Good afternoon fellow Democrats.

Obama \ Clinton 2008

Yes we can!

Si se puede!

Change we can believe in!

Sen. Clinton's website.

Bob,

What part of their first amendment right was violated? They can still worship, cant they?

Reposting, for those interested...

HighSerenity (and any others who want to do it this way),

To make text in a comment into a hot link:

Go to the text in your comment and draw the mouse over the text to highlight what you want for the hot link…

Then, go up above the comment area to the icon bar and to the chain icon link thingy,

Click it and a link box pops up…

Hit back space in that box to remove the first "http://" (so that there aren't two of them) and paste in the site link you copied.

Or…

If you prefer to write your own html linky dance, the html code is:

<a href="Link">Text</a>

Like so:

<a href="http://www.democrats.org/blog.html">DNC Kicking Ass</a>

---

OR, if you wish to link your name as a hot link:

Use the "URL:" box above the comment box to paste your link...

...but if you preview before posting, you will probably have to re-paste the link (unless you clicked "remember me") before you hit the "post" button.

...and then we can enjoy working and winning together like in 06...if this doesn't work out i am building a spaceship in my backyard which will take me to another galaxy cause the mcsame galaxy will be too much for my delicate sensibilities.
Posted by gregg on April 29, 2008 at 11:47 PM

Gregg: Is there enough space for me and my dog?

Dean/Schweitzer 2012!

Indiana superdelegate Baron Hill backs Barack Obama

INDIANAPOLIS — U.S. Rep. Baron Hill endorsed Barack Obama on Wednesday, giving the presidential hopeful a potential boost going into Indiana’s primary next week.

Hill, who represents a portion of southern Indiana, is a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention. He planned to publicly announce the endorsement during an Obama campaign rally Wednesday night at Indiana University’s Assembly Hall in Bloomington, Hill spokeswoman Katie Moreau said.

Hill said in a statement that some had advised him to not choose yet between Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, but decided he could not wait.

‘‘We cannot continue to pursue the same politics of personal destruction we have engaged in for a generation,’’ Hill said. ‘‘I believe Senator Obama has the capability to change the tone and tenor of politics in Washington. I believe that he can and will work with both parties and elevate the level of public discourse.’’

Hill joins Rep. Andre Carson of Indianapolis in endorsing Obama. The state’s three other Democratic congressmen have not backed either candidate, while Sen. Evan Bayh is supporting Clinton.

I think we`ll all be looking for another world!

Furthermore, this FLDS cult's First Amendment rights have been horribly violated, IMHO. These people have every right to live like this, and raise their children like this, if they want to.

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Obama08 on April 30, 2008 at 02:47 PM

How about the man in Austria and his children-grandchildren? Do they have that right also? These children and women are known to be brutalized and institutionalized if they do not conform to the wishes and desires of the men, especially those that are high-ranking within the sect. Is it not our duty to make certain that these women and children have the opportunity to be free? Or, do they lose those rights because they had the misfortune to be born into a dictatorship within the USA?

Sorry Cubilist,I was referring to the spaceship that Gregg brought up.

Virgo,

What are you talking about?

Fascism: Fast and furious in ten historic steps.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens’ groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law

What the republicans offer to America

Oh I see.

Furthermore, this FLDS cult's First Amendment rights have been horribly violated, IMHO. These people have every right to live like this, and raise their children like this, if they want to.

Bob there are LAWS against this type of marriage and sex with children! If this sick sect wants to live like this, then they must go find their own country somewhere, they break the laws of our's. Has nothing to do with rights!

did you read the one I posted that said they are discovering sexual abuse of young boys and broken bones in 41 young children? THAT is against our laws.

Dear Hillary,

I wouldn't watch Fox New's even if someone clamped jumper cables to my testicles. Having said that, if there was one discussion I would love to see take place it would be one where you could show the nation what a dipshit Bill "O" is.

I would even forgive you for your Bosnia comments.

Yesterday, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly made the incredible claim that the United States never invaded Iraq: “We didn’t invade Iraq.” He added, “It was a declaration of war, it was a declaration to enforce the first Gulf War Treaty.”

http://thinkprogress.org/

Senator Evan Bayh would be a good choice as the running mate for either Clinton or Obama. Senator Bayh has won statewide races in Indiana, a red state that hasn't gone for Democrats since 1964. Although Indiana would probably still go for McCain, Senator Bayh would be a big help in Pennsylvania, and across the midwest. With that said, Clinton/Obama, or Clinton/Bayh would win with about 310 on the electoral map. Obama/Clinton, Obama/Bayh, Obama/Clark, would get under 100 electoral votes against John McCain because of the threhold question regarding becoming the Commander and Chief, Senator Obama's lack of experience in national defense and the national economy. Clinton/Obama would win. So, let's united behind the Clinton/Obama victory ticket.

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Obama08 on April 30, 2008 at 02:47 PM
The first amendment doesn't cover such things as SEX WITH UNERAGE GIRLS!! Those men a pedophiles plain and simple.

Posted by Michigan_Dave on April 30, 2008 at 03:34 PM

We didn't invade....huh? There must be the slightest thread of logic there right? Is he saying that if you give advanced notice that you are going to...er,...come by uninvited...that it doesn't qualify as an "invasion"?

Ok...yeah...no, still not getting it.

Posted by puggles on April 30, 2008 at 03:10 PM

I have plans to succeed from the united states, arm my wife and family and make our condo and unpenatrable fortress.

I will start my own country and cult. It will be for smart people only, who are physically fit. We will inbreed and freeze our eggs and sperm for future generations.

We will have "Stupid Alerts" and Retina Scanning. We will grow our own quarter pounders and make our own wine. We will never vote again for anything except for what's for dinner and who's turn is is to take out the trash and man the Retina Scanner.

If you a republican or an independent you will be tazed before you will be able to open your mouth. We will train our dogs on parimeter patrol to sniff you out. Dog's know stupid people(who are generally republican) when they see them.

We will ask Canada to join us in a coalition of the compassionate and smart. Canandians love to be considered compassionate and smart and they would support their government if there was a plan to join a small country (or condo) with a desire to succeed from the usa. It is a much better option than Afghanistan, which they don't support.

Aliens and their spaceships are not the answer. All they really want to do is check out your genitals and give you a lobotomy.

Look at what happened to Texas!

Posted by anne_smith on April 30, 2008 at 03:43 PM

In the U.S. Senate Obama is unique among Senators in that he serves on three of the four Senate Committees dealing with foreign policy issues including the Foreign Relations; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs committees and is the Chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Relations which is responsible fore U.S. relations with European countries, the European Union, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (i.e., NATO). When comparing Obama's foreign policy experience with other candidates for President you have Democrat Joseph Biden who is Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Democrat Hillary Clinton who is a member of the Armed Services Committee and John McCain who is the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee yet there is no Senator except for Barack Obama who serves on three of the four committees that deal with foreign policy.

Obama service on the Foreign Relations committee has placed him in an unique position in that he is the Chair of the Subcommittee on European Relations and serves on the Subcommittees on African Affairs; East Asia and Pacific Affairs; and International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection. This cross-section of subcommittees places Obama in a unique position of having knowledge about Asian, African and European issues. The only other member of the Foreign Relations committee who is running for President is Democrat Joseph Biden who is Chairman of the full Foreign Relations Committee yet unlike Obama he does not serve on any of the other foreign policy committees and his experience is limited to foreign policy issues covered by the Foreign Relations Committee.

Obama has also traveled extensively in his capacity as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and has visited Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan in Asia; Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, and the Palestinian Territories in the Middle East; and Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, and South Africa in Africa. Obama has also co-sponsored the "Lugar-Obama Act" with Republican Senator Richard Lugar who was Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations at the time. This act was a bi-partisan effort to increase U.S. security in terms of the elimination of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. This legislation came out of Obama's trip with Senator Richard Lugar to Russia, the Ukraine and Azerbaijan.

http://www.obamapedia.org/page/Does+Barack+Obama+have+enough+experience+to+be+president%3F

Posted by PamB on April 30, 2008 at 03:33 PM

I saw a news article a few days ago that said there were very few boys in that cult, and ZERO between the ages of 14 and 17 . My question is where did they go?

We know that a lot of times the "elders" take the kids to some far away town and abandon them if they are too strong or too good looking etc., but I wonder how many are just plain dead and buried somewhere, either on the "ranch" or in a desert?

Hell, they could be cannibals in that cult, for all we know.

After all, they can't have the young bucks takin' all the "wimmin folks" for themselves.

Sorry Cubilist,Puggles was quoting you about a spaceship to get away from McInsane.Anyway,I think you already figured it out. Is it me or does there seem to be a lull after the Obama declaration of separating from Rev. Wright? Media forces must be having a huddle to figure out what next.I know they certainly don`t want to talk about Hillary or McCain`s religious affiliations? HMMMMMM Seems to me the media only seems to be interested in Barack????????What`s that about?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry Cubilist,Puggles was quoting you about a spaceship to get away from McInsane.Anyway,I think you already figured it out. Is it me or does there seem to be a lull after the Obama declaration of separating from Rev. Wright? Media forces must be having a huddle to figure out what next.I know they certainly don`t want to talk about Hillary or McCain`s religious affiliations? HMMMMMM Seems to me the media only seems to be interested in Barack????????What`s that about?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did I happen to hear the word bias in my mind?????????????????

The Cliinton/Obama ticket would also make the Rev. Wright problem go away for Barack, and for down ballot Democratic candidates in each state. Since Bill Clinton was the object of one of Rev. Wright's offensive videos, the American public knows that the Clintons and Rev. Wright are adversaries.

Posted by Michigan_Dave on April 30, 2008 at 03:49 PM

You had me up to the inbreeding stuff...are you sure you're not a republican?

Sorry Cubilist,Puggles was quoting you about a spaceship to get away from McInsane.Anyway,I think you already figured it out. Is it me or does there seem to be a lull after the Obama declaration of separating from Rev. Wright? Media forces must be having a huddle to figure out what next.I know they certainly don`t want to talk about Hillary or McCain`s religious affiliations? HMMMMMM Seems to me the media only seems to be interested in Barack????????What`s that about?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did I happen to hear the word bias in my mind?????????????????

Posted by BlueinIdaho on April 30, 2008 at 03:48 PM

My guess is that the framing of the Iraq Invasion and Occupation of...wait for it....the "GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR!!" is past it's use by date and the american public are saying things like.

"Hey..this ain't no war..it's a g'damn occupation"

"Hey...we ain't no imperialistic, nation building country...what the efff are we doing occupying Iraq"

"Hey...is it still a war if you kill more civilians than bad guys??"

"Hey...where'd everybody go??...Don't them stupid effin european and pollocks know we got a war going on?....They said what?!!....We didn't invade this place and occupy it...THEY DID!!

And so did CLINTON!!!

ps: I can't believe you dug up that old Clinton stuff....I musta been on drugs that day. :)

Obama/Clinton, Obama/Bayh, Obama/Clark, would get under 100 electoral votes against John McCain
Posted by anne_smith on April 30, 2008 at 03:43 PM

1. Less than 100 electoral votes, Have you even looked at an electoral map?
You are just being silly. (I hope that this is not considered "name calling.")

2. Why would Hill-Billy get 310 with Obama as VP and less than 100 when she is the VP? The "dream ticket," you should stop dreamin' cause it will never happen. The sooner you realize that the better.

3. (I think) On Friday Someone posted a helpful breakdown of the states assumed to win and toss ups for Hillary v. McCain and Obama v. McCain.

Can someone repost that?

Posted by anne_smith on April 30, 2008 at 03:57 PM

I'm going to have to call Bravo Sierra on that whopper. Why would Bill Clinton rely on Rev Wright for support during the Lewinsky scandal if they were "adversaries"?

If I wasn't aware that you are just a McCain supporter with too much time on her hands, I would question why you would obtain so much glee from one of our Democratic candidates being swiftboated by the MSM.

Posted by Cubilist on April 30, 2008 at 02:57 PM

When the government kicks your door in and commandeers your children on the flimsiest of evidence it makes it rather difficult to enjoy your First Amendment rights, IMHO.

Posted by {{{BlueinIdaho}}} on April 30, 2008 at 03:58 PM

It was a biblical reference..An Adam and Eve thing only they didn't have the advantage of cyrogenics.

It's only just a little bit more bizarre than contacting Aliens for a lift.

Posted by Michigan_Dave on April 30, 2008 at 04:02 PM

Drug-induced, maybe, but nevertheless, a classic. :)

Obama has also traveled extensively in his capacity as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and has visited Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan in Asia; Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, and the Palestinian Territories in the Middle East; and Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, and South Africa in Africa.
Posted by BlueinIdaho on April 30, 2008 at 03:54 PM

But can he lie about what happened at all of those visits?

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Obama08 on April 30, 2008 at 04:05 PM

Right bob,
but my question to you is what does part of their first amendment rights were broken?

If you're taking about kicking in doors, isn't that a Forth amendment issue?

Posted by BlueinIdaho on April 30, 2008 at 03:21 PM

But therein lies the rub, Blue. The Austrians didn't take the next door neighbor in nor the guy around the corner or anyone else not involved. They got the alleged guilty party.

Joe Lieberman Democrats/Independents and the Reagan Democrats are key swing voters for the presidential election in 2008. How would they rank the three candidates as being strong on national defense? 1) McCain; 2) Clinton; 3) Obama. As a Clinton supporter, I wouldn't agree with Joe Lieberman Democrats or Reagan Democrats, but I know from nearly 40 years of expereince of battling with the Rebubicans that this is how national defense swing voters think and would vote.

Posted by Cubilist on April 30, 2008 at 04:08 PM

I'll just say that of the three (or 4) candidates still vying for president, Barack probably has the best memory considering he's far younger than the others. :)

Bob, that was not the flimiest of evidence. The Town officials knew for years that this was a polygamist sect, but they could not advance without some kind of complaint or report.

When that phone call came in supposedly from a 15 year old married to an old man who was abusing her, that was their opportunity to go in and save these children.

These women were just as bad as the men. they KNEW how it felt to be married off as soon as they started their menses to an old man who was nothing more than a pediophile who wanted slaves.

If you care about children, then you know it was in the best interest to get them out and away. One HAS no first amendment rights when one breaks the law.

By your definition, then murderers, rapists, robbers all have rights to do what they do ??

Posted by Cubilist on April 30, 2008 at 04:10 PM

The catalyst for the "invasion" (might have to solicit Bill-O's advice on the use in this instance) of the FLDS compound in Texas may indeed turn out to be false information reasonably relied upon. However, once the officers viewed violations of the law, or reasonably suspected that violations were occuring upon minors, they were absolutely correct in taking action to protect those minor children. There is a long history of this sect abusing women, men and children under the guise of religious freedom. The Constitution should not be used as a shield to commit crimes upon another person.

The first amendment isn't about being able to do whatever the hell you want to. If someone is a practicing aztec (in America), do they the right to hold a sacrificial murder? Of course not.

Obviously, this is the first time that the Obama campaign has run for president. In contrast, Bill Clinton won the White House twice. Among the keys to Clinton's success was his understanding of the electoral map, and insight into voters. One mistake that the Obama campaign makes is relying upon opinion polls instead of historic data when developing electoral projections. This far from the general election it is common for the Democrat to lead the Republican by 20% for president. Yet, since 1968 we've usually lost.

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Obama08 on April 30, 2008 at 04:05 PM

Oddly Roberto..I have to agree with your points. I have a problem with the abuse of children..but, I also grew up as a child in a large family and had a father that delighted in kick my ass when I screwed up. We laugh about it now how he would line (7) of us up with our bare asses in the air bent over the edge of the couch and wail on us with his big leather belt.

Don't remember any CPS worker knocking on my door. Those were the days. It was called discipline and it didn't stop at home. Got a couple of knocks on the head and knuckles smacked with a ruler at school too.

And well look, I'm just about as normal as most folk. Brahahahahaha!!

However, there have been many cults in the history of mankind. Xerxes had 30 or 40 wives and a couple of hundred concubines..that was one busy fella.

The cult out there isn't any stranger than the Amish people in Pennsyvania..(Did they vote for Clinton?) or some of those Catholics that practice beating themselves with leather whips (thought I was going to say something else, didn't you) or those other guys that cut foreskins off their boys in a public ceremony. (is that abuse?)

Just one more group that we can deamonize and terrorize. One more group to hit the news cycle.

They are different....a bit like Muslims. Bet they are greatful that we didn't "Shock and Awe" them.

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Obama08 on April 30, 2008 at 04:12 PM

A nice read to understand this issue is "Under the Banner of Heaven". What it will explain is there is no "guilty party" as we commonly understand that term. It is an invasive lifestyle that encompasses not only the predators and their victims, but also the courts, police, legislature and medical personnel. In other words, the whole cult is the "guilty party".

Posted by PamB on April 30, 2008 at 03:33 PM
Posted by peaceman on April 30, 2008 at 03:44 PM
There has not been one single arrest let alone a conviction. All of these stories floating around are mere supposition. Let's try this a different way my fellow Democrats. Substitute the word homosexual or Muslim, or Evangelical for that matter, for FLDS and I'm sure the tide of sentiment would change.

IMHO, these people are being put through the most draconian measures for being different. I no more want to live like a 19th century FLDS frontiersman than either of you do. But that's not to say that these people don't. And it should be their right to live and worship as they see fit. To date, I have not heard of anyone being held against their will.

I agree wholeheartedly that if crimes have been committed then those who perpretrated said crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law because the accusations thus far are heinous, at best. But I respecfully remind my fellow Democrats that this whole fiasco started based on one phone call from an alleged sixteen year old female, still as of yet unidentified, making allegations. In fact, the TX Rangers are investigating as to whether or not the call came from an African-American woman in her thirties from the state of CO. And the end result is still over 400 children being taken away from their parents who have yet to be proven guilty of anything. And in America, a person is still innocent until proven guilty. Or at least that is how it used to be.

Posted by BlueinIdaho on April 30, 2008 at 04:19 PM

Blue,

I'm in no way agreeing with Bob's perspective on the FLDS. The first amendment has NOTHING to do with what Bob is talking about.

He had quipped that I would find it difficult to enjoy my first amendment rights when the government kicked my door down and took my family away. I understood this as unlawful entry.

So, in that circumstance I would find it difficult to enjoy my forth amendment rights because I could still freely speak, read a free press, freely gather, and freely worship. That's all I was trying to say concerning the first and forth amendment. It wasn't meant to be read as support for the FLDS.

Posted by anne_smith on April 30, 2008 at 04:27 PM

Yes, it is his first time...you've now struck his appeal. We want change, not the usual politics.

Posted by anne_smith on April 30, 2008 at 04:27 PM

It is the first time Hillary has run for president as well.

If you're saying that her strategists are undefeated when running for president, you'de be mistaken. Many former Bill Clinton strategists joined the Kerry campaign in 2004 and we all know how that turned out.

As far as their strategy is concerened, Gore and Kerry both adopted the 14 state strategy. This is the strategy that Bill Clinton and the DLC have used and is the one that's currently helping her lose in states won, total delegates, and total votes.

At the end of the day, though, The disfunction of her campaign speaks for itself.

Posted by PamB on April 30, 2008 at 04:16 PM

....but Pam...this cult has been practicing this supression and there particular beliefs for a long time. This is not new. This is not a cult or religion that just developed yesterday. For the most part, these women and children don't know anything different. It is and will remain, like a lot of cult religions, a closed society.

Women and children will be saved by an open culture society but we may kill them too.

We truly don't have a right to tell people how to live their lives. We don't even really have the right to judge either.

Most religious doctrines spell that out in big letters.

There are probably some real bastards in this group that may deserve jail time. But, again, that is from our perspective, not theirs.

I don't think anything good is going to come out of separating children from their mothers. Good or bad, they are their moms. Don't be surprised if a few of them commit suicide or turn out to be (3) state serial killers.

Posted by Cubilist on April 30, 2008 at 04:23 PM

Cube, I get where you're coming from. However, if I picked up the phone right now and called your local PD and told them that you were practicing Aztec should that give them the authority to sequester your children, your neighbor's children, and in effect, shut down your entire community? Again, that is based on one phone call from an anonymous source.

You're correct to point out that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated as well. My reference to the First Amendment stems from my theory that these people are being ostracized (sp?) for being different in their religious beliefs and their lifestyle which stems from said FLDS religious belief(s).

well, Bob, maybe once the DNA tests have been finished, and they know which parents are of which child, maybe there will be some arrests of the parents and the husband of the 12 and 13 year old kids. these kids and people are not talking. so how do you file charges when they are protecting their own. Those women are brainwashed. Have you seen the interviews of them with that glossy eyed smile on their faces? And they LEFT their children to go back to the men and the camp. That tells me they do not care very much. I as a Mother would have never left my child behind, and would have fought for them like a lion!

One mistake that the Obama campaign makes is relying upon opinion polls...
Posted by anne_smith on April 30, 2008 at 04:27 PM

You know who else doesn't rely on opinion polls...

George W. Bush

Posted by anne_smith on April 30, 2008 at 03:43 PM

Anne: While Sen. Obama does not quite have the experience in these areas that Sen. Clinton does, his experience is, in fact, quite extensive. He was all but 'demanded' for a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as a result of his formal education as well as actual hands on experience. His opinions on middle eastern matters is often very sought out by members of both parties. Please do not 'discount' in any way, Sen. Obama's qualifications. He, like Sen. Clinton, will make an excellent POTUS!

Unbelievable. So these guys can legally rape little girls and that is OK with you as long as they claim it is part of their religious beliefs?

Come on. I guess the Catholic priests made a big mistake. They should have claimed it was just part of religious training, and it would have been OK to molest all those boys. Think of the money the Catholic Church could have saved.

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Obama08 on April 30, 2008 at 04:31 PM

You're right, there has been no arrest or conviction, but what would you have them do? Do they leave these minors in the care of the predators while the officers investigate?

Let me put it in these terms, the history of this cult is the systematic rape and abuse of children for the benefit of a select group of men. More information will come out during a trial or other investigation, but we cannot sit back and let these children be abused any longer while the slow wheels of justice turn.

And that will be my last comment today on this subject.

If you are strictly a supporter of Sen. Obama, then please go there. But, this is the DEMOCRATIC web site! We here are supposed to be pro Democratic!
Posted by marymac_memphis on April 29, 2008 at 11:40 PM

Is this some cockeyed version of love it or leave?

Mary, the process we, as Democrats, are engaged in now is choosing which among the Democratic candidates is best suited for the job. Necessarily, we must compare and contrast. If it didn't matter, we could just have drawn straws. Any old Democrat would do. But, in fact, there are differences between the candidates, and it's our job to choose wisely. That means if we know something good, we share it. Likewise, if we know something bad, we are obligated to warn others about it.

Whether you like it or not, we are practicing our rights on this Democratic blog. If we were not, it still would not be your responsibility to tell us. It would be up to the gatekeepers of the blog. It often is not authority itself people find objectionable, but illegitimate authority.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The head of the U.S. government's top contracting agency has resigned amid accusations of misuse of authority, including allegations she tried to enlist agency officials to help Republican political hopefuls.

Doan's resignation comes 10 months after the government's the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) recommended to the White House that she be disciplined to the "fullest extent" for violating federal laws against using government employees for political purposes -- a finding she denied.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/30/gsa.chief.resigns/index.html

Those women are brainwashed. Have you seen the interviews of them with that glossy eyed smile on their faces?
Posted by PamB on April 30, 2008 at 04:43 PM

They all look like the Bush women and for that matter C. McCain! Everyone of them looks like they have multiple doses of Prozac every day!

Bob: With all due respect, when it comes to children, we must err on the side of caution. I believe that the authorities have not stepped in and separated these children from their families based on one simple phone call. I strongly suspect that there is much more to it than what has been made public. Further, I agree with punishing the guilty but, isn't knowing that evil is being perpitrated and turning a blind eye, the same as perpitrating the evil yourself. "All evil needs to flourish is for good men (People) to do nothing!"
The abuse of children is a very emotional subject and we should all hold open our minds to both sides of this issue and trust that the authorities are doing what needs to be done to protect those children.

Posted by BlueinIdaho on April 30, 2008 at 03:54 PM

Blue,

I understand you stated Obama was on 3 senate subcommittees on foreign policies. Hum? Can you point us to any of the subcommittee briefs or notes or committee findings?

The problem with Obama being on those committee(s) is there are very little records showing he called any meetings or hearings or note taking of any kind!

…and this makes him qualified?!?

Please, …I will give you the benefit to post any links that show that Obama had meeting for the last 2-3 years!!!

Concerned; A Title to Nothing is Still Nothing!!”

Show me? Anything but propaganda!!

Just like a republican talk show host who claims to be a CEO of a corporation. The only issue is his corporation has one employee, himself, according to all tax filing.

I asked the republican talk show host to show me his management skills of one person.

So I think it is prudent that I ask you to show me records of accomplishments for Obama being on 3 committees on foreign policies!! What has he done!?!

Posted by tylinCA on April 30, 2008 at 04:59 PM

To compare, contrast and discuss is one thing, but to come here multiple times each day and do nothing but attack another Democrat is ... well ... what reTHUGs do! I have no problem with those who prefer Sen. Obama to Sen. Clinton and I have no problem with those who prefer Sen. Clinton. I do; however, have a problem with those who do nothing but spread hate for one of my fellow democrats and I will NOT ACCEPT critisim for standing up for another democrat. I am a Democrat and standing up for other Democrats is what I do! Again, the big question to you is why aren't you willing to stand up for fellow democrats against those who spew hate?

Anne_Smith.

You haven't mentioned Obama is a muslim. You must be to that by now. :-) (tongue firmly planted in cheek!)

Since Obama is in the lead in the official process, how did this all happen?

I am not sure you understand you fellow moderates as well as you think. Obama won over independants (like me) for a reason. Think about this famous quote.

"If you can't say anything nice... you must be talking about Hillary Clinton." - Jeff Foxworthy

Think these guys don't have any influence? Git'er done is a common phrase around here...

Ann- You haven't made Billery case. I don't think you can.

Posted by HybridFuel on April 30, 2008 at 05:17 PM

Federal Ethics Reform: Obama and Senator Feingold (D-WI) took on both parties and proposed ethics legislation that was described as the "gold standard" for reform. It was because of their leadership that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists' bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips became part of the final ethics bill that was signed into law. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, "The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet."
Google for Government: Americans have the right to know how their tax dollars are spent, but that information has been hidden from public view for too long. That's why Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a Google-like search engine to allow regular people to approximately track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans online. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, "It would enable the public to see where federal money goes and how it is spent. It's a brilliant idea."

Posted by HybridFuel on April 30, 2008 at 05:17 PM

He is on 3 COMMITTEES. He is the Chair of ONE Subcommittee.

Concern yourself with this

Posted by marymac_memphis on April 30, 2008 at 05:21 PM

I'm glad that Liberman isn't on the ticket. I'm not sure that people could abide by your rules.

I am not willing to stand up for Hillary Clinton because she is not yet the chosen one, and I have serious concerns about her stance on pre-emptive war and her Washington insider status. I also am deeply uneasy about the extension of the Clinton/Bush dynasty.

It would be foolish of me to stand up for a candidate I do not prefer when there are other choices. If she becomes my only choice, then I will have to reconsider, but we aren't there yet, and I don't want Marine to shut up. I value the input from a member of the armed forces.

According to all reports Obama held his first committee meeting around April 8th 2008.

To dates it's his first and only committee hearing or meeting on foreign policy!!!

ONE!!!

Posted by HybridFuel on April 30, 2008 at 05:17 PM

Is there a polite way of encouraging you to learn how the committee structure works? He wasn't the chair of the committee, nor the secretary who would ordinarily be assigned note-taking. He voted when issues were brought and even sponsored legislation that made it through the committee.

What more do you want? What meetings/hearings did Hillary call? I'll give you a hint: learn how the committees work.

Posted by HybridFuel on April 30, 2008 at 05:17 PM

Hybrid, Sen. Biden is one of the most distinguished members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - would you agree? He has said, on a number of occassions, that Sen. Obama was 'very sought out' for a seat on that committee, which usually demands years of seniority for consideration. He has also expressed his admiration for Sen. Obama as a member of the committee.

Further, Sen. Obama has formal education to go with his experience. So, please, do not discount his experience in the matter of Foreign Relations.

I wonder why no one has mentioned that a Nationwide poll NOW shows that Clinton beats McCain, while Obama and McCain are tied??? I don't put much faith in these types of polls. But the people who used this measure against Clinton in the past must be concerned now.

Personally, I'd be more concerned with the poll that shows McCain beating Obama in BLUE Massachusetts. At the same time, Clinton beats McLame. I wonder what the Superdelegates think?

It appears that Clinton's strong showing in diverse PA, while being outspent 3:1, and some of Obama's comments, and the Rev. Wright controversy have caused a major shift in the landscape.

I wonder if Rev. Wright is going to tuck his tail, and leave the podium? For the sake of the Party, I hope he does... but I'm not betting on it. And we know the Republicans won't let it rest.

Maybe you should "concern" yourself with how the Senate works. Being on a Committee doesn't mean that any member can call a meeting. And being the Chair of a SUBcommittee means that meetings can be called ONLY if the Chair of the COMMITTEE asks for one.

You should be "concerned" about how little you know of the workings of Government.

Posted by Cate on April 30, 2008 at 04:54 PM

So these guys can legally rape little girls and that is OK with you as long as they claim it is part of their religious beliefs?...

The first answer is, of course not. But you can't prove that they did. I believe this is a case of religious intolerance gone wild.

...I guess the Catholic priests made a big mistake. They should have claimed it was just part of religious training, and it would have been OK to molest all those boys...

That makes about as much sense as taking away your children for something alleged against your neighbor.

I've been on the fence since Edwards dropped out of the race. He was my guy. Neither of the remaining two candidates made me as enthusiastic as he did. But that is water under the bridge. As I say, I have been undecided.

No longer. I am supporting Hillary Clinton for President. My main reason is electability. We need to get this done. She can do it. I doubt Obama can anymore.

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Obama08 on April 30, 2008 at 04:05 PM
Freedom does not include the right to harm others. Most of those girls over the age of puberty are either mothers or pregnant. That's child abuse.
Another thing that nobody's mentioned are the "lost boys" issue that I came across when I was doing some research on FLDS.
This cult has a bad habit of taking "excess" boys and finding excuses to toss them out on the street, some as young as 13 years old. It leaves more girls for the elders to "marry".
These kids are "home schooled" so they know absolutely nothing about the outside world, just like the girls, but suddenly they are tossed out in it, forbidden to contact their families and with no job skills.
Go to Google, type in "FLDS lost boys" and see what you find.
There was a group of them who were trying to sue the FLDS cult in 2004 in Utah. They achieved a partial settlement of money and land in Utah.
You seem to think it's OK for old goats to screw young girls, how about these assholes disposing of boys of about the same age by tossing them out on the street with nothing, not even an education?

Posted by Big_Yellow_Dog on April 30, 2008 at 05:32 PM

I don't understand how you don't know that he has been abused by Hillary and the MSM over and over and his numbers were bound to drop, this trend WILL change once he wins the nomination. I don't understand how you don't know the Rev. Wright has ALREADY retired. I don't understand how you don't know that it was only like 2 to 1 in the money, and fail to mention he cut her lead from over 25% to 9% in 6 weeks. I don't understand how you don't realise it is easy to be outspent when your campaign is BROKE and in debt. I don't understand, well how anyone can support Hillary.

I wonder why no one has mentioned that a Nationwide poll NOW shows that Clinton beats McCain, while Obama and McCain are tied??? I don't put much faith in these types of polls. But the people who used this measure against Clinton in the past must be concerned now.

Posted by Big_Yellow_Dog on April 30, 2008 at 05:32 PM

Interesting that you should mention this. It's precisely why I visited the blog today. I heard some pundit on CNN going on about this very thing, saying that McCain may beat either of our candidates handily because of their high negatives. I wanted to ask whether John Edwards has dropped out entirely or if he suspended his campaign and could revive it at the last minute? That's probably a ridiculous question, but I really don't know. What happens if we end up with two unelectable candidates?

I'm glad that Liberman isn't on the ticket. I'm not sure that people could abide by your rules.
Posted by tylinCA on April 30, 2008 at 05:28 PM

So, you don't think that anyone should have voted for Gore/Lieberman in 2000? Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that we are not Democrats and are not worthy of posting here on this blog if we were so stupid as to vote for Gore/Lieberman? Is that what I am supposed to take from this post because it sure sounds like that is what you are saying!

Blind Trusts
A blind trust is a legal mechanism that allows property owners to conceal their identities. Public records bear only the name of a front person, who does not actually control the property. Blind trusts permit owners to buy and sell property without public scrutiny. They make it difficult for casually interested parties to make purchase offers on buildings and for tenants to know to whom to take their complaints. Although no Illinois statute deliberately established the legality of the blind trust, state courts have recognized its validity.

During the 1960s, the blind trust became a target of African American housing activists. A favorite tactic was to picket outside the homes and offices of people who owned poorly maintained apartment buildings and houses purchased “on contract.” The Contract Buyers' League (CBL) worked to help African Americans renegotiate the payment terms of the contracts on their homes. The use of blind trusts hindered efforts both to shame property owners and to negotiate with them. In 1969, the CBL pressured the Illinois legislature into requiring the identification of owners of residential property bought on contract.

Amanda Seligman

No Wonder All Politicians Have a Blind Trust(Keep The Public In The Dark)

BBL

LINFO

The Sherman Antitrust Act

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was the first measure passed by the U.S. Congress to prohibit abusive monopolies, and in some ways it remains the most important.

Trusts and Monopolies

A trust was an arrangement by which stockholders in several companies transferred their shares to a single set of trustees. In exchange, the stockholders received a certificate entitling them to a specified share of the consolidated earnings of the jointly managed companies. The trusts came to dominate a number of major industries, and were, in effect, monopolies.

A monopoly is a situation in which there is a single supplier or seller of a good or service for which there are no close substitutes. Economists and others have long known that unregulated monopolies tend to damage the economy by (1) charging higher prices, (2) providing inferior goods and services and (3) suppressing innovation, as compared with a competitive situation (i.e., the existence of numerous, competing suppliers of the good or service).

The most infamous of the trusts was the Standard Oil Trust, which was formed in January, 1882. At that time, Standard Oil and its affiliates controlled more than 90 percent of the oil refining capacity and most of the oil marketing facilities in the U.S. Trusts were also established in numerous other industries, some of the largest of which were sugar, tobacco, railroads, steel and meatpacking.

The idea of the trust was conceived by Samuel Dodd, an attorney for Standard Oil. In the case of this company, a board of trustees was set up and it was given control of all of the Standard Oil properties. Every stockholder received 20 trust certificates for each share of Standard Oil stock. All profits from the component companies were sent to the nine trustees, who set the dividends. The nine trustees also selected the directors and officers of all the component companies. This allowed Standard Oil to function as a monopoly.

Trusts used a number of techniques to eliminate competitors, including (1) buying them out, (2) temporarily undercutting their prices, (3) forcing customers to sign long-term contracts (4) forcing customers to buy unwanted products in order to receive the products they wanted and (5) dispatching thugs to use intimidation and violence when all other means of persuasion failed.

The Sherman Act

John Sherman (1823-1900) was the younger brother of the American Civil War general William Tecumseh Sherman. He became a U.S. senator from Ohio and served as a chairman of the Senate finance committee. He also served as a member of the U.S. Cabinet, including Secretary of State under President William McKinley and Secretary of the Treasury under President Hayes. Sherman was an expert on the regulation of commerce and was the chief author of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

This ground breaking piece of legislation was the result of intense public opposition to the concentration of economic power in large corporations and in combinations of business concerns (i,e., trusts) that had been taking place in the U.S. in the decades following the Civil War. Opposition to the trusts was particularly strong among farmers, who protested the high charges for transporting their products to the cities by railroad.

The Sherman Antitrust Act was the first measure enacted by the U.S. Congress to prohibit trusts (or monopolies of any type). Although several states had previously enacted similar laws, they were limited to intrastate commerce. The Sherman Antitrust Act, in contrast, was based on the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. It was passed by an overwhelming vote of 51 to 1 in the Senate and a unanimous vote of 242 to 0 in the House, and it was signed into law by President Benjamin Harrison.

The first part of Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (with the interstate commerce clause underlined) states:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; . . .

The Sherman Antitrust Act (the full text of which can be found here) authorized the Federal Government to dissolve the trusts. It began with the statement: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." And it established penalties for persons convicted of establishing such combinations: ". . . shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."

Enforcement

For more than a decade after its passage, the Sherman Antitrust Act was invoked only rarely against industrial monopolies, and then not successfully. Ironically, its only effective use for a number of years was against labor unions, which were held by the courts to be illegal combinations.

This was the result of intense political pressure from the trusts together with the loose wording of the Act. Its critics pointed out that it failed to define such key terms as combination, conspiracy, monopoly and trust. Also working against it were narrow judicial interpretations as to what constituted trade or commerce among states.

Five years after its passage, the Supreme Court in effect dismantled the Sherman Antitrust Act in United States v. E. C. Knight Company (1895). The Court ruled that the American Sugar Refining Company, one of the other defendants in the case, had not violated the Act despite the fact that it controlled approximately 98 percent of all sugar refining in the U.S. The Court's explanation was that the company's control of manufacturing did not constitute control of trade.

President William McKinley launched the trust-busting era in 1898 when he appointed several senators to the U.S. Industrial Commission. The Commission's subsequent report to President Theodore Roosevelt then laid the groundwork for Roosevelt's attacks on trusts and finally resulted in the successful employment of the Act.

In a seminal 1904 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Government's suit under the Sherman Antitrust Act to dissolve the Northern Securities Company (a railroad holding company) in State of Minnesota v. Northern Securities Company. Then, in 1911, after years of litigation, the Court found Standard Oil Company of New Jersey in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act because of its excessive restrictions on trade, particularly its practices of eliminating competitors by buying them out directly and by driving them out of business by temporarily slashing prices in a given region.

In this historic decision, the Supreme Court established an important legal standard termed the rule of reason. It stated that large size and monopoly in themselves are not necessarily bad and do not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. Rather, it is the use of certain tactics to attain or preserve such position that is illegal.

The Court ordered Standard Oil to dismantle 33 of its most important affiliates and to distribute the stock to its own shareholders and not to a new trust. The result was the creation of a number of completely independent and vertically integrated oil companies, each of which ranked among the most powerful in the world. The consequent vigorous competition gave a big impetus to innovation and expansion of the oil industry as a whole.

Subsequent Legislation

In 1914 Congress passed two measures that provided additional support for the Sherman Antitrust Act. One was the Clayton Antitrust Act, which elaborated on the general provisions of the Sherman Act and specified a number of illegal practices that either contributed to or resulted from monopolization. It explicitly outlawed commercial practices such as price discrimination (i.e., charging different prices to different customers), the buying out of competitors and interlocking boards of directors. The other was the establishment of the Federal Trade Commission, an agency with the power to investigate possible violations of antitrust laws and to issue orders forbidding unfair competitive practices.

Antitrust enforcement waned during the booming 1920s, but it was revived during the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and additional acts were passed to bolster the government's antitrust powers. The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 strengthened the Clayton Act by prohibiting large sellers from offering different prices to different buyers if it resulted in harm to even a single small firm. The Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950 further strengthened the Clayton Act by preventing one firm from merging with a competitor by purchasing its physical assets if it resulted in a substantial lessening of competition.

The most successful application of the Sherman Antitrust Act during the second half of the 20th century was the breakup of the American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) monopoly, which was agreed upon in early 1982 and went into effect on January 1, 1984. This enforcement had profound effects not only on the telecommunications industry but also on the economy as a whole.

The Act was also used in the attempt to attempt to rein in the allegedly abusive monopolistic practices by Microsoft Corporation, with a trial that began in 1998. However, many observers feel that the government failed to take sufficiently strong corrective measures despite winning both the original trial and an appeal. This is widely attributed to politics rather than the merits of the case.

Created June 17, 2004. Copyright © 2004 The Linux Information Project. All Rights Reserved.

BlueinIdaho and marymac_memphis,

Please reference all the work Mrs. Clinton did as a committee chair of the healthcare reform during her husband’s presidency. Those hundreds of thousands of pages of meeting and committee notes are public and have been used as reference by Republicans and Democrats when negotiating policies with healthcare providers!! Her work established a baseline from which later negotiations were structured. If it was not for her committee work and findings there would be no baseline established for renewed discussions or negotiations!!

There are many articles and senate finding and reports from Hillary Clintons committee hearings. Go look up Armed Services Committee. I don’t need to list all but you can find many, many, many meeting reports and finding!!

Mrs. Clinton's positions and findings are well documented.

So, show me what Obama has done in the committee(s)!???!!

Please don't tell me you're going to pull a RNC prank of electing someone with no-record!!

Taxes on businesses are stupid, stupid, stupid. They are immediately passed on to consumers as the cost of doing business; thus they are regressive, raising the social contribution of those least able to afford it. The so-called "windfall profits tax" on oil companies will end up in higher prices. It's just a way for the polticians to pretend they are taking action when, in reality, they are kissing the asses of the already rich. Both Hillary and Obama should condemn this idea forthwith as stupid and unworkable. Instead, they both seem to be embracing it. Gee, d'ya think they're just poiticians after all?

John Edwards has dropped out entirely or if he suspended his campaign and could revive it at the last minute?

Tylin:
Here's a real fantasy for you Gore/Edwards! Now that is a real ticket!

Heck, I wish Pres. Carter would run again. He only served one term, so that door is open! Carter/Edwards? Carter/Gore?

But the simple fact of the matter is we have two choices, come November. Vote for 4 more years of the disaster of the dub when you vote for McSame/McLame or vote for whomever the Democratic Party nominates. I know what I'll be doing!

Hatch Act for Federal Employees

The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of executive branch employees of the federal government, District of Columbia government and some state and local employees who work in connection with federally funded programs. In 1993, Congress passed legislation that significantly amended the Hatch Act as it applies to federal and D.C. employees (5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326). (These amendments did not change the provisions that apply to state and local employees. 5 U.S.C. §§ 1501- 1508.) Under the amendments most federal and D.C. employees are now permitted to take an active part in political management and political campaigns. A small group of federal employees are subject to greater restrictions and continue to be prohibited from engaging in partisan political management and partisan political campaigns.

OSC has developed a number of booklets, posters and fact sheets that explain the application of the Hatch Act. Copies of the booklets and posters can be ordered from the Government Printing Office. The fact sheet may be downloaded or emailed directly from the OSC website. Additionally, OSC has created a PowerPoint presentation - "Political Activity and the Federal Employee" - which covers the rules and regulations of the Hatch Act.
Permitted/Prohibited Activities for Employees Who May Participate in Partisan Political Activity
Agencies/Employees Who Are Prohibited From Engaging in Partisan Political Activity
Permitted/Prohibited Activities for Employees Who May Not Participate in Partisan Political Activity
Hatch Act Regulations
Penalties for Violating the Hatch Act
Advisories for Federal Employees
Frequently Asked Questions and Answers for Employees Who May Engage in Partisan Political Activity
Federal employees should also be aware that certain political activities may also be criminal offenses under title 18 of the U.S. Code. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 210, 211, 594, 595, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 610.

[Top]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Permitted/Prohibited Activities for Employees Who May Participate in Partisan Political Activity

These federal and D.C. employees may-

be candidates for public office in nonpartisan elections
register and vote as they choose
assist in voter registration drives
express opinions about candidates and issues
contribute money to political organizations
attend political fundraising functions
attend and be active at political rallies and meetings
join and be an active member of a political party or club
sign nominating petitions
campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, municipal ordinances
campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections
make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections
distribute campaign literature in partisan elections
hold office in political clubs or parties
These federal and D.C. employees may not-

use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations)
be candidates for public office in partisan elections
engage in political activity while:
on duty
in a government office
wearing an official uniform
using a government vehicle
wear partisan political buttons on duty
[Top]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agencies/Employees Prohibited From Engaging in Partisan Political Activity

Employees of the following agencies (or agency components), or in the following categories, are subject to more extensive restrictions on their political activities than employees in other Departments and agencies:

Administrative Law Judges (positions described at 5 U.S.C. ?5372)
Central Imagery Office
Central Intelligence Agency
Contract Appeals Boards (positions described at 5 U.S.C. ?5372a)
Criminal Division (Department of Justice)
Defense Intelligence Agency
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Elections Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
National Security Agency
National Security Council
Office of Criminal Investigation (Internal Revenue Service)
Office of Investigative Programs (Customs Service)
Office of Law Enforcement (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms)
Office of Special Counsel
Secret Service
Senior Executive Service (career positions described at 5 U.S.C. ? 3132(a)(4))

[Top]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Permitted/Prohibited Activities for Employees Who May Not Participate in Partisan Political Activity

These federal employees may-

register and vote as they choose
assist in voter registration drives
express opinions about candidates and issues
participate in campaigns where none of the candidates represent a political party
contribute money to political organizations or attend political fund raising functions
attend political rallies and meetings
join political clubs or parties
sign nominating petitions
campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, municipal ordinances
These federal employees may not-
be candidates for public office in partisan elections
campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates in partisan elections
make campaign speeches
collect contributions or sell tickets to political fund raising functions
distribute campaign material in partisan elections
organize or manage political rallies or meetings
hold office in political clubs or parties
circulate nominating petitions
work to register voters for one party only
wear political buttons at work
[Top]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hatch Act Regulations

Date Title Format
1/1/01 Political Activity - Federal Employees Residing in Designated Localities [5CFR733]
1/1/01 Political Activities of Federal Employees [5CFR734]

[Top]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Penalties for Violating the Hatch Act

An employee who violates the Hatch Act shall be removed from their position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual. However, if the Merit Systems Protection Board finds by unanimous vote that the violation does not warrant removal, a penalty of not less than 30 days' suspension without pay shall be imposed by direction of the Board.

[Top]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advisories for Federal Employees

Date Title Format
2007 County Office Employees of the Farm Service Agency are Covered by the Provisions of the Hatch Act
2007 Federal employee on a temporary work assignment to an elected official’s office is still covered by the Hatch Act.
2007 Wearing an official uniform while driving a personal vehicle with a political bumper sticker
2007 Soliciting funds to pay for party membership fees
2007 Employees of Amtrak
2007 Contacting Members of Congress
2006 Voter Registration Drives
2006 Voter Registration Drives
2006 Stafford Act Employees
2006 Running or serving as chair of a partisan organization
2006 Petitions for Ballot Initiatives
2006 Serving as election officials
2006 Americorps Vista Volunteers
2006 Posting Candidates’ Positions on Issues in a Federal Building
2006 Establishing or Holding Office Within a PAC
8/9/04 Candidate Visits to Federal Agencies
5/3/04 D.C. Employee Serving as an Officer of a Campaign Committee
4/30/04 Federal Reserve Bank Board of Directors Not Covered
5/25/04 Voter Registration Drives in the Workplace(2)
4/14/04 Voter Registration Drives in the Workplace
3/18/03 Wearing Antiwar or Nonpartisan Buttons in the Workplace
6/04/02 Running for Political Party Office
4/30/02 Appointment to Public Office
4/30/02 Candidacy in a Non Partisan Election
1/18/02 Designated Localities and Independent Candidacy Transforms to a Partisan Candidacy
1/16/02 Non-Partisan Election Transformed to Partisan Election
6/27/01 Temporary, Part-Time and Emergency Employees
4/23/01 Write-In Candidacy
2/14/01 Retirement of campaign debt
1/10/01 When does candidacy begin (2)
7/19/00 Irregularly Scheduled Employee Running for Public Office
2/25/00 Reimbursement of de minimis expenses for PAS employees
2/11/00 Serving as an officer for an organization that has a PAC
3/19/99 When does candidacy begin
12/30/98 Elected official accepting federal employment
5/20/98 Candidacy in a partisan election
3/2/98 Working for a partisan campaign
12/17/97 Nonappropriated fund employees
11/25/97 Candidacy for regularly scheduled employees
11/25/97 Displaying political signs in federal housing
11/18/97 Serving as a treasurer of a campaign
10/16/97 Restricted employee becoming a member of a partisan political group
3/28/97 Receipt of political material at work
10/16/96 Solicitation of services from subordinate employees
7/8/96 Salary allotments
5/8/96 Taking a leave of absence to work on a campaign
3/20/96 Restricted employee working on a campaign
2/13/96 Testing the waters
2/9/96 Serving as a delegate to a party convention

[Top]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers For Employees Who May Engage in Partisan Political Activity

Listed below are answers to some of the most frequently asked questions received by OSC about political activity by federal employees.

Question: Can I make a contribution to the campaign of a partisan candidate, or to a political party or organization?
Answer: Yes. A federal employee may contribute to the campaign of a partisan candidate, or to a political party or organization.

Question: If I have a bumper sticker on my personal car, am I allowed to park the car in a government lot or garage, or in a private lot/garage if the government subsidizes my parking fees?
Answer: Yes. An employee is allowed to park his or her privately owned vehicle with bumper sticker in a government lot or garage. An employee may also park the car with a bumper sticker in a private lot or garage for which the employee receives a subsidy from his or her agency.

Question: Can I help organize a political fundraiser?
Answer: An employee is allowed to organize a fundraiser, including supplying names for the invitation list, as long as he or she does not personally solicit, accept, or receive contributions.

Question: Can my name appear on invitations to a political fundraiser as a sponsor or point of contact?
Answer: No. An employee's name may not be shown on an invitation to such a fundraiser as a sponsor or point of contact.

Question: Can I speak at a political fundraiser?
Answer: An employee is allowed to give a speech or keynote address at a political fundraiser, as long as he or she is not on duty, and does not solicit political contributions.

Question: If I'm going to speak at a political fundraiser, what information about me can be printed on the invitations?
Answer: An employee's name can be shown as a guest speaker. However, the reference should not in any way suggest that the employee solicits or encourages contributions. Invitations to the fundraiser may not include the employee's official title; although an employee who is ordinarily addressed with a general term of address such as "The Honorable" may use, or permit the use of, that term of address on the invitation.

Question: Can I attend a state or national party convention? If so, in what capacity?
Answer: Yes. A federal employee may serve as a delegate, alternate, or proxy to a state or national party convention.

Question: If I run as a candidate for public office in a nonpartisan election, does the Hatch Act allow me to ask for and accept political contributions?
Answer: An employee who is a candidate for public office in a nonpartisan election is not barred by the Hatch Act from soliciting, accepting, or receiving political contributions for his or her own campaign.

Question: May I distribute brochures for a political party to people arriving at a polling place on Election Day?
Answer: Yes. An employee may stand outside a polling place on Election Day and hand out brochures on behalf of a partisan political candidate or political party.

Answers to other questions about allowable political activity by federal employees can also be found in Hatch Act regulations in title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Questions not answered above, or in the regulations, can be submitted to OSC for an advisory opinion.

Previous Page | Top of Page | Home | Contacts | Privacy Policy | Site Index

Last Updated: 11/19/07

Posted by Tawanna_LaShond on April 30, 2008 at 05:36 PM

Is that why you've been posting junk about Rev Wright for the last couple weeks? To make up your mind?

Bravo Sierra.

Hillary was a comittee chair in the 90's? REALLY? When did she become a Senator? Or did the Clintons just make up their own rules again? Give up buddy, it's over for the Clintons. Her campaign is broke, both morally and financially. If she cares sooo much about the little guy ,tell her to pay all the vendors she owes money to for doing campaign work for her.

Is that why you've been posting junk about Rev Wright for the last couple weeks? To make up your mind?

Bravo Sierra.

Posted by BlueinIdaho on April 30, 2008 at 05:52 PM

What are you talking about? I haven't posted here for weeks. And I don't recall posting about Rev. Wright at all.

So, you don't think that anyone should have voted for Gore/Lieberman in 2000? Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that we are not Democrats and are not worthy of posting here on this blog if we were so stupid as to vote for Gore/Lieberman? Is that what I am supposed to take from this post because it sure sounds like that is what you are saying!

Posted by marymac_memphis on April 30, 2008 at 05:41 PM

You're good at putting words in the mouths of others, too, Mary, but that isn't at all what I said. Furthermore, I believe you are smart enough to know that, so I wonder what your motives are for misrepresenting me? I voted for Gore/Liberman in 2000, but we've learned a lot about Liberman since then, and I'm not sure I'd do the same if he was running today, even if he was running as vice president on a Obama/Liberman ticket. I'd have serious questions about the judgment of anyone who chose to run on with him.

I don't decide who posts on this blog. I don't call people who disagree with me crazy. I don't try to shut up those with opposing views. I don't put words in the mouths of others. I have been posting here long enough to understand we can afford to be the big tent party. Tolerance is what it's all about, though a bit of kindness too, is never unwelcome. I'm sorry you took offense at my criticism. It bothers me to hear someone use personal attacks to silence others. I couldn't help responding.

Posted by Michigan_Dave on April 30, 2008 at 04:41 PM
Like the cult isn't separating children from their mothers, and fathers?
The Utah legislature is considering a bill to make child abandonment a felony, because of the Lost Boys cases there.
http://www.freepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1974577/posts
Oh, yeah, these people really care sooo much about their kids.

Posted by HybridFuel on April 30, 2008 at 05:46 PM

I agree, if you will notice my post above, that Sen. Clinton is the more experienced; however, that in no way means that Sen. Obama's education and experience are worthless as you seem to suggest. The word of Sen. Biden about Sen. Obama's value to the committee and to the Senate in general is enough for me.
The bottom line is, come November, do you want McSame/McLame or do you want a Democrat?
Not voting or voting for some 3rd party is the same as casting your vote for the reTHUGS.
I am a Democrat and thus I support Democrats.
I pledge to vote for whomever the party selects as the Democratic Candidate for President because
I love my country and hate those who seek to destroy it!

Most of the junk from Rev Wright came out of his own mouth didn't it