When Is Cheney Going to be Indicted?

TheHill.com - Reports: Cheney discussed Plame leak

Former Vice President Dick Cheney talked with White House officials about how to handle the fallout from the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson in 2003, according to media reports.

Scooter Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, was convicted of perjury, lying to federal investigators and obstruction of justice in 2007 for his role in the leaking of Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak. Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, had publicly criticized the Bush administration for citing claims that Saddam Hussein's Iraq attempted to purchase nuclear materials from Niger, despite Wilson's own CIA-sponsored research debunking the evidence.

Cheney has denied any involvement in the Plame leak.

This man is a liar and has committed treason. Why is Cheney still on the loose?

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Caribou Barbie Bugs Out

Sarah Palin Says She Will Resign as Alaska Governor - NYTimes.com

Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska abruptly announced on Friday that she was quitting at the end of the month, shocking Republicans across the country and leaving both parties uncertain about whether she was leaving national politics or laying the groundwork for a presidential run.

Why would she run for President? Palin has demonstrated that she is clearly not competent for Federal office. I think the only reason she was elected governor of Alaska is that she is attractive, and there are a lot of really lonely guys up there in the Great White North.

No, Sarah--stay home and enjoy your grandchildren. You'll only make more of a fool of yourself if you continue with this political nonsense.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

EFF Demands Public Release of FBI Surveillance Rules | Electronic Frontier Foundation

EFF Demands Public Release of FBI Surveillance Rules | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Washington, D.C. - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit against the Department of Justice today, demanding the public release of the surveillance guidelines that govern investigations of Americans by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The FBI's Domestic Investigative Operational Guidelines went into effect in December of 2008 and detail the Bureau's procedures and standards for implementing the Attorney General's Guidelines on approved surveillance strategies.

"The Attorney General's Guidelines are troubling, allowing for open investigative 'assessments' of any American without factual basis or reasonable suspicion," said EFF Senior Counsel David Sobel. "The withholding of the Operational Guidelines compounds our concerns. Americans have the right to know the basic surveillance policies used by federal investigators and how their privacy is -- or is not -- being protected."

The FBI's general counsel has acknowledged that "the expansion of techniques available [to the Bureau] has raised privacy and civil liberties concerns." Investigations can include the electronic collection of information from online sources and computer databases, as well as the use of grand jury subpoenas to obtain telephone and email subscriber information. Other recent policy changes allow the FBI to engage in free-ranging investigation of Internet sites, libraries, and religious institutions.

EFF's lawsuit comes after the Department of Justice failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for a complete copy of the Domestic Investigative Operational Guidelines. The suit demands the immediate release of the guidelines, as they are being withheld in violation of federal law.

"These policies have been in effect for more than six months and could have great impact on ordinary Americans' lives," said Sobel. "The FBI must follow the law and release these guidelines to the public."

For the full complaint:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/FBI_guidelines/fbi_diog_complaint_fina...

Contact:

David Sobel
Senior Counsel
Electronic Frontier Foundation
sobel@eff.org

At least somebody somewhere is trying to restrain the FBI!

While the courts have been reticent about privacy rights, I believe that the right to privacy is inherent in the Bill of Rights. The FBI and other 'security' agencies continue to use fear and paranoia in an ongoing effort to investigate whoever they please for whatever reason they please.

This must be stopped!

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Mo' Money?

Under Senate health care plan, either way you pay - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – First you paid to insure your car. Soon you may have to add health insurance premiums to that stack of monthly bills as well.

In a revamped health care system envisioned by senators, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face fines of more than $1,000.

This is not why I vote Democrat. Damn it--health care is a basic human right! Nobody should be fined for not having insurance!

The details were unveiled Thursday in a health care overhaul bill supported by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines would raise around $36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage. Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties than individuals.

Called "shared responsibility payments," the fines would offset at least half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation. The goal is to nudge people to sign up for coverage when they are healthy, not wait until they get sick.

A $1K fine is one helluva nudge!

I have had enough! America deserves a single-payer system. No more nonsense from the insurance industry--we must force Congress and the President to provide health care for all!

Blogged with the Flock Browser

[Fwd: Closer than ever]

A policy that punishes people for being HIV-positive is close to being repealed. But we need to make sure it actually happens. Help eliminate this discriminatory policy once and for all! It's one of the ugliest remnants of discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS – hurtful, obsolete, and wrong. A decades-old policy BANS nearly every foreign person with HIV from setting foot on U.S. soil. But that could change very soon. President Obama's Department of Health and Human Services has finally proposed ending the ban. Starting today, the public has 45 days to weigh in. And the right wing certainly will. We need to show broad support for ending this discriminatory policy. We shouldn't punish people for being HIV-positive! Help the Obama administration follow through and end the ban. This draconian ban tears apart families, denies American businesses access to talented workers, and bars tourists from supporting our economy. It bans students and researchers. It's the reason why the U.S. hasn't hosted a global AIDS conference since 1990. And it is just downright pointless. Leading doctors have opposed this policy for decades because it has no benefit for public health. In fact, the U.S. is one of only a handful of countries including Russia, Saudi Arabia and Sudan that maintains such harsh policies. It's time we got with the program. Congress finally repealed the law a year ago, but only HHS can actually remove HIV/AIDS from the list of diseases with travel restrictions. The Obama administration has proposed the necessary change, but they need our help to get it across the finish line. Take action now! Help end the ban, once and for all. Thank you for taking action. This hurtful policy has harmed HIV-positive people for far too long, and with your help, we'll end it. Warmly, Joe Solmonese President This link is specific to you, so please make your donation to this campaign before you forward to your friends. Having trouble clicking on the links above? Simply copy and paste this URL into your browser's address bar to take action today: http://hrc.convio.net/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=299

© 2009 The Human Rights Campaign. All rights reserved. Human Rights Campaign | http://www.hrc.org/ 1640 Rhode Island Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-3278 Phone: 202/628-4160 TTY: 202/216-1572 Fax: 202/347-5323

American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Reminds "America's Toughest Sheriff" That He's Not Above The Law

American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Reminds "America's Toughest Sheriff" That He's Not Above The Law

PHOENIX - The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion yesterday to hold Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio in contempt for disobeying a court order that would allow women prisoners in Maricopa County to obtain timely, safe, and legal abortions. In addition, today's motion asks the court to provide additional safeguards for women prisoners seeking abortion care.

"Arizona courts have clearly ruled that prison officials cannot stand in the way of the medical needs of women prisoners," said Brigitte Amiri, a staff attorney for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "It's regrettable that we need to take extra steps to ensure that Sheriff Arpaio follows the law."

At issue in the original case was an unwritten Maricopa County Jail policy prohibiting jail officials from transporting a prisoner to obtain an abortion unless she first got a court order. In August 2005, the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, struck down the unwritten policy, holding that it violated women's reproductive rights and served "no legitimate penological purpose." The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld that decision; both the Arizona and the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

In May of 2008, prison officials defied the courts by continuing to enforce the unwritten policy when a woman prisoner, "Mary Roe," requested transportation for an abortion. When Roe's lawyer spoke with Sheriff Arpaio's Deputy Chief, John McIntyre, who had been involved in the original case and knew the court's decision, he failed to tell her that inmates must be transported for abortion care without a court order. It took the ACLU's intervention to ensure that prison officials followed the law; still, their initial non-compliance delayed Roe's abortion by four weeks.

"The courts have already confirmed our position that Arizona prison officials cannot ignore the medical needs of prisoners simply because they do not agree with the decision to end a pregnancy," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona. "Now, given the disregard of the court ruling by Sheriff Arpaio and his staff, it appears that we need to spell out the law more clearly to protect future women detainees."

The motion asks the court to require the jail to post signs in both English and Spanish informing prisoners of their right to be transported. In addition, all employees would be required to sign a statement acknowledging that they have been informed of the law.

Today's case is Doe v. Arpaio, CV2004-009286.  Lawyers on the case include Amiri and Talcott Camp with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, and Dan Pochoda of the ACLU of Arizona.

To read the ACLU's motion, visit: www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/abortion/36263lgl20080806.html

Is this guy a complete bonehead?

Blogged with the Flock Browser

So Much for Journalistic Integrity

Washington Post sells access, $25,000+ - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it’s a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."

The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — is a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

And it's a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.

"Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate," says the one-page flier. "Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. ... Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders …

“Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …

“Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters’ CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 … Hosts and Discussion Leaders ... Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post ... An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done. ... A Washington Post Salon ... July 21, 2009 6:30 p.m."

POLITICO has asked The Washington Post for a response, and will post it when it arrives.

This is nonsense, and must be stopped. I say again, lobbying is 'legalized' bribery.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Goodbye, Mrs. Slocombe!

Mollie Sugden, comedy actor, dies aged 86 | Culture | The Guardian

The comedy actor Mollie Sugden died today at the age of 86 after a long illness.

Yorkshire-born Sugden was best known for playing Mrs Slocombe in long-running BBC sitcom Are You Being Served?, a role later reprised for Grace and Favour.

She died at the Royal Surrey hospital with her twin sons, Robin and Simon Moore, at her bedside, according to her agent Joan Reddin.

One of a select bunch of British performers to achieve national treasure status, Sugden was renowned for her portrayal of fearsome battleaxes. The first of such roles to achieve acclaim was as Mrs Hutchinson in The Liver Birds, a series so popular it was revived in the late 90s using the original cast.

She was the star of many other comedies, including Come Back Mrs Noah, That's My Boy and My Husband And I, which she made with her husband.

But it was as the bossy sales lady Betty Slocombe in Are You Being Served? that she was best known. The long-running, innuendo-laden television comedy was such a hit that a feature film was made based on the series, and it was successfully exported to America. Every episode Sugden sported a different hair colour and continually harped on about her "pussy".

We'll miss you--thank goodness for videotape--I never miss 'Are You Being Served'.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Whose Fault is This?

Florida girl strangled by pet python | World news | guardian.co.uk

A 12-foot (3.6-metre) pet Burmese python broke out of an aquarium and strangled a 2-year-old girl in her bedroom today at a central Florida home, authorities said.

Shaunia Hare was already dead when paramedics arrived at the home, Lieutenant Bobby Caruthers of the Sumter county sheriff's office said.

Charles Jason Darnell, the snake's owner and the boyfriend of Shaunia's mother, discovered the snake missing from its aquarium and went to the girl's room, where he found it on the girl and bite marks on her head, Caruthers said. Darnell, 32, stabbed the snake until he was able to pry the child away.

Who is at fault for these tragic deaths, both the baby and the snake?

The idiots who kept them together in the same house!

Burmese pythons are among the world's largest snakes, and can grow even larger than the 12-footer cited here. Why do stupid people keep them, especially in the South where the animals can survive--and even prosper--in the wild? I don't know.

Governments both local, statewide and the Feds, all have tried to control the exotic pet trade, without success. Some odd people insist upon buying exotic and potentially dangerous animals to keep as 'pets'. A snake is not very interactive, and must be kept in a locked terrarium or aquarium. It is a predator, and will try to kill and eat any other animal--or child--smaller than itself. It isn't being savage or vicious (although pythons do bite), it's just being a snake--it's what they do.

Legally banning exotic pets only serves to drive up the price of the animals, encouraging importers by raising their profit. We must use social pressure to end the practice of keeping exotic pets. We have made smoking socially unacceptable, why don't we do the same with keeping wild animals as pets?

Encourage your friends to get a cat or a dog from the local shelters instead of snakes and other wild and endangered animals.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Oh, My! Liberals Support Sotomayor--Big Surprise!

Group advised by Sotomayor campaigned against Bork - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – A Puerto Rican civil rights organization advised by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor campaigned against seating conservative Robert Bork on the high court in the late 1980s, according to new documents that shed light on the group that's become a key focus of Republicans questioning Sotomayor's fitness to be a justice.

The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund officially opposed Bork, whose nomination by President Ronald Reagan was rejected by the Senate in 1987, "because of the threat he poses to the civil rights of the Latino community," its president reported in one of several documents from the group that the Senate Judiciary Committee released Wednesday.

The 350-plus pages of material offer little evidence about Sotomayor's role in the cases and causes the organization, now known as LatinoJustice PRLDEF, took up while she served on its board from 1980 until 1992.

But Republicans quickly seized on them as full of "red flags" on Sotomayor, whose hearings are scheduled to begin July 13. A top aide to Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Judiciary panel, accused Sotomayor's allies of purposely withholding the documents in a bid to rush through Sotomayor's confirmation.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. . .So the Gross Old Pigs are all twitter-pated over the idea that Judge Sotomayor headed an organization that opposed Justice Bork--they actually had the unmitigated gall to have a liberal point of view!

Senator Session's toady should shut his/her pie-hole!

Blogged with the Flock Browser