In 1987, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) — then a lobbyist for a Namibian uranium mine — testified before the Utah State Senate in support of a resolution backing the apartheid government in South Africa. Flake, a sixth-term GOP congressman and current Arizona senate candidate, opposed sanctions on the segregationist Botha government — largely to support U.S. interests in the mineral rich region. According to Flake:

FLAKE: If the government of South Africa falls, it depends on how it falls if it did fall. If it fell to radical elements from the left, then this could happen, and that is a fear of many people. We would be deprived of a share of an economic source of these vital minerals. As far as the economic sanctions having a … more direct impact on the black community, I overhear we tend to think of every black South African as a radical stone-throwing protestor who will stop at nothing until the government is overthrown. There are moderate elements there. There have been a lot of polls taken both ways. Most of them come out with about, that there are more moderates, considered moderate, than there are radicals. Those are funny terms and most of them aren’t moderate, they just don’t care one way or another or they don’t know about the situation. [Sanctions have] had a dramatic impact on the black population, the biggest impact is that the companies pulling out, the American companies pulling out…

Listen:

A former Nazi sympathizer, P.W. Botha ruled apartheid South Africa as Prime Minister from 1978 to 1984, and then as state president until 1989. He oversaw state terrorism, war, and murder, once ordering police to blow up the Johannesburg offices of anti-apartheid groups. Hundreds of thousands of activists — including future President Nelson Mandela — were imprisoned during South Africa’s 40-year apartheid regime. Faced with the kind of U.S. economic pressure opposed by Flake in 1987, Botha’s apartheid regime eventually crumbled as the rand’s value collapsed.

Utah’s anti-sanctions resolution — which justified that its business-first position was meant to protect South Africa’s black population — supported Botha’s apartheid regime in order to ensure precious metal distribution continued without a hitch. The resolution read in part, “Without a dependable and economic source of these minerals, many industries in the United States and the free world would be severely impacted and the cost of these manufactured items is greatly increased.”

At the 1987 hearing, Democratic Sen. Karl Swan argued that the resolution Flake was lobbying for seemed to place American access to goods over social reform and human rights. This past weekend, Flake vehemently denied ever supporting apartheid, calling it “offensive” and an “awful system.” He has yet to comment on the matter since the transcript of this 1987 testimony surfaced.

– Steven Perlberg

(HT: Buzzfeed)

For more than two years, Republicans in Congress have wanted to impeach President Obama.

Every few months, they come up with creative new rationales to justify their desire to prematurely remove Obama from office, ranging from his immigration policies to birther hysteria to conspiracy theories about Arctic islands.

ThinkProgress has compiled the top ten reasons why Republicans have proposed impeaching President Obama:

1. To get Obama’s birth certificate. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) suggested that Congress use the threat of impeachment to force Obama to show his birth certificate. [10/13/10]

2. “Giving away” seven Arctic islands. Wes Riddle, a Texas congressional candidate, is peddling a bizarre conspiracy theory that Obama gave away seven Arctic islands to Russia. Despite the fact that the treaty ceding these islands was ratified by the Senate in 1991, Riddle said he will push to impeach Obama over the matter. [6/22/12]

3. Obama’s new immigration policy for undocumented students. Allen Quist, a former state representative running in Minnesota’s 1st congressional district, said that he would lead the impeachment charge against Obama for the president’s new immigration policy that would prevent one million undocumented students from being deported. [6/26/12]

Read more

When the Obama administration announced last week that it would invoke executive privilege and not release some documents related to the “Fast and Furious” operation, Mitt Romney’s campaign was quick to call the president a hypocrite. But in 2007, Romney endorsed a similar move by a Republican administration.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul attacked the Obama administration’s executive privilege claim last Wednesday in a statement, saying “President Obama’s pledge to run the most open and transparent administration in history has turned out to be just another broken promise.”

But as Congress sought to compel President George W. Bush’s administration to allow Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to cooperate with an investigation into the U.S. Attorney’s scandal, Romney could not have been more forceful in his support for the executive privilege claim. Asked by a conservative radio show how whether he agreed with President Bush’s decision to simply ignore the subpoenas, Romney said:

Yeah, he’s got a responsibility to protect executive privilege. That’s just part of preserving the powers of the presidency… He should do what he thinks is the right thing with regards to members of his team but preserve executive privilege.

The Bush administration asserted “deliberative process privilege” in that case — the same privilege being cited here for the Department of Justice “Fast and Furious” documents.

A Republican congressional candidate in a competitive district is promising to try to impeach President Obama because of his new immigration policy protecting one million undocumented students from being deported.

Allen Quist, a former state representative running against Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN) in Minnesota’s 1st congressional district, told a town hall late last week that Obama’s recent immigration policy, as well as his decision not to defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act, were both unconstitutional. While some Republicans would cautiously leave the matter there, Quist pressed on, declaring that Obama had committed an impeachable offense. If elected, he promised he would “not only propose it, [he] would argue it to the utmost of my ability and [he] would carry it like a banner to the American public.”

QUIST: When Richard Nixon was threatened with impeachment, one of the articles of impeachment was violating the Constitution of the United States. So is this an impeachable offense? Yes. Whenever the Constitution is violated, it is an impeachable offense. [...]

QUESTIONER: Would that be something you would propose amongst your fellows there?

QUIST: I would not only propose it, I would argue it to the utmost of my ability and I would carry it like a banner to the American public.

Quist isn’t the only Republican currently floating impeachment as a response to Obama’s directive to protect one million children of undocumented immigrants from being deported. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) told a radio show this morning that “impeachment is always a possibility.”

New polling from Virginia’s 7th Congressional District, one of the more reliably conservative districts in the country, shows surprising vulnerabilities for Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, especially on the issue of women’s health.

In the poll from from Harrison Hickman obtained exclusively by ThinkProgress, voters say they would support a pro-choice candidate over a candidate who is pro-life by an unexpectedly large margin, 68 percent to 23 percent. The finding comes after intense media coverage of efforts by state Republicans to mandate transvaginal ultrasounds prior to obtaining an abortion, a procedure described by critics as “state-sponsored rape.” The resulting backlash from women in Virginia forced Governor Bob McDonnell (R) and his allies at the statehouse to moderate their efforts.

Eric Cantor has a 100% rating from the National Right To Life Committee.

The poll also calls into question Republicans’ scorched earth policy when it comes to working with the Obama administration. Fifty nine percent of voters say they would support a candidate who works with President Obama some of the time compared to just 32 percent of respondents who say they would vote for the candidate who opposes virtually everything proposed by the White House, as Cantor and the rest of the GOP have insisted upon for much of Obama’s first term.

And asked about Cantor specifically, voters disapprove of his handling of government spending, health care and reigning in the budget deficit, three key issues that Cantor and House Republicans have campaigned heavily on since 2008.

While Cantor is not among Republicans who are considered at risk by political prognosticators, 43 percent of voters would replace Cantor compared to just 41 percent who would reelect him. Cantor is running against Democratic Wayne Powell, a 30-year army veteran and moderate Democrat who is still relatively unknown in the district.

Mitt Romney senior adviser Carlos Gutierrez dodged repeated questions about the candidate’s position on Arizona’s controversial SB 1070 immigration law during an appearance on CNN Tuesday morning — just one day after the Supreme Court invalidated its key provisions and reiterated that the federal government has authority over immigration policy.

Instead, Gutierrez blamed President Obama for failing to lead on the issue and reiterated that Romney believes states should be given more latitude to enforce immigration laws. He refused to say if Romney actually supports the law:

SOLEDAD O’BRIEN (HOST): Does Mitt Romney support SB 1070, yes or no?

GUTIERREZ: Soledad, it’s a little bit more complicated –

O’BRIEN: It’s not.

GUTIERREZ: But what the governor has said and made a statement yesterday, he supports the right of border states to do what they have to do according to the law –

O’BRIEN: Does that include — does that include stopping and detaining anyone and check the immigration status of that person, if they have reasonable suspicion if the person is in the country illegally? [...]

GUTIERREZ: This is not about Governor Romney –

O’BRIEN: It is if he wants to be president…I want to know what his position is.

GUTIERREZ: His position is that we have a mess and need a national policy.

Watch it:

Romney was far more direct about his support for SB 1070 during the GOP presidential primary. At a CNN debate in February, the former Massachusetts governor said that the state’s law should serve as “model” for the nation and promised to drop the federal government’s challenge to the law, adding, “just as Arizona is finding out, you can stop illegal immigration. It’s time we finally did it.”

He initially refused to opine on the Court’s decision on Monday, but later told funders, ” I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states not less.”

This weekend, Pennsylvania Republican House Leader Mike Turzai (R-PA) finally admitted what so many have speculated: Voter identification efforts are meant to suppress Democratic votes in this year’s election.

At the Republican State Committee meeting, Turzai took the stage and let slip the truth about why Republicans are so insistent on voter identification efforts — it will win Romney the election, he said:

“We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature.

“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

Watch it:

Voter identification efforts disproportionately affect low-income voters of color, a typically Democratic demographic. Despite insistence by Republicans that the efforts are needed to prevent misconduct on election day, voter fraud is less likely than being hit by lighting.

Mitt Romney has issued a statement responding to the Supreme Court’s decision striking down provisions in Arizona’s controversial immigration law (SB 1070) without saying if he agrees with the ruling. The former Massachusetts governor sticks to generalities, calling on the president to lead on the immigration issue:

“Today’s decision underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration. This represents yet another broken promise by this President. I believe that each state has the duty–and the right–to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities. As Candidate Obama, he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office. But 4 years later, we are still waiting.”

During the Republican presidential primary, Romney said that the state’s measure should serve as “model” for the nation. He promised to drop the federal government’s challenge to the law, adding, “just as Arizona is finding out, you can stop illegal immigration. It’s time we finally did it.”

Earlier this week, Samuel Wurzelbacher — known to most as Joe the Plumber — posted a campaign ad on YouTube that sought to blame gun control laws for human atrocities, including the Armenian genocide of the early 1900s and the extermination of 6 million Jews during World War II.

Amazingly, Wurzelbacher kept digging. Yesterday in an interview with the Toledo Blade, Wurzelbacher defended the ad by denying he ever mentioned the Holocaust:

“All I said was gun control was implemented, and then governments proceeded to violate human rights,” Mr. Wurzelbacher said. “Nowhere did I mention the Holocaust or was I even talking about it.”

Let’s go to the videotape:

Apparently, Wurzelbacher can’t find any references–explicit or otherwise–to the Holocaust in the lines “In 1939, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 6 million Jews and 7 million others, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.” Worse, he goes on to blame “the liberal media” for pointing out the obvious–and deeply offensive–Holocaust reference.

His campaign spokesman Phil Christofanelli told the paper that the story was “generated by left-wing liberal blogs and picked up by the ‘sympathetic liberal media.’” Jewish groups were swift to condemn the ad, as were Democrats and the overwhelming majority of viewers on YouTube. As of publication, the ad has been viewed almost 50,000 times and most of the feedback has been negative.

For good measure, Christofanelli expanded on the ad as well, adding slavery to the list of atrocities that can be traced back to gun control. “Well, blacks weren’t allowed to own guns in the South, that’s a historical fact as well,” he told Politicker on Tuesday.

Republican lawmakers in states like Georgia, Texas and Wisconsin have spent the last several months introducing — and, in some cases, passing — laws designed to suppress largely Democratic voters ahead of the general election.

Nowhere have these efforts advanced further than in Florida, where Governor Rick Scott has defied the Department of Justice’s order to cease his highly controversial and ineffective voter roll purge, in which hundreds of eligible voters — including many Latinos and self-identified Democrats — have been booted from the rolls.

All of this has succeeded in politicizing the most impregnable institution of democracy: elections.

The Herald-Tribune in Sarasota, Florida reports that election supervisors, long considered dull administrative desk jobs with little to no influence on policy, have become hotly contested jobs attracting political heavyweights in some counties along the state’s West Coast:

• In Sarasota County, three-term county commissioner Jon Thaxton, a Republican, is challenging supervisor Kathy Dent.

• In Manatee County, state Sen. Mike Bennett, a Bradenton developer known for antagonizing Democrats in Tallahassee, is banking that his decade of name recognition will help him succeed retiring supervisor of elections Bob Sweat.

• In Charlotte County, former four-term county commissioner Adam Cummings is looking to unseat first-term incumbent Paul Stamoulis.

• In Hillsborough County, former state Rep. Rich Gloriso, a Republican, passed up an opportunity to run for the state Senate to instead run for supervisor of elections.

The trend is troubling, and could perhaps signal the next front in an ever-expanding political battlefield. Already, a handful of isolated Election Day incidents—most notably Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus’ botched 2011 special election in Wisconsin—have stirred controversy.