]

On Dec. 6, Kisamore and three fellow activists, Barbara Huber, Dennis Apuan, and Dorothy Schlaeger, appeared in court and claimed their act of trespass was actually "a legitimate call to justice and conscience."

The four belong to a group of local peace activists that regularly subject themselves to arrest for trespassing at Peterson and other local military installations, arguing that their actions are compelled by the Nuremberg Principles, established in the wake of Nazi atrocities committed during World War II.

According to the activists, the principles demand that they intervene against the threat of a nuclear holocaust posed by the stockpiling of combat-ready nuclear weapons like the ones controlled from Peterson. Such weapons, they argue, violate international laws and treaties to which the United States is a party, and which supersede all local and U.S. laws.

That defense argument, however, has rarely been recognized as valid in U.S. courts, and Judge Seckman barred Kisamore, Apuan, Huber and Schlaeger from using it in their trial.

On Jan. 8, Seckman sentenced each of the four to 48 hours of community service.

Post report on Coffman ethics hearing noted ethics group's contention, but not outside evidence supporting it

Reporting on the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission's (IEC) hearing of a complaint against former Secretary of State Mike Coffman, a March 7 Denver Post article attributed an allegation regarding the case solely to Colorado Ethics Watch -- the group that filed the complaint -- without noting that the newspaper's previous reporting and other sources also had substantiated the claim. The Post also stated that Ethics Watch "called only one witness," but failed to mention that the organization had submitted 39 evidentiary exhibits to the IEC, which will consider them along with the March 6 courtroom testimony.

The article by former Rocky Mountain News reporter Lynn Bartels reported now-U.S. Congressman Coffman's testimony that he was unaware Dan Kopelman, an employee of the state's elections division at the time Coffman was secretary of state, "was offering election information for sale on the Live Wires website, and that Kopelman was demoted after the discovery." However, although the article reported that Ethics Watch executive director Chantell Taylor and counsel Luis Toro "maintain that Coffman and Kopelman are longtime GOP allies," it never mentioned the evidence substantiating that claim.

In fact, a May 9, 2007, News article by Bartels herself reported, "Coffman and Kopelman are Republicans and longtime political allies, fueling speculation on blogs and in e-mails about Coffman's knowledge of Kopelman's business." Further, as the Post reported on May 18, 2007:

Secretary of State Mike Coffman announced a strict new policy barring election workers from partisan activity Thursday as political watchdog groups railed at his handling of employee misconduct.

The policy comes almost two weeks after a state election employee -- and Coffman campaign worker -- was accused of selling voter data through a personal website.

[...]

Coffman also acknowledged a "failure of leadership" for not knowing that election worker Dan Kopelman was selling targeted voter lists to Republicans through politicallivewires.com. [emphasis added]

A May 21, 2007, Post editorial also referred to Kopelman as "a state elections employee and Coffman campaign worker."

Bartels' March 7 article also omitted that Kopelman's work as a longtime "ally" of Coffman's was outlined in some of the official state documents Ethics Watch filed with the IEC, including Kopelman's employment record with the Colorado State Treasurer's office -- during Coffman's tenure heading that office -- from which he took a leave to work on Coffman's campaign for secretary of state, plus campaign spending reports detailing money paid to Kopelman's political consulting firm, Political Live Wires.

From the March 7 Denver Post article by Lynn Bartels, "Ethics complaints a 'jihad,' Coffman says":

U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman accused an ethics group of waging a "two-year jihad" against him while he served as Colorado's secretary of state.

Coffman, an Aurora Republican, testified Friday before the Independent Ethics Commission at a downtown Denver office in a day-long hearing, answering questions relating to complaints filed against him by Colorado Ethics Watch.

Coffman, who went to Congress in January, said the "partisan attack" group regularly issued news releases critical of him solely because he was the state's top-ranking Republican.

"It was essentially a two-year jihad ... so they could go back to their donors and say they were doing a good job," he told the commission.

Coffman and other Republicans said the organization claims to be about ethics but really is a Democratic attack group.

Ethics Watch director Chantell Taylor said how the group is financed doesn't change what Coffman did.

[...]

Ethics Watch called only one witness, Coffman's executive secretary, Abby Thomas, who said she regularly received e-mails from Political Live Wires, a business run by then-elections employee Dan Kopelman.

The e-mails provided information about GOP happenings, and Thomas said she went over them with Coffman.

Coffman said he was unaware that Kopelman was offering election information for sale on the Live Wires website, and that Kopelman was demoted after the discovery.

But Taylor and Toro maintain that Coffman and Kopelman are longtime GOP allies, and Coffman had to have known that Political Live Wires was a partisan business.

Criticizing in-state tuition bill, Green column omitted its legal residency provision

On March 8 the Aurora Sentinel published an online syndicated column in which Chuck Green misleadingly stated that under Colorado legislation (SB 170) to grant in-state tuition to undocumented students, "it will be illegal for an employer to hire" the students after they graduate. Green wrote that affected students instead should "[F]or starters, apply for legal citizenship." But he omitted that, as The Denver Post reported March 6, the legislation already contained language "that would require the students to sign affidavits saying they would seek 'legal residency.' "

The Post reported March 4 that SB 170's sponsor, Chris Romer (D-Denver), "said he is adding the citizenship requirement," adding, "The new bill requires undocumented students who get the in-state rate to sign an affidavit stating they will try to become U.S. citizens."

The Post's March 6 article reported on a hearing about the bill held the previous day, after Romer added the affidavit provision. The article included testimony from undocumented high school students:

A Senate committee Thursday approved a bill that would allow illegal immigrants in Colorado to receive in-state tuition despite arguments it was unfair and would provide false hope.

After nearly five hours of testimony and discussion in a hearing room at the Capitol that was packed at times, the Senate Education Committee approved the measure on a 5-3 party-line vote, with Republicans voting no. The legislation now advances to the full Senate.

The committee Thursday heard from immigration-rights groups, advocates of tougher immigration restrictions, veterans and two high school students.

[...]

Two nervous Denver high school students testified that current law was especially painful. The girls, Cecilia Chavez and Ana Galvez, both 17, made emotional pleas for mercy.

"I know we violated the laws when we came here, but some of us were young and had no choice," said Galvez, who was in tears after testifying. "I am a senior. What do I do?"

Romer added language to his bill, which still has no House sponsor, that would deny College Opportunity Fund scholarships to illegal immigrants. The vouchers provide more than $2,000 a year to a full-time student in Colorado.

The lawmaker also added language that would require the students to sign affidavits saying they would seek "legal residency." The affidavit would be considered an educational document protected by federal privacy laws. [emphasis added]

Green quoted Ana Galvez' testimony, as reported in the Post -- "I am a senior. What do I do?" -- and answered her question with the phrase: "For starters, apply for legal citizenship." Green did not note the Post's reporting, sentences after Galvez's quote, that the bill included "language that would require the students to sign affidavits saying they would seek 'legal residency.' "

From Chuck Green's syndicated column, published March 8 on the Aurora Sentinel's website, "Tuition bill does no favors for illegals":

To fully understand the absurdity of a Colorado Senate committee approving a proposal for allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at state colleges, consider this:

After they earn their degrees, it will be illegal for an employer to hire them. If they actually do get jobs with their shiny new degrees, they will be in the country illegally and working illegally.

[...]

"I know we violated the laws when we came here, but some of us were young and had no choice," one of them said in tears. "I am a senior (in high school now). What do I do?"

For starters, apply for legal citizenship. Follow the law. Use your superior American high school education by returning to Mexico, becoming a businesswoman and working your way back to the United States, if that is what you want.

Attacking ethics group, Post's Carroll failed to disclose key facts and his own past criticism of Coffman in ethics case

In his March 7 column attacking Colorado Ethics Watch over its complaint against Republican former Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman, the Denver Post's Vincent Carroll omitted significant factual background regarding the case, despite labeling it a "lurid crusade." Further, Carroll repeatedly ridiculed Ethics Watch for declining to call numerous witnesses during a March 6 hearing -- claiming "[t]he public learned almost nothing of value" from the hearing -- but failed to disclose that the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission (IEC) also is considering voluminous documentary evidence that Ethics Watch had submitted in addition to the March 6 courtroom testimony.

Carroll also omitted that as editorial page editor of the Rocky Mountain News he had published an editorial predating the Ethics Watch complaint that criticized the practices of Coffman -- now a U.S. Congressman -- while in office. Further, in that editorial the News deemed it "surprising" that as secretary of state, Coffman had not taken stronger action against subordinate and politically ally Dan Kopelman, who a state investigation found had been operating a partisan website and a voter data business while working in the state elections division -- a key element of Ethics Watch's complaint.

From Vincent Carroll's March 7 Denver Post column, headlined "Ethics Watch? Hardly":

Will anyone take Colorado Ethics Watch seriously again after its smear campaign against Congressman Mike Coffman imploded at a public hearing Friday?

For the better part of two years, Ethics Watch has held up Coffman, who was secretary of state during most of that time, as its emblem of political "corruption" -- a term evoking images of envelopes stuffed with cash and favors for sinister cronies. The left-wing group even elevated Coffman to the top of its "First Annual Corruption Report," saying he "leads the list of offenders with his egregious pattern of unethical conduct."

On Friday, this lurid crusade culminated in a hearing before the state's new Independent Ethics Commission -- and expired in whimpering anticlimax.

[...]

Ethics Watch didn't merely fail to prove its accusations against Coffman. It hardly seemed to try. As Coffman's attorney, Doug Friednash, noted in his opening statement, Ethics Watch didn't bother to call any of the witnesses who presumably should have been critical to its case.

[...]

The attorneys from Ethics Watch were similarly stymied in trying to prove that Coffman knew a supervisor in the elections division had been running a small (very small, apparently) political business on the side. Coffman had never seen or heard of Dan Kopelman's partisan website before the story broke, the congressman insisted over and over under oath, explaining that he'd considered Kopelman an activist who sent out mass e-mails on his own time regarding political events.

How could the ethics commission possibly declare Coffman a liar without any compelling testimony refuting him? Are they prepared to blacken his reputation on a hunch? Such a verdict would be grotesque.

The public learned almost nothing of value from Friday's hearing, except for the sheer recklessness of the Ethics Watch charges. A state auditor's report in late 2007 already had established that Kopelman broke personnel rules before being slapped down by Coffman, and that Coffman "shares responsibility for these violations." Those conclusions weren't even in dispute.

"Ethics Watch has the burden of proof," Friednash said. "Mr. Coffman doesn't have to prove anything."

Ah, but Ethics Watch did prove something with its limp performance before the commission: Its vitriolic campaign against Coffman was a noisy travesty and an exercise in the politics of destruction as opposed to a genuine drive on behalf of good government.

In attacking Ethics Watch's motives and its allegations, Carroll omitted that a U.S. District Court judge on February 27 had rejected Coffman's lawsuit seeking to have the ethics complaint dismissed as "frivolous" and beyond the IEC's jurisdiction. Coffman's lawsuit followed the IEC's refusal on February 2 to grant his request to dismiss the complaint -- a fact Carroll also omitted.

Although he repeatedly argued that in its attorneys' questioning, Ethics Watch "fail[ed] to prove its accusations against Coffman" or were "stymied" in trying to do so, Carroll failed to disclose that in its February 13, 2008, complaint, Ethics Watch had filed 39 evidentiary exhibits with the IEC to substantiate its complaint and that the commission is considering that evidence as well as the courtroom testimony. Among the evidence that Carroll failed to disclose the IEC would consider are findings from an official state audit of Coffman's office; state documentation of Kopelman's work for Coffman political campaigns, as well as his operation of a partisan side business while working for the elections division; campaign reports showing Kopelman's political affiliations with Coffman; and state e-mails documenting Kopelman's activities and his communications with Coffman related to his side business.

Moreover, in identifying Kopelman only as "a supervisor in the elections division," Carroll also omitted his own newspaper's reporting and editorializing that Kopelman in fact was a "political ally" of and former campaign worker for Coffman. In addition to state documents Ethics Watch entered into evidence to substantiate that description, the Post reported on May 18, 2007:

Secretary of State Mike Coffman announced a strict new policy barring election workers from partisan activity Thursday as political watchdog groups railed at his handling of employee misconduct.

The policy comes almost two weeks after a state election employee -- and Coffman campaign worker -- was accused of selling voter data through a personal website.

The new policy restricts workers who are directly or indirectly involved with elections from endorsing, opposing or working for a political candidate or a statewide ballot initiative. The extent of permissible political involvement is registering to vote with a party affiliation.

Coffman, who took office in January, said the policy should have existed years ago.

"I was stupid for not coming out with a list of policies on Day One," he said.

"Failure of leadership"

Coffman also acknowledged a "failure of leadership" for not knowing that election worker Dan Kopelman was selling targeted voter lists to Republicans through politicallivewires.com.

The Republican secretary said he knew Kopelman was politically active but "thought he would step away from that" after he was hired in the elections division. [emphasis added]

A May 21, 2007, Post editorial also referred to Kopelman as "a state elections employee and Coffman campaign worker."

Besides the factual omissions regarding the IEC complaint, Carroll's March 7 column contrasted with an unsigned editorial the News published on May 11, 2007 -- when Carroll was its editorial page editor -- criticizing Coffman for not "tak[ing] special pains to make sure Kopelman quit his voter data business while working in the elections division" and arguing that Coffman's claim at the time that "he didn't know about Kopelman's Web site until it was brought to his attention the other day" was "somewhat surprising."

In his March 7 column, Carroll wrote, "Coffman had never seen or heard of Dan Kopelman's partisan website before the story broke, the congressman insisted over and over under oath," but did not address his former newspaper's previous position that this lack of knowledge was "surprising."

From the May 11, 2007, Rocky Mountain News editorial, "Second-job scandal; Secretary of state's worker crosses the line":

It's no secret that elected officials often award jobs to people who helped them get elected. Like it or not, politics and government are joined at the hip.

But both the official and the employee have to make sure that ongoing political work doesn't overlap or conflict with the job that is supposed to be done for taxpayers.

Secretary of State Mike Coffman is learning this lesson the hard way. He's been scrambling to protect himself from the fallout over the fact that one of his employees, veteran political aide Dan Kopelman, got caught with a Web site promoting a voter information service he was running on the side.

Kopelman had been a supervisor in the elections division, working on the recertification of election machines. He's not anymore. Coffman moved him into a nonsupervisory position in the information technology division, a transfer that cost Kopelman $9,240 a year.

Was that offense egregious enough to justify firing? Coffman doesn't think so, a conclusion made easier by the fact that Kopelman enjoys civil service protection. It makes firing a lengthy and difficult procedure.

Kopelman had run his political business before, when he was working for Coffman in the state treasurer's office. Coffman knew it but says it didn't conflict with the business of the treasury.

Many government employees have second jobs, just as workers in the private sector do, and there's nothing wrong with that so long as rules are obeyed.

But selling voter information definitely conflicts with work in the elections division, even if it's done after-hours. Coffman maintains an internal investigation revealed that Kopelman didn't access or sell voter information, but he's called in the state auditor's office to check further. If it turns out that Kopelman did exploit his job, then further discipline would be required.

Coffman said he didn't know about Kopelman's Web site until it was brought to his attention the other day. That's somewhat surprising, but even more surprising is that he didn't take special pains to make sure Kopelman quit his voter data business while working in the elections division. The Web site was especially offensive since Kopelman had updated his biographical information to note that he was in fact working for the secretary of state. [emphasis added]

KOA's Newman asserted "the Obamanista regime" could lead to "absolute despotism"

During his March 5 Newsradio 850 KOA broadcast -- which he titled "Counter-Revolution and the 2nd American Civil War: Could the Nightmare Come True?" -- "Gunny" Bob Newman repeated debunked claims while smearing President Obama as "a classically trained Marxist" and asserting he has done "damage to us and the Constitution."

As Newman stated during the broadcast, the premise of the evening's "poll question" suggested that Obama might follow "his ideological comrades, like [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez, [former Sandinista leader and Nicaraguan President Daniel] Ortega, and [Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel] Castro" and transform the United States into "a socialist state, with all-powerful government that subjugates the people." Newman asserted that "absolute despotism [could] take place within four years" and stated that many people are "rightfully" worried "[h]ow we're gonna survive the Obamanista regime" and "[w]hether the Constitution will survive."

After asking what "other options" aside from revolution "we have in preventing him from installing his utopian socialist state," Newman answered his own question by stating, "We have some tools, gang. We have the ballot box."

As Colorado Media Matters noted after Newman called the president "a sick freak" and a "Marxist" during his January 26 broadcast, and after Newman labeled him a "pathological liar" on December 2, Newman stated during a broadcast days after the 2008 election that in the run-up to the 2010 and 2012 elections, conservatives "cannot, let's say, exaggerate. We cannot use only fear as a catalyst to action."

Among other smears, during his March 5 broadcast Newman repeated the debunked claim that Obama intends to create a "civilian military force -- this private army that may people describe it as." Further, echoing distorted reporting and commentary on Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget, Newman asserted falsely that Obama's economic program includes a "trillion dollars in new taxes ... on top of the ones we already have." In fact, as Media Matters for America's Jamison Foser noted in a March 6 column referencing figures from the nonpartisan group Citizens for Tax Justice, while it is true that over 10 years Obama's plan would collect nearly $1 trillion in additional taxes from "the small number of people who make more than $200,000," the "plan cuts taxes for the vast majority of Americans."

From the March 5 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Gunny Bob Show:

NEWMAN: Let me read ya email here [reading]. Gunny, given that the U.S. attorney general has already stated -- excuse me -- has started his campaign to make gun ownership very difficult, going so far as demanding the right to come into your house to see if your guns are properly stored, and given that Obama wants to start a civilian army, and add to this that Obama is extremely egotistical and will not take the loss of his agenda lying down, I'm very fearful that the civil war is coming.

By instant message [reading]: Gunny, you are proof that God's most perfect creation is a U.S. Marine gunny. I am now a former Marine, a recently honorably discharged captain of Marines and am now home in Colorado Springs. Thank you for ringing the truth. Semper fi.

You've got it, Skipper. And, hold on -- got some more here. [reading] Gunny, I predicted exactly what is happening now before the election, that Obama would spend trillions of dollars to decimate the economy, just like Juan Coron did in Argentina. Everything that he's doing is a planned attack by Obama on America to destroy our capitalistic economy and financial system so he can put all his Marxist dreams into place when everyone is desperate, in shock, and in panic. This is a step-by-step planned attack.

You got that right, [emailer]. And finally, from [emailer]: Hey, Gunny, if -- and it's a big if -- the country does not get to the, does get to the point of a revolution, and the government is overthrown, then what? This is just as scary as citizens against each other in armed conflict.

[Emailer] is thinking ahead. Then what?

[...]

NEWMAN: Let's say in four years --

CALLER: Mmm-hmm.

NEWMAN: Let me be more clear.

CALLER: OK.

NEWMAN: Let's say four years from now -- just under four years from now; you know, we're comin' up on the next election. Say it's October of 2012 --

CALLER: Mmm-hmm.

NEWMAN: -- OK? And we've lost a lot of our rights. We don't have the freedom of speech that we had. We don't have the freedom of religion that we had. We don't have the freedom to bear arms. Obama does create his civilian military force -- this private army that many people describe it as. And we are taxed into the grave. You know, we just passed a trillion-dollar tax increase.

CALLER: Yes.

NEWMAN: OK. Our founding fathers, of course, would never have accepted that. But they didn't go to war just for taxes. There was a whole bunch of things.

CALLER: Oh, right. Sure.

NEWMAN: So we have to look at the composite -- very, very important. And when you look at how the Congress is now, if in 2010 --

CALLER: Mmm-hmm.

NEWMAN: -- the leftists maintain control of both houses in the Congress and Obama is still the president, they can do a lot of damage to the Constitution, to our rights.

CALLER: Yeah.

NEWMAN: Could absolute despotism take place within four years? Yes. But everything would have to go their way. Everything. And I don't think everything is going to go their way. I mean, some things -- they're bound to lose some of the fights.

CALLER: Yeah.

[...]

NEWMAN: Today's poll question: If Obama goes the way of his ideological comrades, like Chavez, Ortega, and Castro, and America becomes a socialist state, with all-powerful government that subjugates the people, will you flee the country, accept the new form of government, or obey the commands of our founding fathers? Go to the Gunny Bob pages. They're on 850KOA.com. Cast your ballot.

[...]

NEWMAN: Before we go back to the phones [reading an email]: Hey Gunny, I've been listening this evening; great topic. As a patriot and a person who loves this country and hates to see what we are becoming and where we are going, I believe that at some point we will have to stand up and take our country back. I know that Obama and the swine that control him are hearing our voices and disgust. I believe the government will light the fuse by declaring martial law. Then it's going to be ugly.

Mmm. Two words that have struck fear in the hearts of so many people around the world: martial law. 303-713-8585. I see those two words have your attention.

[...]

NEWMAN: And when the Cold War ended, when the Soviet Union decided to throw in the towel -- I still remember when that happened. When I'm drivin' my truck and I'm listenin' to the news and the announcer's goin', "Well, the Soviet Union just collapsed." And I'm saying, "What is this, like a Saturday Night Live skit? What are you talkin' about? Soviet Union just collapsed -- yeah, right, pal. And it was true. But it goes to show you that countries come and countries go. Some fall by an attacker from without, from outside. Others fall from within. Sometimes countries fall without a shot being fired from within. And that may very well be Barack Obama's plan -- to create his socialist utopian state without a shot being fired. 303-713-8585.

[...]

NEWMAN: Yeah, there are a lot of people mad right now, extremely worried -- and rightfully so -- about where our rights are going, where our government is heading. How we're gonna survive the Obamanista regime. Whether the Constitution will survive. But the man's been in office a month and a half. Has he done damage? Yes, yes. He's put us trillions and trillions of dollars deeper into debt. Is he fully intent on taxing us in ways that our founding fathers would not tolerate? Yes. A trillion dollars in new taxes comin' down the pike. A trillion dollars in new taxes. That's on top of the ones we already have. You know how our founding fathers felt about that.

But what other options do we have right now to recover from Barack Obama? To prevent him from doing more damage to us and the Constitution? What other options do we have in preventing him from installing his utopian socialist state? Remember, you're dealing with a classically trained Marxist here. We have some tools, gang. We have the ballot box.

On KOA, Independence Institute's Caldara again called Obama "Jimmy Carter with a tan"

Repeating the racially tinged remark he made during the 2008 election campaign, Independence Institute President Jon Caldara on the March 5 broadcast of his Newsradio 850 KOA program referred to President Obama as "Jimmy Carter with a tan."

Caldara repeated the comment in falsely claiming that "in The Wall Street Journal, op-eds are saying the same thing." Caldara referenced a March 6 guest op-ed in the newspaper (subscription required) by Michael J. Boskin, a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution and former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush. But contrary to Caldara's statement, Boskin's comparison of Obama to Carter did not include any racial element:

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.

As Colorado Media Matters pointed out previously, on the July 10, 2008, broadcast of public television KBDI Channel 12's Independent Thinking, Caldara parroted other conservative commentators by stating that he perceived then-Sen. Barack Obama "as Jimmy Carter with a tan." Caldara also has referred to Obama on the air as being "Marxist of center" and as voting "like a communist."

From the March 5 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Jon Caldara Show:

CALDARA: Let me give you this little bit -- hm-hm-hm-hm-hm: That Barack Obama would somehow lead from the economic center has come to a very quick end. Let me give you this line by Michael Boskin; he's with the Hoover Institute. I love this: "The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of the past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown."

What I love about this was, wait a second. Didn't I say that a few months ago too, before the election? Obama will be Jimmy Carter with a tan. And now in The Wall Street Journal, op-eds are saying the same thing. Why doesn't it feel so good to be right?

Hosting right-wing think tank fellow, Rosen repeated economic stimulus misinformation

Parroting a Republican talking point, Newsradio 850 KOA host and Denver Post columnist Mike Rosen misled his radio audience during a March 5 conversation with James Manzi, senior fellow at the "market-oriented" Manhattan Institute, by claiming again that economic stimulus funding "isn't needed anymore" once the current recession officially ends. Rosen did not disclose that economists including Congressional Budget Office director Douglas W. Elmendorf have said that fiscal stimulus in 2011 or later -- when CBO projects the recession will have ended -- would be effective given projections that economic output will remain below its potential long after the technical beginning of the recovery.

As Colorado Media Matters noted when Rosen previously suggested that stimulus spending "in 2011 and beyond" would be ineffective, Elmendorf stated in his January 27 written testimony before the House Budget Committee that unlike during ordinary "periods of economic weakness" that "are fairly short-lived," the "CBO projects that economic output will remain significantly below its potential for several more years, so policies that provide stimulus for an extended period of time may be appropriate." From Elmendorf's testimony:

Timing. The economic effects of fiscal stimulus should occur during the period of economic weakness, all else being equal. When, as now, a recession is clearly already under way and aggregate demand is declining, it is better if stimulus affects spending quickly in order to mitigate further deterioration in the economy. Different types of policies may differ greatly in how quickly they can be implemented.

Because most periods of economic weakness are fairly short-lived, it is generally preferable that stimulus policies be short-lived. Currently, however, CBO projects that economic output will remain significantly below its potential for several more years, so policies that provide stimulus for an extended period of time may be appropriate. Indeed, a fiscal stimulus that ends before the economy has started to regain its footing runs the risk of exacerbating economic weakness when the stimulus ends. [emphasis added]

Likewise, in a January 27 blog post, New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman wrote that, because of the particular circumstances of the current economic situation, it would not be a problem if "some or even most" of stimulus spending occurred after the recession technically ends. Krugman explained that "in modern recessions, unemployment keeps rising long after the [National Bureau of Economic Research] has determined" that "the recession proper is over."

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moodys.com, similarly noted that the economy would remain soft and unemployment relatively high after a technical recovery, predicting in a January 6 report that even if real GDP returned to its 2008 level by 2012, unemployment would still remain over 9 percent if fiscal stimulus were not implemented. Zandi predicted that if a stimulus plan of at least $750 billion were passed, GDP would reach its 2008 level in 2010 and that unemployment would fall back to "close to 5% by late 2012."

From the March 5 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show:

MANZI: And so in a typical recession, as we've experienced since World War II, exactly what Dick Morris described is what typically happens. So as you bounce back out of the recession, employment starts going back up, people start spending a lot more money, and it's right then that the stimulus money gets dumped onto the fire.

ROSEN: When it isn't needed anymore.

MANZI: Exactly. In fact, it's counterproductive at that point.

CALLER: And then they pull back, I presume, at that point, and that --

MANZI: Not usually, that's the problem with it, actually, because the government is committed to the spending, so now they do it. And all it does is raise inflation on the back end of recovery, in the back end of a recession.

ROSEN: Now, the Fed --

MANZI: It's unclear we're gonna have a recovery any time soon.

ROSEN: The Fed would have you believe that they're sensitive to this, and at exactly the right time they're going to effect a shift in monetary policy and tighten up, which, of course, only means that we're borrowing from future demand today, and the kind of growth -- if the Fed has this magic device -- the kind of growth that we would have later on, we'll have less of in the future as we try to smooth out the current economic downturn.

MANZI: That's right; the CBO put out a report in the last day or two, in fact, showing even -- the Congressional Budget Office projects exactly this effect. There's no way around the fact that even in the best possible case, when you run a stimulus program you are borrowing from the future in order to make your, you know, downturn a little bit less bad today.

KHOW'S Caplis again falsely characterized EFCA as a "bill to take away the secret ballot"

On his March 4 broadcast, 630 KHOW-AM's Dan Caplis repeated the common conservative talking point that the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) would "take away the secret ballot." In fact, as Colorado Media Matters has noted repeatedly -- including after Caplis made the same claim about the legislation on January 21 -- the EFCA would eliminate employers' right to insist that workers hold an election on whether to unionize; employees still would have the choice of whether to hold such an election.

Numerous Colorado media outlets, commentators, and politicians have parroted the same inaccurate talking point, including The Denver Post, Amy Oliver of 1310 KFKA and the Independence Institute, and Colorado Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams.

As The New York Times reported, "Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization." Moreover, as Media Matters for America also has pointed out, supporters of the EFCA say employers often use the election process to delay, obstruct, and intimidate workers in an effort to resist organizing efforts.

The House Committee on Education and Labor has described the claim that "[t]he Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's 'secret ballot' election process" as a "myth" and states:

The majority sign-up process has been a widely used path to union representation since 1935, but workers may only use the majority sign-up process currently if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act puts that choice in the hands of employees rather than their employer.

Contrary to the false suggestion of many EFCA opponents, NLRB records indicate that in the overwhelming majority of recent union election cases it has been workers -- not employers -- who have petitioned to hold secret-ballot elections. For example, of the 91 union election cases it closed in January (the most recent month for which records are available), 74 of the elections were initiated by a "petition filed by an employee or group of employees, or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf, for an election to certify a representative for collective bargaining in an appropriate unit." Only one was initiated by a "petition filed by an employer alleging that a question concerning representation has arisen and seeking an election for the determination of a collective-bargaining representative." The other 16 were initiated by a "petition filed by employees alleging that the union previously certified or currently recognized by the employer as their collective - bargaining representative no longer represents a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit and seeking an election to determine this."

NLRB figures showed similar trends in union election cases closed in October, November, and December 2008 as well.

Caplis misrepresented the EFCA after noting that U.S. Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO) reportedly has said she will co-sponsor the legislation after it is introduced in the current Congress.

From the March 4 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show:

CAPLIS: And then now, Betsy Markey -- hey, the news: Betsy Markey is gonna co-sponsor the bill to take away the secret ballot for Colorado workers, and so -- we tried to get her on, of course. We've never been able to. I think she and Michael Bennet are really the only phantoms right now. Everybody else seems to find their way onto this show. But it'll be interesting. It'll be interesting to see how something so indefensible flies with Colorado voters.

KHOW's Boyles, caller laugh about sending illegal immigrants back with "automatic weapon" and "the address of where Vicente Fox lives"

Peter Boyles during his March 5 630 KHOW-AM broadcast joined a caller to suggest arming Mexican immigrants and sending them to assassinate Mexico's former president, Vicente Fox. Boyles and the caller laughed during the exchange, which Boyles initiated with the statement: "Honest to God. I have a friend that I just love who has this line: Every illegal that you capture in America ... Get 'em an automatic weapon and send 'em home."

It's not the first time Boyles has advocated or promoted guests who advocated violence against Mexicans or other Hispanics while on the air. As Colorado Media Matters documented, Boyles on his April 25, 2007, program directed listeners to a YouTube video featuring "a guy who calls himself, interestingly enough, 'The Amazing Racist.' " In the video, a comedian who calls himself "The Amazing Racist" physically attacks and slurs "Mexicans." [note: explicit content]

Boyles also frequently has hosted Los Angeles radio talk show host Terry Anderson, who on Boyles' November 15, 2006, program during a discussion about Elvira Arellano -- an illegal immigrant who was trying to use a Chicago church as a sanctuary to avoid deportation -- said, "I'd drag this broad out of there by her hair." Boyles responded, "Our guest is one of the true greats."

From the March 5 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Peter Boyles Show:

BOYLES: This is all Orwellian right now. I mean, The Denver Post has become "Newspeak." And Remember in Brave New -- not in Brave New World, but in 1984 --

CALLER: Right.

BOYLES: -- there was Newspeak.

CALLER: George Orwell.

BOYLES: Yeah, and --

CALLER: Which was really started out as 1934.

BOYLES: That's right. Very good.

CALLER: They -- 48, I'm sorry. They changed --

BOYLES: That's right.

CALLER: -- they inverted the numbers.

BOYLES: The Orwellian Newspeak. And so now when we have terms like "undocumented student," and when the undocumented try and get the in-state rate --

CALLER: You know --

BOYLES: And that's all very Orwellian.

CALLER: Why don't we do this? Why don't we all go down to where the penisularos -- the peninsularos are living like Pashas.

BOYLES: Yeah, they are.

CALLER: Off of the money that should be helping their own people. They're here because they're trying to do what I would do. If I was trying to make a living and I couldn't do it, I would try to find a way to do it. I would give anything if we could give them guns --

BOYLES: Well, you know --

[crosstalk]

BOYLES: Honest to God. I have a friend that I just love who has this line: Every illegal that you capture in America --

CALLER: Send 'em a gun.

BOYLES: Get 'em an automatic weapon and send 'em home. [laughs]

CALLER: Right. And about maybe two or three thousand rounds, and then give 'em the address of where Vincente Fox lives.

BOYLES: Throw it over. Throw it over. [laughs]

CALLER: I mean, because it's not right. I understand why, and I don't think they'd want to leave their families any more than I would want to leave mine, but you got to do what you got to do. And I'm not justifying it, because I understand.

BOYLES: Me too.

CALLER: But I know this, if I knew that somebody was starving me, and I knew -- have you ever seen that little mouse that's sticking its finger up as the bird?

BOYLES: The bird gets it. Yeah. The last act of --

CALLER: That'd be the last -- [laughs]

BOYLES: The last act. [caller], thanks.

KOA's Newman falsely claimed Obama supports "open borders" with Mexico

On his March 3 Newsradio 850 KOA broadcast, "Gunny" Bob Newman misrepresented President Obama's position on border security, claiming that Obama is "an open-borders globalist" who "has stated he's not going to" secure the United States' borders. In fact, the White House Web page outlining the administration's Homeland Security agenda contains an entry titled "Improve Border Security," elaborating that the administration will "[s]upport the virtual and physical infrastructure and manpower necessary to secure our borders and keep our nation safe."

Newman also repeatedly asserted that the Department of Defense (DOD) has warned Obama in a report that "if we don't get control" of violence among drug cartels in Mexico, "we will be facing here in America a narco-terrorist insurgency." Newman appears to have confused the Department of Defense with the Department of State, which on February 27 issued the 2009 edition of its annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report. According to the Associated Press, the report stated that violence among the cartels "has spilled over across the border into the United States." Recent public statements by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates contradict Newman's assertions. Moreover, contrary to Newman's suggestion, the State Department report indicated continued U.S. cooperation with Mexican President Felipe Calderon to secure the border and implement other counternarcotics programs:

The Road Ahead. The U.S. will continue to support President Calderon's efforts and jointly seek ways to more effectively utilize counternarcotics programs, intelligence, and judicial tools to confront drug trafficking organizations. The U.S. encourages Mexico to press forward with the legal and institutional reforms to its judicial system and security forces, and to continue its anti-corruption efforts. A comprehensive security and judicial system that ensures integrity at all levels will help ensure that advances in other areas are successful. The United States also encourages closer cooperation between our counternarcotics and border security forces in order to enhance intelligence and evidence sharing and effectively close smuggling routes.

For its part, the USG will offer significant cooperation in the coming year under the Merida Initiative-- a partnership between the governments of the United States, Mexico, Central America, Haiti and the Dominican Republic to confront the violent national and transnational gangs and organized criminal and narcotics trafficking organizations that plague the entire region, the activities of which spill over into the United States. The Merida Initiative will fund a variety of programs that will strengthen the institutional capabilities of participating governments by supporting efforts to investigate, sanction and prevent corruption within law enforcement agencies; facilitating the transfer of critical law enforcement investigative information within and between regional governments; and funding equipment purchases, training, community policing and economic and social development programs. Mexico signed a bilateral agreement with the U.S. for Mérida Initiative assistance on December 3, 2008. [emphasis added]

From the March 3 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Gunny Bob Show:

NEWMAN: The DOD says if we don't get control of the situation, we will be facing here in America a narco-terrorist insurgency. We've never seen one of those before. Never have. And the DOD says it's coming. They've told the president this. The president apparently has no comment. At least I haven't seen any commentary; have you? Have you heard what his plan is to prevent this disaster from happening? I haven't heard anything. Not a word out of the man. Why? Because he doesn't want to draw attention to the real problem down there. He's a pro-illegal alien amnesty. He's an open-borders globalist. And therefore this DOD report goes against his ideology on the matter.

Now, what do you think is gonna win out here? Barack Obama's ideology, or the Department of Defense tellin' the president: "Hey, you're the commander in chief. Ya better do something about this, or a lot of Americans are gonna die." 'Course, his ideology will win out. He'll flip off the DOD -- thinks they're morons anyway -- and, well, you know, it doesn't go with my plan. And you better check in with Janet Napolitano, because she's on board with my plan. She's the Homeland Security secretary.

[...]

NEWMAN: I think you'll agree with me, [caller], that we have to take the multi-pronged approach on this. Because it is a multi-pronged, or a multi-faceted problem, we have to have a multi-pronged attack. And that's one thing, and, but -- all of our efforts would be for naught, especially when we look at the cartels and the threat that they present to us, is -- the first thing we have to do is secure our border. And our last president wouldn't do it. The president before him didn't. The one before him didn't. The one before him -- they won't secure our border, and our current one has stated he's not going to, either.

[...]

NEWMAN: What will our president do now that the Department of Defense has informed him that if we don't do something about this situation -- given our open borders and America's insatiable demand for illegal narcotics, like cocaine, heroin, meth, marijuana, so on -- we will have a narco-insurgency here. It's in the pre -- is it a true insurgency now, I mean, to the full-blown, you know, I mean, people are dying every day en masse in America like they are in Mexico? No. The DOD report says it could get that way.

What was Obama's response? Apparently nothing. I've seen no new -- no statements released. He didn't make any statements; he didn't issue any, that I am aware of at least. And he is still pro-open border, pro-amnesty for illegal aliens, and anti-war on drugs.

Gates commented on the drug-related violence in Mexico during a March 1 interview on NBC's Meet the Press with host David Gregory. Contrary to Newman's suggestion, Gates' comments did not indicate concern that "we will be facing here in America a narco-terrorist insurgency" as a result of which "a lot of Americans are gonna die." From the Department of Defense transcript of the interview:

MR. GREGORY: We've got a few more minutes, and I want to go through as quickly as we can some other really important topics. The first is Mexico, a major threat on the border with Mexico because of a widening drug war there. The Economist magazine wrote this startling synopsis, and they call it "Who's in charge? The police chief in Ciudad Juarez, on Mexico's border with America, resigned after drug gangs, who had murdered his deputy, threatened to kill one of his officers every 48 hours until he quit." What's going on there, and how big of a national security threat is this for the U.S.?

SECRETARY GATES: Well, I think that what is important is that President Calderon of Mexico, perhaps for the first time, has, has taken on the battle against these cartels. And because of corruption in the police and so on, he sent the federal army of Mexico into the fight. The cartels are retaliating. I think we are beginning to be in a position to help the Mexicans more than we have in the past. Some of the old biases against cooperation with our -- between our militaries and so on I think are being set aside.

MR. GREGORY: You mean providing military supporting?

SECRETARY GATES: Providing them with, with training, with, with resources, with reconnaissance and surveillance kinds of capabilities; but just cooperation, including in intelligence. But it clearly is a serious problem, and, and -- but what I think people need to point out is the courage that Calderon has shown in taking this on, because one of the reasons it's gotten as bad as it has is because his predecessors basically refused to do that.

A March 1 Associated Press article about Gates' Meet the Press interview noted that Calderon was the first foreign leader with whom Obama met upon becoming president-elect. The AP reported that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said the two leaders agreed during a meeting shortly before the election "to work together to stabilize the border."

Gates praised Mexican President Felipe Calderon for taking on the cartels and sending the Mexican army into the fight.

"What I think people need to point out is the courage that Calderon has shown in taking this on, because one of the reasons it's gotten as bad as it has is because his predecessors basically refused to do that," he said.

President Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said Obama and Calderon agreed to work together to stabilize the border when they met shortly before Obama's inauguration. Calderon was the first foreign leader Obama met as president-elect.

A U.S. report has found that weapons in the drug killings are coming from north of the border. Mexican authorities are outgunned by the drug cartels because the criminals are receiving their high-powered arms from the United States, Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday.

Emanuel said the two nations have a mutual interest in securing their common border. [emphasis added]

Further, contrary to Newman's claim that the secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, is "on board with" Obama's purported plan to ignore border security, in February 25 testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Napolitano stated that she had "issued a series of action directives to assess the current functions of the Department and help target areas for improvement." She reported to the committee on the action directives to address "Border Security, Immigration, Employment Verification, and Enforcement":

Border Security, Immigration, Employment Verification, and Enforcement -- I issued a number of directives related to border security and immigration. Among the directives, I requested an assessment of past border security assistance by National Guard and Department of Defense assets. I issued a directive to measure employer compliance and participation with the Department's E-Verify program and ways that DHS has worked both to reduce false negatives in order to protect the rights of Americans and to strengthen the system against identity fraud. I issued directives to assess the status of the Department's worksite enforcement programs, fugitive alien operations, immigration detention facilities, removal programs, and the 287(g) program. I asked for an assessment of the situation of widows and widowers of U.S. citizens who had petitioned for the alien spouse's immigration, but whose petitions were not adjudicated before the citizen spouse's death. I issued a directive to assess Department programs to combat border violence and drug smuggling, and as a result, DHS is considering ways to better engage partners and increase the effectiveness of these programs. I also issued a directive that assessed our northern border strategy. Through that directive, DHS is considering cases where, because of climate and geography, some specialized technology may need to be developed or modified in order to protect the northern border while mitigating unnecessary impacts on our extensive trade with Canada. [emphasis added]

The March 1 AP article also reported that during the previous week Napolitano testified to Congress "that the drug-related violence in Mexico was a top priority and that she was working with other U.S. agencies to end weapons trafficking and to support the Mexican government."