tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-152677152024-03-08T07:28:04.955-05:00Downing Street Action NCThis blog comes from a suggestion made at the Chapel Hill, NC meeting on the July 23, 2005 day of action on the Downing Street memos. This is a site for discussing and organizing action on impeaching Bush & Co in North Carolina. This is a non-partisan demand, based on Bush's lies, war crimes, and subversion of democracy. The Democratic Party abetted these crimes, and has much to answer for.Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-430679844576572462009-01-22T18:55:00.001-05:002009-01-22T18:55:40.600-05:00Impeachment petition closed, but not forgotten<div>The PetitionOnline petition to David Price was just closed to new signatures. Thanks to the signers and all of the impeachment activists. All of the online and paper signatures, several hundred in all, got to Price or his staff. Price was not moved much, but it was a useful educational campaign and North Carolina did its part to push for impeachment proceedings. </div> <div> </div> <div>Bush, Cheney, and most of their appointees are now out of office, but at least some of them now have to fear prosecution in coming years for their actions. I expect that the members of Congress, such as Price, who refused to act on good evidence of crimes in the Executive Branch will eventually be brought to account, because their lack of concern for the Consitution and our rights is not limited to just the past 8 years. The impeachment movement would be unwise and hypocritical if it lets Obama get away with continuing criminal Bush-Cheney policies (which should probably now be called Bush-Cheney-Reid-Pelosi policies), and I will write more about that in a future post. </div> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-60431966834908904042008-06-23T04:20:00.001-04:002008-06-23T04:20:20.032-04:00Price votes right on war funding and wiretapping<div>I was suprised to see in the paper Sunday that Representative David Price voted on the 19th against HR 2642, giving Bush and Cheney $162.5 billion more dollars for the supposed "War on Terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill even prohibited permanent bases in Iraq, but to end the war, funding has to be cut off, though that might not be why Price voted against the funding. Then on the 20th he voted against HR 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (online at <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06304:">thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06304:</a>), which abets the government's warrantless spying on Americans and immunizes those companies that gave the government access against lawsuits. Unfortunately both bills passed in the House. Butterfield, Watt, and Miller also voted no on the war funding bill and Watt and Miller also voted against the FISA bill, and Jones for whatever reason did not vote. </div> <div> </div> <div>Price did vote on the 11th to refer Kucinich's H. Res. 1285, Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. I assume this means referring it to the House Judicial Committee, which probably is a neutral act, but everyone must expect the Committee to bury yet another impeachment bill. With the war funding and FISA bills, Congress bought into Bush-Cheney's crimes once again. The Senate is even more "responsible" in its decisions than the House, so I assume the bills will pass easily, and I think Obama has expressed support for the FISA bill. </div> <div> </div> <div>One question is whether Price is voting this way because he is coming up for re-election. Either way it is a good trend, but he needs to do more. He is willing to lead on limiting military contractors, but he is more willing to talk about Bush-Cheney's crimes than to take decisive steps to stop them. There is also no reason to think he won't vote to openly support imperialism again, like he did in the summer of 2006 when he voted to endorse Israel's war on Lebanon and villify the resistance to Zionist expansionism. </div> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-13093846506768569232008-06-11T04:10:00.001-04:002008-06-11T04:10:19.514-04:00Rep. Kucinich's articles of impeachment against Bush<div>Monday evening Representative Dennis Kucinich read his 35 articles of impeachment to the House live on CSPAN, and they were read into the record by a clerk Tuesday evening. I think the articles are now in the House Judiciary Committee. Scott McClellan will give sworn testimony at a hearing scheduled for the 20th. This is something to press David Price on at his Durham town hall meeting, which is on the 16th at 7pm at the Museum of Life and Science.</div> <div> </div> <div>The criminal actions of the Bush Administration need to be condemned through impeachment so that the next president will be less likely to follow Bush and Cheney's example and to stop them before they start a war with Iran. </div> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-80700168125614351572008-02-18T03:41:00.001-05:002008-02-18T03:41:26.605-05:00Which side is Rep. Price on regarding wiretapping?<p>Whenever Representative Price has been asked to support impeachment he has said that he is very concerned about the Administration's actions and that he is for resistance, but short of impeachment. This past week Price, along with all of the State's Democrats and Republican Walter Jones (only Virginia Foxx voted no), did vote (on H Res 982) to cite White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers for contempt, because they ignored subpoenas by Congress regarding the alleged politically motivated firings of US attorneys. On the other hand, Price (and Butterfield, Etheridge, McIntyre, Shuler, and Miller) supported HR 5349, which would have extended the Protect America Act of 2007 (I think the final version is on <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov">thomas.loc.gov</a> as S 1927) for 21 days. The 21-day extension, which was actually sponsored by the formerly pro-impeachment John Conyers, for domestic wiretapping failed to pass the House and so the program expired over the weekend. My understanding is that investigations begun under the Act can continue, but no new surveillance can be started under that Act, but the government should have no problem doing whatever it is doing if it goes through the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, if it is not doing anything illegal, and companies remain open to lawsuits for betraying their customers to the government. </p> <p>It looks like Price has bought into the Administration's criminality on this issue. </p> <p>Of course this week our Republican senators voted against a bill that among other things outlawed waterboarding (this relates to HR 2082, and it passed) and tried to grant immunity to the companies involved in domestic wiretapping (AT&T, Sprint Nextel, and Verizon Communications), by voting yes on S 2248, and no on an amendment to that bill. </p> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-79962863701791191992008-02-15T04:18:00.001-05:002008-02-15T04:18:30.733-05:00Discrediting the Senate<div>The <em>N&O</em> reports that the the Senate Ethics Committee"harshly criticized" Senator Larry Craig (R-IL), saying his actions "[constitute] improper conduct reflecting discreditably on the Senate." Craig seems to have acted improperly, but the biggest discredit on the Senate is its refusal to stand up to the Administration. They refuse to support impeachment and really they are about as bad as Bush and Cheney, so of course they do not support punishing the criminal acts they have helped the Administration commit. Consider another item in the news, that the Senate wants to prevent lawsuits against telecommunication companies for collaborating with the government's warrantless spying on Americans. Even the House did not give the companies immunity. On top of all of this, the Congress has not ended this violation of FISA. Don't expect them to do much if an attempt to burn down Congress or some other, more in fashion style of terrorism, is used to install full-blown fascism, which is already practically legal anyway. The 6 members of the Ethics Committee are Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Vice Chair John Cornyn (R-TX), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and Isakson (R-GA), and it would be interesting to see how they have voted on the major issues. The Committee's website is <a href="http://ethics.senate.gov">ethics.senate.gov</a>. </div> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-4778706796059039522008-01-30T04:18:00.000-05:002008-01-30T04:19:01.361-05:00Bush impeachment bill delayed<div>Posted on <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/">www.commondreams.org</a>:</div> <div> </div> <div> <div class="post-header"><span class="post-date"><em>Published on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 by </em><a href="http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1201599138271000.xml&coll=2" target="_new"><em>The Cleveland Plain Dealer</em></a></span> <h2>Kucinich Postpones Bush Impeachment Effort</h2> <div class="post-credit">by Sabrina Eaton</div></div> <div class="post-body"> <p>WASHINGTON — After promising to mark President Bush's final State of the Union speech by introducing articles of<a title="0129 06 1" onclick="pp_image_popup('http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0129_06_1.jpg',237,389); return false;" href="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0129_06_1.jpg"><img height="389" alt="0129 06 1" hspace="10" src="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0129_06_1.jpg" width="237" align="right" vspace="10" border="0"></a> impeachment against Bush, Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich postponed the effort.</p> <p>Kucinich said Monday that he met with members of the House Judiciary Committee after making last week's impeachment pledge. He said he came away "hopeful there will be an inquiry by the Judiciary Committee."</p> <p>"I will give them the opportunity to proceed before introducing articles of impeachment," he said in a statement. The committee's spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment.</p> <p>Last year, Kucinich introduced a measure to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney that has collected 24 co-sponsors. His effort to bring the matter before the full House won support from Republicans who wanted to embarrass House Demo cratic leaders, but eventually was referred to the Judiciary Committee.</p> <p>Kucinich told The Plain Dealer editorial board last week that nine of the Judiciary Committee's 40 members favor his bid to impeach Cheney.</p> <p>"I do not believe that there will be an impeachment this year — I don't think that will happen — but I do think that the questions relating to an inquiry of both the president and the vice president are important so that our nation has a real understanding of the effort that was made, a consistent effort, to mislead the people into supporting a war," he said.</p> <p align="center">© 2008 The Plain Dealer</p></div></div> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-49574132176467379542008-01-25T03:16:00.001-05:002008-01-25T03:16:37.978-05:00Articles of impeachment against Bush on the 28th<div>Dennis Kucinich is going to introduce articles of impeachment against Bush on the 28th, when Bush will be giving the State of the Union speech. This is similar to the articles against Cheney the Congressman introduced in November, which the Republicans voted to bring to a vote in the House, but the Democrats (including Rep. Price) won in the end and sent the bill to the House Judiciary, where it languishes. Unfortunately Kucinich is going to officially give up his presidential campaign Friday and faces a fight to retain his seat in the House. </div> <div> </div> <div>Below is an article from the New York Times, reposted at <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/23/6588/">www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/23/6588/</a></div> <div> </div> <div> <div class="post-header"><span class="post-date"><em>Published on Thursday, January 24, 2008 by </em><a href="" target="_new"><em>the New York Times</em></a></span> <h2>Kucinich Starts New Impeachment Drive</h2> <div class="post-credit">by David M. Herszenhorn</div></div> <div class="post-body"> <p>Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio may get excluded from Democratic presidential debates, as he has been recently, but no one can deny him the floor in the House. <a title="0124 03" onclick="pp_image_popup('http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0124_03.jpg',350,312); return false;" href="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0124_03.jpg"> <img height="312" alt="0124 03" hspace="10" src="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0124_03.jpg" width="350" align="right" vspace="10" border="0"></a></p> <p>And today Mr. Kucinich took to the floor to fire off his latest salvo at the Bush administration: his plans to introduce Articles of Impeachment against President Bush on Jan. 28 - the day of Mr. Bush's State of the Union speech. </p> <p>Accusing the administration of lying about the need for the war in Iraq, Mr. Kucinich said he did not need to hear the president's assessment. "We know the State of the Union," he declared. "It's a lie."</p> <p>He also fired a volley at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California<br>who has maintained that impeaching Mr. Bush is not on the table for Congressional Democrats. "If impeachment is off the table," Mr. Kucinich said, "truth is off the table. If truth is off the table <br>then this body is living a lie."</p> <p>Mr. Kucinich introduced Articles of Impeachment against Vice<br>President Dick Cheney last April and in November, with the surprise help of Republicans seeking to embarrass the Democrats, he nearly succeeded in securing an hour of debate on the House floor. House Democratic leaders blocked that, however, by referring the impeachment effort back to the Judiciary Committee. </p> <p>Anti-Bush groups have been urging Mr. Kucinich to undertake an<br>effort to impeach the president.</p> <p align="center">Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company</p></div></div> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-82389837907548528722008-01-23T02:00:00.001-05:002008-01-23T02:00:35.100-05:00More confirmation that the Iraq War was begun on lies<div>This is more confirmation of what the American public already knows - that Bush and Cheney lied (or made "false statements," at least some of which they were told were false before they made them) to commit a war of aggression, for which they should long since have been impeached. I am still pushing for impeachment and there is still a chance, but the Democratic leadership refuses to consider it and those Democrats who propagandize and vote for the continued occupation of Iraq are guilty too. This article also is further cause to believe that the statement in the Downing Street Minutes of July 23, 2002 (online at <a href="http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/">www.afterdowningstreet.org</a>) that "the facts and intelligence were being fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq over "the conjunction of terrorism and" weapons of mass destruction meant lying and distorting the truth, and lying to Congress is a felony. If Bush is a felon, and a war criminal, why is he still in office? It says something about the Democrats when the Administration's crimes are so obvious, yet they have refused to impeach, obstruct, or even censure. </div> <div> </div> <div>Study: False statements preceded war By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, <em>Associated Press</em> Writer 1 hour, 26 minutes ago</div> <div><br> A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks. </div> <div> The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."</div> <div> The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.</div> <div> White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat. </div> <div> "The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.</div> <div> The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both. </div> <div> "It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003." </div> <div> Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan. </div> <div> Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida. </div> <div> The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews. </div> <div> "The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded. </div> <div> "Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said. </div> <div> </div> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-90602475648623069132008-01-18T03:07:00.001-05:002008-01-18T03:07:26.009-05:00Durham Library room reservations free for non-profit use!The County Commissioners voted at the meeting Monday to return to the old policy for non-profit room reservations (free, with a $25 dollar fee if there will be refreshments). This might not apply to the Main Library's Auditorium, and for-profit use still requires a fee. This is a victory for the community, and I think the campaign by the Durham People's Alliance had a lot of influence. The PA was not alone in registering its opposition to the fee, though. Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-32136882335999445282008-01-11T03:29:00.001-05:002008-01-11T03:29:30.814-05:00Historic impeachment debate next Tuesday in Carrboro<div> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">For Immediate Release:</font></p> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">January 7, 2008</font> <br></p> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">Contact:</font></p> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">John Heuer, for general, sponsor and interview information</font></p> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">919-933-6589, 919-444-3823</font></p> <p><a href="mailto:jheuer@coalitionfortheconstitution%20dot%20com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3"><u>jheuer at coalitionfortheconstitution dot com</u></font></a> <br> <br> <br></p> <p align="center"><font face="Arial Narrow" size="5">Hodding Carter III to moderate historic impeachment debate between Bruce Fein and Michael Tomasky</font> <br></p> <p align="center"><font face="Arial Narrow" size="4"><i>Conservative Republican and Progressive Journalist will debate Impeachment at the Carrboro Century Center on January 15, 2008 at 7pm. Guess who's arguing for Impeachment? </i></font> <br> <br></p> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">CARRBORO, N.C.: In the tradition of the Lincoln/Douglas Debates, Coalition for the Constitution will host a Debate on Impeachment between Republican Bruce Fein (pro-impeachment) and Democrat Michael Tomasky (anti-impeachment). The Debate will be held on January 15, 2008 at 7pm, at the Carrboro Century Center and will be moderated by UNC Professor of Leadership and Public Policy, W. Hodding Carter III, and hosted by Orange County Commissioner Moses Carey. Seats are limited so preregistration is suggested at </font><a href="http://coalitionfortheconstitution.com/registration/" target="_blank"><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3"><u>http://coalitionfortheconstitution.com/registration/.</u></font></a><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3"> The debate will also be webcast on the Coalition for the Constitution web site at <a href="http://coalitionfortheconstitution.com/" target="_blank">http://coalitionfortheconstitution.com</a>.</font> <br></p> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">Impeachment is mentioned six times in the United States Constitution, including most clearly in Article II, section 3 which reads:</font> <br></p> <ul> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">"<i>The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." </i></font> <br></p></ul> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">Recently, privileged resolution </font><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE00799:@@@L&summ2=m&" target="_blank"><font face="Verdana" size="2"><u>HR 799</u> </font></a><font face="Verdana" color="#333333" size="2"> (HR 333 re-introduced)</font><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">, Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney, was introduced on the floor of the House. Former presidential candidate Joe Biden has also raised the impeachment issue on the campaign trail in connection with a possible war with Iran. </font> <br></p> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">To help the public better understand the pros and cons of impeachment, the organizers have lined up two well-known political pundits to debate and answer those questions. Admission is free and all citizens are encouraged to attend. </font> <br></p> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">Bruce Fein is a lawyer, specializing in constitutional and international law, who served as an associate deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan. He has recently been a strong advocate for the impeachment of current U.S. vice-president Dick Cheney and President George W Bush. Fein graduated from Harvard Law School in 1972. In March 2007, he founded the <i>American Freedom Agenda</i> with Bob Barr, David Keene and Richard Viguerie. Fein is counsel to Ron Paul's campaign for the 2008 Presidential nomination. One of his most scathing indictments of Dick Cheney appeared in his article for <a href="http://slate.com/" target="_blank">Slate.com</a> entitled, "<i>Impeach Cheney, The Vice President has run utterly amok and must be stopped."</i><b><i> </i></b></font><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2169292/" target="_blank"> <font face="Arial Narrow" size="3"><u>http://www.slate.com/id/2169292/</u></font></a><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3"> </font></p> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">Michael Tomasky, is a progressive journalist who has recently written an article about impeachment, entitled, "<i>The Dumbest Move the Dems Could Make",</i><b><i> </i></b>which has been cited by the Democratic Leadership, and 4 <sup>th</sup> District North Carolina Congressman, David Price, as the reasoning behind their refusal to support impeachment. Tomasky has served as the executive editor of <i>The American Prospect</i> and is the author of <i>Left for Dead: The Life, Death, and Possible Resurrection of Progressive Politics in America</i> (1996), a study of the intellectual collapse of the American left. "Here is a link to his article "<i>The Dumbest Move the Dems could Make </i>": </font><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080201767.html" target="_blank"><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3"><u>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080201767.html </u></font></a></p> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">Hodding Carter III served as Assistant Secretary of State under President Jimmy Carter. For additional information, please visit: </font><a href="http://www.knightcommission.org/about/kciamember/hodding_carter_iii/" target="_blank"> <font face="Arial Narrow" size="3"><u>http://www.knightcommission.org/about/kciamember/hodding_carter_iii/</u></font></a> <br></p> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">Bruce Fein and Michael Tomasky are available for press interviews, starting on January 12<sup>th</sup> through the 15<sup>th</sup>. Please contact John Heuer for scheduling arrangements. Telephone 919-933-6589 or 919-444-3823 email </font></p> <p><a href="mailto:jheuer@coalitionfortheconstitution.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3"><u>jheuer at coalitionfortheconstitution dot com</u></font></a><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">.</font> <br> </p> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">Fein v. Tomasky Debate</font></p> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">7 pm, January 15, 2008</font></p> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3">Carrboro Century Center </font></p> <p><font face="Arial Narrow" size="3"># # #</font> <br></p> <p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">End</font></p></div> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-27962933257564602292008-01-10T18:03:00.001-05:002008-01-10T18:03:30.786-05:00Can we trust New Hampshire's voting machines?<div>After the stolen presidential election of 2000 (because the vote counting was stopped) and the probably stolen election of 2004 (in Ohio), I wonder when the media struggles to explain how polls get results wrong. Below is something regarding New Hampshire's primary. There are many problems built into our electoral system that discourage voting, but do we also have to worry that the election will be stolen again this year, or that there will be a shocking "October Surprise" engineered to benefit one side, or even provide a pretext to stop the election (which I hope is unlikely)? If any of this happens, will the losing side and the American public allow it, or will we refuse to allow it, as people in other countries have risen up against their canceled or stolen elections in recent years? </div> <div> </div> <div>>Please distribute widely, Digg, Blog, reprints, get<br>this to the media, etc.<br>><br>>A YouTube video from Black Box Voting that you won't<br>soon forget:<br>><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs" target="_blank"> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs</a><br>><br>>THE CAT THAT CONTROLS NEW HAMPSHIRE ELECTION<br>PROGRAMMING<br>><br>>John Silvestro and his small private business, LHS<br>Associates, has exclusive programming contracts for <br>ALL New Hampshire voting machines, which combined will<br>count about 81 percent of the vote in the primary. And<br>as to Super Tuesday and beyond: Silvestro also has the<br>programming contracts for the states of Connecticut, <br>Massachusetts, and Vermont.<br>><br>>Silvestro IS the New Hampshire chain of custody in<br>New England -- Or at least, a very large component in<br><span></span>it.<br>><br>>Last fall, with the help of citizens like you, Black <br>Box Voting began working on "Chain of Custody"<br>projects, in which we identified some of the areas of<br>concern that might affect many jurisdictions at once.<br>First on the list for the Northeast U.S. is LHS <br>Associates, a vendor with inside access to every<br>memory card, as well as to the chips containing the<br>"brain" of the Diebold optical scan machines.<br>><br>>RARE VIDEO FOOTAGE<br>><br>>In an unusual confluence of available video, we <br>obtained footage of Silvestro grappling with Harri<br>Hursti, the master hacker who had his way with the<br>Diebold optical scans in Leon County, Florida in the<br>famous exploit that was showcased in the film Hacking <br>Democracy.<br>><br>>The exact same make, model and version hacked in the<br>Black Box Voting project in Leon County is used<br>throughout New Hampshire, where about 45 percent of<br>elections administrators hand count paper ballots at <br>the polling place, with the remaining locations all<br>using the Diebold version 1.94w optical scan machine.<br>Because the voting machine locations tend to be urban,<br>this represents about 81 percent of the New Hampshire <br>voters.<br>><br>>The video shows Harri Hursti testifying on Sept. 19<br>before the New Hampshire legislature, attempting to<br>explain significant vulnerabilities requiring urgent<br>mitigations; throughout his testimony, Silvestro <br>inserted his own comments, opinions, misstatements and<br>speculations.<br>><br>>VOTING MACHINE CHECKUP<br>><br>>One area of disagreement between Hursti and Silvestro<br>was the amount of expertise needed to exploit the <br>Diebold 1.94w optical scan system. Silvestro claimed<br>(in a strange contortion of reasoning) that he doesn't<br>hire very skilled programmers, implying that this<br>makes New Hampshire elections more secure.<br> ><br>>Hursti pointed out that hiring programmers with a<br><span></span>lack of knowledge is generally not considered a<br>security feature, and also that an average high<br>schooler can learn to exploit the system in two days <br>to two weeks.<br>><br>>WE THINK IT DOESN'T TAKE THAT LONG<br>><br>>Black Box Voting purchased a Diebold optical scan<br>with 1.94w firmware, and chose a computer repair shop<br>out of the phone book, took it in, grabbed the first <br>available technician. It took him less than 10 minutes<br>to zero in on the memory card as a point of critical<br>vulnerability -- and oh my, did he point out some<br>other intersting things!<br>><br>>NEW HAMPSHIRE HASN'T UPGRADED SYSTEM SECURITY <br>><br>>Silvestro tries to claim that the security problems<br>have been fixed in newer editions. Whether or not they<br>have been, it's a moot point in New Hampshire where<br>the upgrade is not made unless the Ballot Law <br>Commission meets, and they have not met for ages.<br>><br>>Silvestro then points to extraordinary measures taken<br>by other states to enact special procedural<br>safeguards, but of course none of those were<br> implemented in New Hampshire either, because the<br>Ballot Law Commission has not bothered to meet since<br>March 2006.<br>><br>>IN FACT, NEW HAMPSHIRE HAS NOT IMPLEMENTED<br>MITIGATIONS FOR KNOWN RISKS<br>><br>>Not only that, they have turned all the programming <br>over to a sole source private company, taking vote<br>counting for 81 percent of New Hampshire citizens out<br>of the public domain.<br>><br>>LHS is not subject to public records requirements, as<br>the government is, at least, not in New Hampshire. The <br>control over memory card contents is absolute; when<br>cards malfunction or get lost, LHS brings the<br>replacements.<br>><br>>CONTROL OVER THE "BRAINS" OF THE MACHINE: ACCESS TO<br>THE CHIP<br>><br> >Since LHS maintains the machines, repairs the<br>machines, and replaces the machines -- often on<br><span></span>Election Day -- when they malfunction, they have<br>intimate access to the chips, sockets, ports,<br>communications devices and other electronic <br>components.<br>><br>>Silvestro stated that the chip has "read only memory"<br>and cannot be reprogrammed without frying it under<br>ultraviolet light overnight.<br>><br>>Hursti never had a chance to examine the hardware, <br>nor have most of the recent university studies had<br>access. But our friendly neighborhood computer repair<br>guy differed with Silvestro on the point of plug &<br>play reprogramming of the guts of the machine.<br> ><br>>After I push the button to send this message out to<br>the media and the citizenry, I'll work on getting a<br>short YouTube video of the Accuvote checkup by our<br>local computer repairman. And before you say, "But <br>wait! He's not a world class expert!" -- That's just<br>the point.<br>><br>>Our local computer repairman may hit or miss on some<br>of his analyses. You'll all be able to try your hand<br>at second guessing him as soon as the next video is <br>up. But if he hits even one of his ideas for how to<br>exploit the machine to steal votes, that's all it<br>takes. From someone who is not, certainly, a world<br>class hacker or even a hacker at all.<br>><br>>I'll post the link to that in a follow up here: <br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71200.html?1199744175" target="_blank">http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71200.html?1199744175</a> <br>, and invite you techs to weigh in.<br>><br>>Please feel free to distribute, reprint or excerpt,<br>with link to Black Box Voting and the video link<br>above.<br>><br>>Bev Harris<br>>Black Box Voting<br> ><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:bev@blackboxvoting.org">bev at blackboxvoting dot org</a><br> </div> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-28638662753196796392007-12-21T04:03:00.001-05:002007-12-21T04:03:35.106-05:00There's hope (for impeachment) in the Judiciary Committee yet<div>There is interest in impeaching Cheney in the House Judiciary Committee (of which NC Rep. Mel Watt is a member) after all. Representative Robert Wexler of Florida recently started a petition for impeachment hearings against Cheney (see <a href="http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com/">www.wexlerwantshearings.com</a>). Within 24 hours more than 30,000 people had signed, and 121,179 after 5 days. Now the goal is 250,000. A recent poll reveals that 54% of Americans are for impeaching Cheney, and I think that will rise when the official voices in Congress and editorial departments begin to highlight his crimes. If I remember right, 49% are for impeaching Bush currently, but I expect all of the top Administration officials are about equally guilty. Unfortunately the head of the Committee, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, formerly a leader on impeachment in the House, has now cynically fallen in line with Pelosi's line, and was again arguing against it on <em>Democracy Now!</em> Thursday. Maybe he has honestly reevaluated the case and changed his mind about the strategy of impeachment, but I still find his change of heart suspicious. Hopefully Wexler and two others in the Judiciary Committee will be more resolute and successful than Conyers. </div> <div> </div> <div>Some outlets in the dominant media are refusing to publish an op-ed by Rep. Wexler and two other members of the Committee, Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). This is from the campaign: </div> <div> </div> <div>"<strong>More on the Media Blackout</strong></div> <div> </div> <div>The <em>New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today</em>, and <em>Boston Globe</em> have all rejected our op ed (though the <em>Miami Herald</em> just put an edited version in its "Letters to the Editor" section). We have heard from the editors of some of these publications and they are telling us that they are getting overwhelmed with phone calls and letters of complaint. (Well done everybody!) </div> <div> </div> <div>In short - we need to keep the pressure on if this news will spread far beyond the Netroots community."</div> <div> </div> <div>Here is the original notice from Rep. Wexler's site: </div> <div> </div> <div> <div class="blueHeader"><font size="4"><strong>Wexler Calls For Cheney Impeachment Hearings</strong></font></div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="2"> <p></p> <p>Congressman Robert Wexler, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, is calling upon Congress to immediately schedule impeachment hearings for Vice President Richard Cheney. </p> <p></p> <p>Wexler - "For the sake of history, and in order to be faithful to our Constitutional obligations, the Judiciary Committee must immediately convene impeachment hearings to determine whether the official actions of Vice President Cheney constitute 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' and require that he be impeached. Each day we fail to act is a validation of the misdeeds of the Vice President and damages the credibility of the Democratic Party." </p> <p></p> <p>The full text of the Letter:</p> <p></p> <p>As a person who supports holding this Administration accountable for their deceptive actions, you may be interested to know about the recent votes in the House regarding H.Res. 333, "Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors." <br></p> <p>I share your belief that Vice President Cheney must answer for his deceptive actions in office, particularly with regard to the preparations for the Iraq war and the revelation of the identity of covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson as part of political retribution against her husband. That is why I voted against the motion to table debate on H.Res. 333. Along with only 85 other Democrats, I opposed tabling the measure and supported beginning immediate debate and a vote on the Cheney impeachment resolution. The vote on tabling the Kucinich resolution was rejected, and the House subsequently voted to refer the matter to the Judiciary Committee. <br></p> <p>Vice President Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration have demonstrated a consistent pattern of abusing the law and misleading Congress and the American people. We see the consequences of these actions abroad in Iraq and at home through the violations of our civil liberties. The American people are served well with a legitimate and thorough impeachment inquiry. I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months. <br><br>Only through hearings can we begin to correct the abuses of Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration; and, if it is determined in these hearings that Vice President Cheney has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors, he should be impeached and removed from office. It is time for Congress to expose the multitude of misdeeds of the Administration, and I am hopeful that the Judiciary Committee will expeditiously begin an investigation of this matter. <br></p> <p>Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns. I sincerely appreciate your input and hope that you will feel free to contact me anytime I may be of assistance to you. <br><br></p></font> <font size="2">With warm regards, <p>Congressman Robert Wexler</p></font></font></div> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-2643353759478403142007-12-12T01:47:00.001-05:002007-12-12T01:47:08.319-05:00Bill Clinton in Wake County Thursday<div>I saw in the <em>Herald-Sun</em> today that President Bill Clinton is going to be at private events to raise money for Hillary Clinton's presidential bid Thursday, at the Brier Creek Country Club. The cost is $1000 dollars per person, or $2300 per person for the cozier reception. It is not exactly comparable, but I notice that the Republicans' event Wednesday at the Hope Valley Country Club for their current two candidates against Rep. Price in next year's election is $15 dollars per person. </div> <div> </div> <div>Bush and Co., and their enablers (like Hillary Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Dole, Burr, and very distantly, Reps. Price, Miller, and Etheridge), should be the main targets of protest now, as Rove was at Duke on the third, but should Clinton get off so easily? He committed more acts of aggression around the world than Bush has so far, though Bush's acts are graver. Even worse than Clinton's bombing of a vital medical plant in Sudan, most of the 13 years of sanctions against Iraq were under Clinton's watch. I think the usual estimate is that 1.5 million Iraqis died because of those sanctions, in addition to the sanctions' effect on the health and education of the survivors. There is also what happened in Waco, Texas. </div> <div> </div> <div>The Clinton and Bush administrations are even more alike in corruption and conspiracy around terrorist attacks in the US if <em>The Secret Life of Bill Clinton</em>, written by a British journalist, is true. That book alleges, among other things, that the Clintons were involved in the drug trade in Arkansas, that Vince Foster was murdered for political reasons (if I recall that part correctly, but it was argued that he was murdered and it was covered up, including by the Kenneth Starr investigation), and that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) knew the Oklahoma City Bombing was going to occur, did not prevent it (possibly they were outfoxed), and have now covered it up. Government complicit in 9/11 would be even worse if true, because of the magnitude and the deliberate exploitation for a predetermined agenda, but both are horrific crimes against the American people and complicit should destroy confidence in the security apparatus of the executive branch. I am less knowledgeable about the resulting security crackdowns in the 90's, but Oklahoma City provided Clinton with his own "Patriot Act" moment. Just as Bush and Co. face potential prosecution for war crimes, Clinton and Co. (and Tony Blair) might also at some point, in their own international court even, at least in a more just world. </div> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-52643301350418479132007-12-06T03:58:00.001-05:002007-12-06T03:58:55.573-05:00Impeachment debate rescheduled to 1/15<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">Coalition for the Constitution <br> 243 Flemington Rd, <br>Chapel Hill, NC 27517-5637<br><a href="http://www.impeachbushcheney.net/">www.impeachbushcheney.net</a> </div> <p> </p> <p>NEWS AND CALENDAR ALERT: December 3, 2007 <br>More info: John Heuer, [ ] ; <a href="mailto:Heu93@aol.com">Heu93 at aol dot com</a>; Al McSurely, [ ] ;lawyers at mcsurely dot com </p> <p><br>Historic Fein-Tomasky Debate on Impeachment Re-Scheduled to January 15, 2008. </p> <p> The Coalition for the Constitution has re-scheduled the Historic Debate between Republican Constitutional Attorney Bruce Fein and liberal journalist Michael Tomasky until Tuesday, January 15, 2008.</p> <p> Mr. Fein worked in Pres. Reagan's Justice Department, and helped draft the articles of impeachment against Pres. Clinton. He has always been an advocate for the United States Constitution and, recently, for charging (impeaching) Pres. Bush and V. Pres. Cheney for their multiple violations of it. Bill Moyers featured Fein on his PBS program. <a href="http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html">http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html</a>. </p> <p> His opponent in the debate, liberal journalist Michael Tomasky is the Editor of <em>Guardian America</em>. He recently wrote a much-quoted <em>Washington Post</em> essay that said impeachment is the stupidest thing Democrats could do. </p> <p> Fein, who has been ill, and the Coalition for the Constitution agreed this morning to re-scheduling the historic debate. W. Hodding Carter III, UNC Professor of Leadership and Public Policy will serve as debate moderator on January 15, 2008. </p> <p> The historic debate had been set for December 11th at the Chapel Hill Town Hall. But due to the high level of local and regional interest in the Debate, the Coalition for the Constitution has decided to find a larger auditorium and more sponsors. The Debate is modeled after the historic Lincoln-Douglas debates 150 years ago. </p> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-10973917328314152012007-11-28T02:41:00.001-05:002007-11-28T02:41:45.193-05:00Change for the better may be coming on Durham Library room fees<div>There are signs that the recently imposed Durham County Library meeting room fees will soon be modified or reduced. </div> <div> </div> <div>The County Commissioners asked the Library administration to develop a plan for fees in May. Apparently this was initially done to make up for reduced income from overdue book fines, which have also been changed, without any increase in County budgeting. The actual policy was approved by the Commissioners at the September 10th meeting, apparently unanimously. The fees were going to be $50 dollars for non-profit use for up to 4 hours and $100 dollars for more than 4 hours, and double these fees for for-profit use. For-profit use has actually been allowed all along, but it had to be open to the public and I think non-commercial. Some small rooms would stay free, and now there is free space at all of the libraries save Southwest. The new fees do not seem to be popular in the system and, after public complaints, the fees for non-profits were halved. Initially the Library expected to make $30,000 dollars a year from the fees, but now they expect half that, and I think the figure for lost overdue books income was around $240,000 dollars (last year's figure), so the administration is not very concerned about getting extra funds from the fees. The rationale for the fees is now room maintenance. I still think the rooms are pretty clean, but there have been some cleaning issues and recent (and short-lived) floor replacements. The administration doesn't actually know the statistics for room usage, but is in the process of finding out for some short period. </div> <div> </div> <div>The Durham People's Alliance (<a href="http://www.durhampa.org/">www.durhampa.org</a>) has been lobbying against the fees and sent letters to the County Commissioners and Library Board of Trustees a few weeks ago, requesting a public forum on the fees. As a result there was a meeting between PA representatives and "Skip" Auld and Ken Berger Monday afternoon, and the PA is planning to speak at the Board of Trustees meeting on the 11th. Anyone can request to speak at a Board meeting, but the agenda is not posted online. The Board has been asked to make new recommendations to the Commissioners, and the administration seems to want to reduce or eliminate the fees. The sliding scale, based on an organization's budget, which the Library came up with earlier, is considered too much of a hassle to administer. The old refreshments fee might be restored, instead of the fees. It would help if organizations could solicit donations at the meetings, to pay the room fee, which is not currently allowed. The administration seems to be sympathetic, believing that the libraries should be centers in the community and means to increase the availability of information. </div> <div> </div> <div>Some other issues came up, like future plans and how decisions are made about removing worn or little used books. Apparently the various libraries are behind in going through their collections, and there is more change in the collections than I thought, but that is because these are not academic research libraries. </div> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-45568825920994869662007-11-22T04:03:00.001-05:002007-11-22T04:03:43.424-05:00Two NC impeachment updates<div><font size="4">Bruce Fein vs. Michael Tomasky: A Debate On the Question of Impeachment</font></div> <div><br>When: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 7pm</div> <div><br>Where: Chapel Hill Town Hall</div> <div><br>Who: Bruce Fein versus Michael Tomasky; moderated by Hodding Carter III</div> <div><br>Sponsored by the Coalition for the Constitution and the Grassroots Impeachment Movement. Co-Sponsorships available</div> <div><br>For more information visit <a href="http://impeachbushcheney.net/feintomaskydebate">http://impeachbushcheney.net/feintomaskydebate</a></div> <div><br>++++++</div> <div><br>We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.</div> <div><br>—Edward R. Murrow</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div><font size="4">Rep. Price's reply on impeachment</font></div> <div> </div> <div>Below is the reply I received to an email I sent in support of HR 799. I don't have a copy of my message to post, but it was a short email stating some of the crimes I think Cheney and Bush are guilty of committing and my worry that they have set in motion the end of what real democracy we have left, asking what else can be done short of impeachment, and saying that how Price voted on the bill will be at the front of my mind when he is next up for re-election. </div> <div> </div> <div>Price seems to acknowledge that Cheney most likely has committed impeachable offenses, but he says impeachment would be a diversion and would fail. I can't believe that everything that has turned up since Bush and Cheney gained power is not "an accumulation of evidence of impeachable offenses." Impeachment proceedings should be supported, even if there aren't enough votes, in my opinion. And since the offenses relate to Iraq, national defense, energy policy, etc., I would think impeachment proceedings would support the Democrats' push for reforms, by showing what our current situation really is. Possibly it would severely divide those who don't support Bush and Cheney, but if crimes were committed, and nothing else will resolve them, and prevent the next president from continuing them, what choice is there? I think the idea that impeachment proceedings are intractably slow is a lie, and impeachment is necessary to reveal the Administration's crimes and prevent following administrations from repeating them, so impeachment is very necessary, despite the increasingly late hour. If the Democratic Party as a whole won't do its duty as the opposition, what should be done to pressure them or create an alternative that will act? </div> <div> </div> <div>November 20, 2007 <br> <br>Dear Mr. [ ]: <br> <br>Thank you for contacting me in support of impeaching Vice President Cheney. <br> <br>On November 6, 2007, Rep. Dennis Kucinich offered a privileged resolution on the House floor to impeach Vice President Cheney, H. Res. 799. I voted against a motion to table the resolution, which would have prevented any further activity related to it. After the tabling motion failed by a vote of 162-251, the House approved a motion to refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration, which I supported. <br> <br>No one is more frustrated with Bush Administration abuses of power than I, and Vice President Cheney has played a significant role in nearly all of them. I continue to adamantly work to shine a bright light on such abuses, and I believe the Democratic Congress has begun to turn the tide on several issues. For instance, the resignation of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez was a direct result of congressional investigations into the politically-motivated firings of U.S. Attorneys. <br> <br>While I understand the reasoning of impeachment advocates, I do not view impeachment as the right course to pursue at present. The machinations of the impeachment process take a significant amount of time, and it is uncertain if they could even be completed before a new administration is inaugurated in January 2009. In addition, impeachment proceedings should only be initiated after the accumulation of significant evidence of impeachable offenses. While I believe the Vice President likely engaged in behavior that could be considered impeachable, such evidence will only be brought to light through the investigations and oversight activities in which House and Senate committees are currently engaged. <br> <br>Even if articles of impeachment were passed by the House - a questionable assumption - there is currently no chance that the Senate could reach the two-thirds threshold needed to convict and remove. The tradeoffs are therefore enormous. This all-consuming process would prevent nearly all other legislative initiatives from proceeding. It would consume media attention, which we are already struggling to get for our battles on Iraq, children's health coverage, and a progressive energy policy. And it would also have serious political and social consequences, needlessly creating greater national division just as large majorities of the population are forming in support of a new direction abroad and at home. <br> <br>I will continue to fight against the abuses of the Bush Administration, and to closely monitor the progress of congressional investigations regarding the actions of Administration officials, keeping your concerns in mind. Again, thank you for contacting me, and please continue to keep in touch. </div> <p><br>Sincerely, <br>DAVID PRICE <br>Member of Congress<br>PS: Please sign up for periodic updates on issues, events and town hall meetings at <a href="http://price.house.gov/contact/email_updates.shtml" target="_blank"> http://price.house.gov/contact/email_updates.shtml </a>. <br>*** MY OFFICE IS USING AN ELECTRONIC MAIL RESPONSE SYSTEM THAT WILL FACILITATE EMAIL COMMUNICATION WITH CONSTITUENTS. PLEASE NOTE, HOWEVER, THAT I CANNOT GUARANTEE THE INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT OF THIS MESSAGE UNLESS IT HAS BEEN SENT TO YOU DIRECTLY FROM MY CONGRESSIONAL EMAIL ACCOUNT: <a href="mailto:nc04ima@MAIL%20dot%20HOUSE%20dot%20GOV">nc04ima at MAIL dot HOUSE dot GOV</a> *** <br>***PLEASE NOTE - THIS IS A SEND ONLY ACCOUNT. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, PLEASE VISIT MY WEB SITE AT <a href="http://price.house.gov/contact/contact_form.shtml" target="_blank">http://price.house.gov/contact/contact_form.shtml</a> *** </p> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-83254433971609641422007-11-15T18:18:00.001-05:002007-11-15T18:18:32.763-05:00Update on HR 799 - call Watt!I called Mel Watts' Washington office today. The two staffers I spoke to seemed to listen well, but staffers are like that. I was told that the bill will probably be voted on after Thanksgiving. Let's inundate the House Judiciary Committee with comments! I'll have to think about whether to recommend that we should thank Price for his votes. He opposed immediately tabling the bill in the House, but is sending it to the Judiciary Committee anything other than a way to bury it without holding the shovel? Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-74337513896341104712007-11-13T23:42:00.001-05:002007-11-13T23:42:17.119-05:00There's still time for the impeachment bill<div>Judging by past experience, the impeachment bill is dead, but there is still hope, and there is a local Democrat (Watt) who can be pressured to support it. This message is from the NC Progressive Democrats of America </div> <div><strong><em></em></strong> </div> <div><em><strong>Impeachment back on the table:<span> </span>The <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1195015020_48" style="CURSOR: hand; BORDER-BOTTOM: #0066cc 1px dashed">House Judiciary Committee</span> now has the bill introduced by <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1195015020_49" style="CURSOR: hand; BORDER-BOTTOM: #0066cc 1px dashed">Rep. Kucinich</span>.<span> </span>Impeachment activists are asked to call all members of this committee and ask them to sign on to impeachment and investigate the crimes of <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1195015020_50" style="CURSOR: hand; BORDER-BOTTOM: #0066cc 1px dashed">Dick Cheney</span>.<span> </span>The bill has been re-introduced as H.R. 799.<span> </span>One member of the Judiciary Committee is Representative Mel Watt from NC Congressional District 12. He is a Democrat. <span> </span>His number is <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1195015020_51" style="CURSOR: hand; BORDER-BOTTOM: #0066cc 1px dashed">202-225-1510</span> – please call and ask him to sign on and investigate HR 799.</strong> </em></div> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-70491019256515778852007-11-13T04:02:00.001-05:002007-11-13T04:02:43.712-05:00Congressional Democrats again bury impeachment legislation<div>Last Tuesday, the Democrats in Congress (and of course the Republicans) again attempted to bury impeachment legislation. Are we ready to say yet that most of them are as guilty as Bush, since they have not stopped the War, and Bush-Cheney's other criminal policies, but also do not support impeachment? I might consider something short of impeachment, but they have done little and I don't hear them loudly denoucing Bush-Cheney's crimes, and the media won't clearly say they are criminal. The original bill was H.R. 333, but the vote was on bill House Resolution 799. </div> <div> </div> <div>The summary of actions, from <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov">thomas.loc.gov</a>:</div> <div> </div> <div><a name="status"><b>ALL ACTIONS:</b> <i></i></a> <dl> <dt><strong>11/6/2007 2:35pm:</strong> <dd>Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r110:FLD001:H12784">H12783-12786</a>, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r110:FLD001:H12787">H12786-12788 </a>; text of measure as introduced: CR <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r110:FLD001:H12784">H12783-12785</a>) <dt><strong>11/6/2007 2:54pm:</strong> <dd>Mr. Hoyer moved to table the measure. <dt><strong>11/6/2007 4:02pm:</strong> <dd>On motion to table the measure Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 162 - 251 (<a href="http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2007&rollnumber=1037">Roll no. 1037</a>). (consideration: CR <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r110:FLD001:H12786"> H12785-12786</a>) <dt><strong>11/6/2007 4:02pm:</strong> <dd>Mr. Hoyer moved to refer to Judiciary. <dt><strong>11/6/2007 4:22pm:</strong> <dd>The previous question on the motion was agreed to by recorded vote: 218 - 194 (<a href="http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2007&rollnumber=1038">Roll No. 1038</a>). (consideration: CR <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r110:FLD001:H12787"> H12787</a>) <dt><strong>11/6/2007 4:31pm:</strong> <dd>On motion to refer Agreed to by recorded vote: 218 - 194 (<a href="http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2007&rollnumber=1039">Roll no. 1039</a>). <dt><strong>11/6/2007:</strong> <dd>Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. </dd></dt></dd></dt></dd></dt></dd></dt></dd></dt></dd></dt></dd></dt></dl> <hr> <a name="titles"><b>TITLE(S):</b> (<i>italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill</i>)</a> <ul> <p>***NONE*** </p></ul> <hr> <a name="cosponsors"><b>COSPONSOR(S):</b></a> <p>***NONE*** <hr> <a name="committees"><b>COMMITTEE(S):</b></a> <ul> <p> <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" width="100%" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td colspan="2"><b>Committee/Subcommittee:</b></td> <td width="65%"><b>Activity:</b></td></tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d110:FLD005:@3(House+Judiciary)|/bss/d110query.html|">House Judiciary</a> </td> <td width="65%">Referral</td></tr></tbody></table></p></ul></p></div> <div> </div> <div>To understand this, see this <em>USA Today</em> article, reprinted on <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/">www.commondreams.org</a>. I am amazed that Price and other NC Democrats were against Hoyer's motion to prevent a vote on the bill, if I am understanding the procedures and votes correctly. Yet then Price voted to bury it in the Judiciary Committee, where chair Rep. Conyers has stopped advocating impeachment, now that the Democrats have Congress. As it says below, the bill is not dead, but I assume it is unlikely to come out again, barring something drastic like the occupation of the Capitol steps until they do. </div> <div> </div> <div> <div class="post-header"><span class="post-date">Published on Tuesday, November 6, 2007 by <a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/11/house-tables-re.html" target="_new">USA Today</a></span> <h2>House Tied In Knots Over Resolution To Impeach Cheney</h2> <div class="post-credit"></div></div> <div class="post-body"> <p>Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, is trying to impeach Vice President Cheney for what he describes as "high crimes and misdemeanors" before the invasion of Iraq.<a title="1106 10 1" onclick="pp_image_popup('http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/1106_10_1.jpg',350,379); return false;" href="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/1106_10_1.jpg"> <img height="379" alt="1106 10 1" hspace="10" src="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/1106_10_1.jpg" width="350" align="right" vspace="10" border="0"></a></p> <p>Right after the proposal was read on the House floor this afternoon, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer stepped forwarded and tried to convince lawmakers to table the bill.</p> <p>"Impeachment is not on our agenda. We have some major priorities. We need to focus on those," Hoyer told Fox News.</p> <p><strong>Update at 3:39 p.m. ET:</strong> We thought that the vote to table was over — the clock said 0:00 — but lawmakers are still switching things around and Kucinich is within a few votes of getting his bill to come up for a vote. </p> <p><strong>Update at 3:43 p.m. ET:</strong> At least 149 Republicans have voted in favor of considering the impeachment resolution. Hoyer's motion, which would have blocked a vote, looks like its going to fail by at least 31 votes. </p> <p><strong>Update at 3:53 p.m. ET:</strong> The 15-minute vote began at 2:53 p.m. ET. It's been an hour, and they're still voting. The tally stands at 170-242 right now. Hoyer needed 218 votes to push the bill off the agenda. He's 72 votes short. </p> <p><strong>Update at 4:02 p.m. ET:</strong> Hoyer's motion failed <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1037.xml" target="_blank">251-162. (Roll Call</a>) The House is now voting on whether to vote on whether the resolution should be sent to the Judiciary Committee. </p> <p><strong>Update at 4:25 p.m. ET:</strong> The vote to decide to vote (yes, you read that correctly) just ended. By a 218-194 margin, the House has to vote on whether to send the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. That's happening right now. </p> <p><strong>Update at 4:30 p.m. ET:</strong> Perhaps we should pause to explain. When most Republicans unexpectedly — and on orders of GOP leadership, the AP is reporting — switched sides and voted against tabling the measure, they essentially forced Democrats to keep talking about it on the floor. Tabling the measure would have killed it. </p> <p>Debate over Cheney's impeachment is in direct opposition to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's wishes. She has repeatedly said an impeachment of Cheney or President Bush is off the table. Thus, failing to table this measure is a essentially a jab in Pelosi's ribs. </p> <p>"We're going to help them out, to explain themselves," Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, told the AP of the impeachment's supporters. "We're going to give them their day in court."</p> <p><strong>Update at 4:32 p.m. ET:</strong> The House <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1039.xml" target="_blank">just voted, 218-194</a>, to send the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. That should end today's debate — but it does keep the resolution at least technically alive. </p> <p align="center">© 2007 USA Today</p></div></div> <div> </div> <div>The text of the bill, laying out the charges against Cheney:</div> <div> </div> <div><strong>Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to... (Introduced in House)<br> </strong></div> <p>HRES 799 IH <p> <center>110th CONGRESS</center> <p> <center>1st Session</center> <p><b> <center>H. RES. 799</center></b> <p>Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. <p><b> <center>IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES</center></b> <p> <h3> <center>November 6, 2007</center></h3> <p>Mr. KUCINICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary <div> <hr> </div> <p><b> <center>RESOLUTION</center></b> <p>Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. <p> <ul><em>Resolved</em>, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:</ul> <p> <ul>Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. </ul> <p> <h3><b>Article I</b></h3> <p> <ul>In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit: </ul> <p> <ul> <ul>(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:</ul> </ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.' March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.' March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.</ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .' March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.</ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(D) `We know he's got chemicals and biological and we know he's working on nuclear.' May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.</ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(F) `Based on intelligence that's becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.</ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.</ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul>(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States. </ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives accounts. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul>(3) The Vice President's actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President's actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies. </ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(A) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.'. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(B) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.'. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(C) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.'. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul>The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,800 United States service members; the loss of more than 1 million innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq. </ul> <p> <ul>In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. </ul> <p> <h3><b>Article II</b></h3> <p> <ul>In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit: </ul> <p> <ul> <ul>(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda:</ul> </ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.' December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(B) `His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.' January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(C) `We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(D) `We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .' September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.' October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney '04 Fundraiser in Iowa. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.' October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.' January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney.</ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(H) `I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Government.' January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.</ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(I) `First of all, on the question of--of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.' June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul>(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including: </ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda'. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.'. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network'.</ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul>The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,800 United States service members; the loss of more than 1 million innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq. </ul> <p> <ul>In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. </ul> <p> <ul>Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.</ul> <p> <h3><b>Article III</b></h3> <p> <ul>In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit: </ul> <p> <ul> <ul>(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following: </ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(B) `But we've also made it clear that all options are on the table.' January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.</ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(C) `When we--as the President did, for example, recently--deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.' January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(D) `But I've also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.' February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul>(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following: </ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.</ul></ul> </ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council'. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul>(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:</ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.</ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.</ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian Government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the State Department has branded it a terrorist organization. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.</ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul>(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force. </ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The threat of force is illegal. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul> <ul> <ul>(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal. </ul></ul></ul> <p> <ul>The Vice President's deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President's recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States. </ul> <p> <ul>In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. </ul> <p> <ul>Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.</ul> <ul></ul> <ul>And this article from the <em>Chicago Tribune</em> provides some insight into why the Democratic leadership doesn't want to enforce US laws that Bush and Cheney are violating: </ul> <ul></ul> <ul> <div class="post-header"><span class="post-date">Published on Tuesday, November 6, 2007 by <a href="http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/cheney_impeachment_ready_for_a.html" target="_new">The Chicago Tribune </a></span> <h2>Cheney Impeachment Ready For A Vote: To Table It</h2> <div class="post-credit">by Matthew Hay Brown</div></div> <p class="post-body">It now looks as if Rep. Dennis Kucinich's effort to impeace Vice President Dick Cheney will finally come to a vote today - but not the vote for which supporters have been hoping.</p> <p class="post-body">With Democrats averse to opening an intramural debate on an issue that divides their base, party leaders are expected to nip the measure in the bud this afternoon. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters this morning that he would move to table the measure when Kucinich introduces it. </p> <p class="post-body">"[House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] and I have both said impeachment is not on our agenda," Hoyer told reporters. "That does not make a judgment on that issue."</p> <p class="post-body">Hoyer's motion appears likely to pass - an outcome that would further alienate an antiwar left already frustrated with a lack of progress by congressional Democrats on changing U.S. policy on Iraq.</p> <p class="post-body">"We are in a serious Constitutional crisis," Joseph A. Palermo, a professor of history at California State University, Sacramento, wrote this morning on the Huffington Post. "Democrats were elected to Congress to put the brakes on the Bush-Cheney juggernaut. … [Kucinich's bill] is a long overdue measure coming from a Democrat who has the guts to stand up for the United States Constitution." </p> <p class="post-body">Kucinich, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has gathered 21 co-sponsors for the articles of impeachment that he first introduced in April. Seeing war with Iran on the horizon, the Ohio congressman now plans to reintroduce the measure this afternoon as a privileged resolution. </p> <p class="post-body">Kucinich alleges that Cheney misled Congress and the American public into the war in Iraq, and is trying now to mislead lawmakers and voters into a war with Iran.</p> <p class="post-body">"The Vice President is cherry-picking intelligence and selectively using facts in a manner that does not portray the complete picture," Kucinich said today in a statement. "The best option to prevent an unnecessary war with Iran is to impeach the Vice President, the lead cheerleader of the war." </p> <p class="post-body">Hoyer did not address the substance of the measure.</p> <p class="post-body">"This administration has approximately 12 months, 14 months to go," the Maryland Democrat said. "We have very important issues that we are focusing on: Change of policy in Iraq. Children's health care. Energy independence. Educational access. Investing in health care. Securing our borders and our ports. We have some major priorities. We believe that we need to pursue those policies, focusing on those policies." </p> <p class="post-body">House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, whose panel has jurisdiction over impeachment proceedings, has described the impeachment effort as a potential disruption.</p> <p class="post-body">"If the speaker were to let this thing out of the box, considering the number of legislative issues we have pending," the Michigan Democrat told Fox News, "it could create a split that could affect our productivity for the rest of the Congress." </p> <p class="post-body" align="center">© 2007 The Chicago Tribune</p> <p class="post-body" style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">Of course this is a judgement on the issue, or will be taken that way (which the Republicans want, but I am not bothered by, because the Democratic Party got itself into the mess of betraying its base), and, while the Democrats have made some progress since last year's election, I don't see very much progress on Iraq, etc., and so we need impeachment. I await Price's explanation in response to an email I sent last week. </p></ul></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p> </p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-89310485310430390442007-11-12T04:28:00.001-05:002007-11-12T04:28:12.538-05:00Loose Change - the Final Cut screening TuesdayThe third, final, and "substantially different" version of Loose<br>Change, a documentary on why the official story of 9/11 is fatally<br>flawed and what may have happened in reality, will be shown at Duke<br>Tuesday evening, the date having been moved from tonight.<p>When: Tuesday, November 13, 2007<br>Time: 8:00pm - 11:00pm<br>Location: Duke Coffee House & online at LooseChange911.com<br>Street: Duke's East Campus, Crowell Building, behind Wilson and next to Epworth<br>City/Town: Durham, NCPatrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-24283202553798351172007-11-04T19:12:00.001-05:002007-11-04T19:12:33.416-05:00Impeachment up for vote this week!<div><font size="2">Below is a summary of Ohio Congressman (and Democratic presidential candidate) Dennis Kucinich's bill in the House of Representatives to begin an impeachment trial of Cheney. I have heard that Tuesday the House will either take the next step, or kill the bill, like the earlier proposals. Contact your representative and show your support for this bill if you agree that Cheney (and Bush) are criminals and cannot be allowed to continue to subvert the rule of law and the Constitution, not to mention possibly start a war with Iran before they leave office, and leave US soldiers to die for imperialist geopolitics and corporate greed in Iraq and elsewhere. The Progressive Democrats of America have a set of flyers about this bill, and there should be lots of updates at <a href="http://www.afterdowningstreet.org">www.afterdowningstreet.org</a>. </font></div> <div><font size="2"></font> </div> <div><font size="2">For those in the 4th Congressional District of NC, you can contact Rep. David Price online at <a href="http://price.house.gov">price.house.gov</a> and by phone and mail at:</font></div> <div><font size="2"></font> </div><font size="2"> <div> <table class="offices" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="756" align="center" summary="This table includes office locations." border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top" width="28%"> <p><span class="officeHeader">Washington, D.C.</span> <br>U.S. House of Representatives <br>2162 Rayburn Building<br>Washington, DC 20515 <br>Phone: 202.225.1784<br>Fax: 202.225.2014</p> <p><span class="officeHeader">Chapel Hill</span><br>88 Vilcom Center <br>Suite 140 <br>Chapel Hill, NC 27514 <br>Phone: 919.967.7924 <br>Fax: 919.967.8324 </p></td></tr></tbody></table></div> <div> </div> <div><span class="officeHeader">Durham</span><br>411 W. Chapel Hill Street <br>NC Mutual Building, 6th Floor <br>Durham, NC 27701<br>Phone: 919.688.3004 <br>Fax: 919.688.0940 </div> <div> </div> <div><span class="officeHeader">Raleigh </span><br>5400 Trinity Road <br>Suite 205<br>Raleigh, NC 27607 <br>Phone: 919.859.5999 <br>Fax: 919.859.5998 </div> <div> </div> <div>In the last primary, I voted for pro-impeachment candidate Kent Kanoy instead of Price. At the moment I can't recall if I voted for someone other than Price in the election. Price is probably the most liberal congressman in North Carolina, for example authoring a bill to bring contractors under control in Iraq, but then he does anti-progressive things like defend Israel's aggression against Lebanon and not even support censuring Bush for his crimes, if I recall his vote correctly. I think I will say his vote on this bill is going to be very influential when I decide who to vote for the next time his seat is open. A few years ago I told John Edwards that he was a warmonger I could not and did not vote for, and I have doubts that he has changed enough that I could vote for him if he is the Democratic candidate for president in '08. </div></font> <div><strong></strong> </div> <div><strong>H.RES.333</strong> <br><b>Title:</b> Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. <br><b>Sponsor: </b><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Rep+Kucinich++Dennis+J.))+01499))"> Rep Kucinich, Dennis J.</a> [OH-10] (introduced 4/24/2007) <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:2:./temp/~bdYmIq:@@@P|/bss/d110query.html|">Cosponsors</a> (21) <br><b>Latest Major Action: </b>5/4/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. </div> <hr> <center>Jump to: <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:2:./temp/~bdYmIq:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/d110query.html|#summary">Summary</a>, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:2:./temp/~bdYmIq:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/d110query.html|#major actions"> Major Actions</a>, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:2:./temp/~bdYmIq:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/d110query.html|#status">All Actions</a>, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:2:./temp/~bdYmIq:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/d110query.html|#titles"> Titles</a>, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:2:./temp/~bdYmIq:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/d110query.html|#cosponsors">Cosponsors</a>, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:2:./temp/~bdYmIq:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/d110query.html|#committees"> Committees</a>, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:2:./temp/~bdYmIq:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/d110query.html|#rel-bill-detail">Related Bill Details</a>, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:2:./temp/~bdYmIq:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/d110query.html|#amendments"> Amendments</a></center> <hr> <b><a name="summary">SUMMARY AS OF:</a></b> <br>4/24/2007--Introduced. <p> <p>Impeaches Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.</p> <p>Sets forth articles of impeachment stating that Vice President Cheney: (1) has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, to justify the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq in a manner damaging to U.S. national security interests; and (2) has openly threatened aggression against Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and has done so with the U.S. proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining U.S. national security.</p> <hr> <a name="major actions"><b>MAJOR ACTIONS:</b> <i></i></a> <ul> <p>***NONE***</p></ul> <hr> <a name="status"><b>ALL ACTIONS:</b> <i></i></a> <dl> <dt><strong>4/24/2007:</strong> <dd>Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. <dl> <dt><strong>5/4/2007:</strong> <dd>Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. </dd></dt></dl></dd></dt></dl> <hr> <a name="titles"><b>TITLE(S):</b> (<i>italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill</i>)</a> <ul> <p>***NONE*** </p></ul> <hr> <a name="cosponsors"><b>COSPONSORS(21), ALPHABETICAL</b> [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort:</a> <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:2:./temp/~bdYmIq:@@@N|/bss/d110query.html|">by date</a>) <p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Baldwin++Tammy))+01558))">Rep Baldwin, Tammy</a> [WI-2] - 8/1/2007</td> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Brady++Robert+A.))+01469))">Rep Brady, Robert A.</a> [PA-1] - 7/24/2007</td></tr> <tr> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Clarke++Yvette+D.))+01864))">Rep Clarke, Yvette D.</a> [NY-11] - 6/6/2007</td> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Clay++Wm.+Lacy))+01654))">Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy</a> [MO-1] - 5/1/2007</td></tr> <tr> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Cohen++Steve))+01878))">Rep Cohen, Steve</a> [TN-9] - 8/4/2007</td> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Ellison++Keith))+01857))">Rep Ellison, Keith</a> [MN-5] - 6/28/2007</td></tr> <tr> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Farr++Sam))+00368))">Rep Farr, Sam</a> [CA-17] - 7/12/2007</td> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Filner++Bob))+00381))">Rep Filner, Bob</a> [CA-51] - 7/12/2007</td></tr> <tr> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Jackson-Lee++Sheila))+00588))">Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila</a> [TX-18] - 8/4/2007</td> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Johnson++Henry+C.+">Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr.</a> [GA-4] - 6/28/2007</td></tr> <tr> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Kilpatrick++Carolyn+C.))+01497))">Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C.</a> [MI-13] - 9/7/2007</td> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Lee++Barbara))+01501))">Rep Lee, Barbara</a> [CA-9] - 6/7/2007</td></tr> <tr> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+McDermott++Jim))+00766))">Rep McDermott, Jim</a> [WA-7] - 7/10/2007</td> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Moran++James+P.))+00832))">Rep Moran, James P.</a> [VA-8] - 7/10/2007</td></tr> <tr> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Payne++Donald+M.))+00902))">Rep Payne, Donald M.</a> [NJ-10] - 8/1/2007</td> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Schakowsky++Janice+D.))+01588))">Rep Schakowsky, Janice D.</a> [IL-9] - 5/1/2007</td></tr> <tr> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Towns++Edolphus))+01165))">Rep Towns, Edolphus</a> [NY-10] - 9/27/2007</td> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Waters++Maxine))+01205))">Rep Waters, Maxine</a> [CA-35] - 6/12/2007</td></tr> <tr> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Watson++Diane+E.))+01682))">Rep Watson, Diane E.</a> [CA-33] - 10/16/2007</td> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Woolsey++Lynn+C.))+01242))">Rep Woolsey, Lynn C.</a> [CA-6] - 6/7/2007</td></tr> <tr> <td><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Wynn++Albert+Russell))+01251))">Rep Wynn, Albert Russell</a> [MD-4] - 5/10/2007</td></tr></tbody></table> <hr> <a name="committees"><b>COMMITTEE(S):</b></a> <ul> <p> <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" width="100%" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td colspan="2"><b>Committee/Subcommittee:</b></td> <td width="65%"><b>Activity:</b></td></tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d110:FLD005:@3(House+Judiciary)|/bss/d110query.html|">House Judiciary</a> </td> <td width="65%">Referral, In Committee</td></tr> <tr> <td width="5%"> </td> <td width="30%"><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d110:FLD005:@3(House+Constitution,+Civil+Rights,+and+Civil+Liberties)|/bss/d110query.html|">Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties </a></td> <td width="65%">Referral</td></tr></tbody></table></p></ul> <hr> <b><a name="rel-bill-detail">RELATED BILL DETAILS:</a></b> <p> <ul>***NONE*** </ul> <hr> <a name="amendments"><b>AMENDMENT(S):</b></a> <p>***NONE*** </p></p></p></p> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-9545299600010401752007-09-30T03:55:00.001-04:002007-09-30T03:55:05.782-04:00October 10th: What happened to government by the people?The next Triangle Socialist Forum discussion, on electoral reform issues, will be Wednesday, October 10th at 7pm at the Chapel Hill Public Library (100 Library Dr.). Why does the political system favor business interests and what can be done to give the public more control and choice? I'm hoping that someone from the Triangle Greens can participate to talk about how the system is rigged against third parties, especially in this state. Possibly Democracy NC, a non-partisan election reform advocacy organization, will take up our invitation, and I also let the Bill of Rights Defense Committees know about the forum. As with the discussion of class in America last month, this is a huge topic and we can only scratch the surface, so we will probably be revisiting this topic again soon. <br> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-82615634351302117152007-09-20T00:57:00.001-04:002007-09-20T00:57:44.055-04:00Another Library fee update<div>Apparently the room fees have been changed again. According to an article on the front of the <em>Herald-Sun</em> Metro section Wednesday, the fees are now $25 dollars for non-profit use of larger meeting rooms (but $50 for the Main Library's Auditorium), and double that for for-profit use. I think the rooms covered are the same as what was in the original press release I posted, and there will be free rooms at the Main, East, North, Parkwood, and Stanford L Warren libraries (but not at Southwest). Refreshments are prohibited in the free rooms now. As I said before, I think the County Commissioners need to explain why this is being done and the aim should be to make services as cheap or free as possible for the public. It is an improvement for some relatively large rooms to remain free for use, and the reduced fee is also better. I am posting this on both of my blogs because it is relevant for people in Durham and it affects the impeachment movement in Durham, which meets at a library. </div> <div> </div> <div>On a different note, I blogged about the new State amphibian a while back (on <em>Durham Spark</em>), and the NC Herpetological Society now has an online poll soliciting opinions on the State frog and salamander, at <u><font color="#0000ff"><a href="http://www.ncherps.org">www.ncherps.org</a>.</font></u> </div> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-87287179902007876472007-09-18T00:52:00.001-04:002007-09-18T00:52:18.348-04:00Durham Library fee update<div>I have received more information about the Durham Library<br>room fees, which were implemented September 4th. The </div> <div>Durham People's Alliance contacted the County<br>Commissioners and the Library Board of Trustees asking<br>about the policy and why they think fees are necessary. </div> <div>The PA might do more after its next</div> <div>coordinating committee meeting later this month. The<br>Library's advisory Board seems to be in favor of free use, but<br>the County Commissioners, or some of them, seem to<br>feel that the fees are needed for expenses associated <br>with the rooms, and the Commissioners originated this<br>idea. There might be further changes, and there </div> <div>was a working meeting on the 4th. </div> <div>Some rooms are still free. I still think this<br>is a bad idea and cannot be justified by the charges<br>to use spaces in the Durham Public Schools, but it is an<br>improvement to leave smaller spaces free (at least for <br>now). A press release was sent out August 7th, but<br>irresponsibly ignored by the media. The part below is on</div> <div> the room fee:<br><br> # # #<br><br><br> News Release<br><br><br> Date: Aug. 7, 2007<br><br> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE<br><br> CONTACT: Jana A. Alexander<br><br> 560-0151 or <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:jalexander@durhamcountync dot gov"> jalexander at durhamcountync dot gov</a><br><br> Durham County Library Policies Change Sept. 4<br><br> . . . Meeting Rooms<br>During the process to create the library's<br>2007-2008 budget, the Durham Board of County <br>Commissioners directed the library to implement fees<br>for meeting rooms. In the past, community</div> <div>organizations could use meeting rooms free of charge<br>if they were not serving refreshments. The library<br><span></span>charged a nominal fee of $25 for meeting room use if<br>the organization served refreshments; the fee was for <br>facilities maintenance.<br><br>Durham County Library will continue providing some<br>free meeting rooms. However, effective Sept. 4, 2007,<br>the library will charge nonprofit organizations a flat<br>rate of $50 for booking one of the library system's <br>large meeting rooms for up to four hours. The fee for<br>commercial enterprises and for-profit organizations<br>will be $100 for meetings that last four hours or<br>less. There will not be a separate fee for<br>refreshments. <br><br>The meeting spaces that will require a fee include<br>the Main Library auditorium (capacity 150) and the<br>meeting rooms at North and East regional libraries<br>(capacity 100), Parkwood Branch Library (capacity 40), <br>Southwest Branch Library (capacity 50) and Stanford L.<br>Warren Branch (capacity 75).<br><br>The spaces that will remain available to the community<br>free of charge include Main Library's third-floor<br>conference room (capacity 40); and the study/tutoring <br>rooms at East and North regional libraries (capacity<br>8), Parkwood Branch Library (capacity 12); and<br>Stanford L. Warren Branch Library (three rooms, with<br>capacities of 2, 2 and 6).<br><br>"Throughout its history, Durham County Library <br>facilities have been popular meeting places for a<br>number of community organizations," said [Skip] Auld. "The<br>new fee will help us to better maintain our<br>facilities."<br><br><br>Late breaking information: The City Council seems to <br>be considering changes to its position (stated in a 2003 resolution) of ignoring<br>immigration status except for those charged with serious crimes,<br>but the consensus is said to be to modify it, not repeal it. </div> <div>This might have come up at the Council meeting earlier in the evening.</div> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15267715.post-52000131934702710192007-08-14T13:46:00.001-04:002007-08-14T13:46:22.947-04:00Support impeachment Monday in Chapel Hill<div> <p align="center"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2"><b>Monday, Aug. 20</b><sup><b>th</b></sup><b> at 2:45; Chelsea Theater</b></font></p> <p align="center"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2">Timberlyne Shopping Center; Chapel Hill;</font></p> <p align="center"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2">Near the corner of Weaver Dairy Rd and M. L. K. Boulevard.</font><font size="2"> <br></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2">Members of GRIM* & guests will meet to prep for an upcoming celebration. Everyone is encouraged to attend and bring friends.</font><font size="2"> <br></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2">We plan to celebrate the leadership initiative by Our Representative David Price to respond to the White House's stonewalling against every effort of Congress to get accountability. Because the administration has blocked every other avenue, it has become absolutely necessary to </font></p> <p align="center"><font face="Arial" size="2"><b><u>Impeach Cheney & Bush.</u></b></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2">At 3:00 we'll start a short walk across Weaver Dairy Rd. to Vilcom Center Drive for a brief 'Pep Rally' @ 3:15.</font><font size="2"> <br></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2">Several members of GRIM, local elected officials, and human rights activists will meet with Representative Price from 3:30 to 4:00.</font><font size="2"> <br></font></p> <p align="center"><font face="Arial" size="2">After the meeting, we'll all walk back to the shopping center where we will be granted access to the Chelsea Theater <b>to begin the celebration</b>.</font><font size="2"> <br></font></p> <p align="center"><font face="Arial" size="2">PLEASE WEAR AS MUCH ORANGE</font></p> <p align="center"><font face="Arial" size="2">AS YOU CAN (symbol of impeachment)<span></span> </font><font size="2"> <br> <br></font></p> <p align="center"><font face="Arial" size="2">*GRIM—Grass Roots Impeachment Movement— </font><font size="2"><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.impeachbushcheney.net/" target="_blank"> <font face="Arial"><u>www.impeachbushcheney.net</u></font></a></font></p></div> <div><font size="2"></font> </div> <div><font size="2">++++++<br>We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.</font></div> <div> </div> <div><font size="2">—Edward R. Murrow</font></div> Patrick Meagher (southplumb)http://www.blogger.com/profile/09272623762844856444noreply@blogger.com0