Uber Disturbing!!!

I found this over at Pesky's:

Why the hubbub over a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base in Minot, North Dakota and subsequently landing at a B-52 base in Barksdale, Louisiana? That’s like getting excited if you see postal worker in uniform walking out of a post office. And how does someone watching a B-52 land identify the cruise missiles as nukes? It just does not make sense. So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let’s call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.

Then he told me something I had not heard before.

Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can’t imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?

His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.

Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this? I can’t think of one. What is certain is that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride. We need some tough questions and clear answers. What the hell is going on? Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don’t know, but it is a question worth asking.

The Trojan Pig?

I just read about this over on Pesky. Apparently a smart commercial promoting the use of condoms is a bad thing. Here is the news article about why a Trojan television commercial has been rejected.

About Damn Time!

As of now there is no bill to protect animals from neglect. Now, we have two competing bills.

The Arkansas Senate and House passed competing bills Tuesday that would create Arkansas’ first felony offense of animal cruelty.
The Senate passed Senate Bill 777 by Sen. Sue Madison, D-Fayetteville, 21-5. The felony of “aggravated cruelty” would apply in certain cases of torture, abuse and severe neglect of dogs, cats and horses. As a Class D felony this would be punishable by up to six years in prison and a fine of up to $ 10, 000.
The House passed House Bill 2788, which also refers only to treatment of dogs, cats and horses. A first offense of “aggravated cruelty” would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison and a $ 1, 000 fine. A second offense within five years would be a Class D felony. It passed 57-26.
“I think the state needs to make a strong statement,” said the House bill’s sponsor, Rep. Rick Saunders, D-Hot Springs.
The bills now switch chambers. A spokesman for Gov. Mike Beebe said the governor will sign whichever bill reaches his desk.
The measures differ in the definition of the offense.
The Senate bill says aggravated cruelty exists if a person tortures the animal or takes any other action for the purpose of inflicting or prolonging pain or kills the animal in an especially depraved manner. It says that means the offender “relishes the killing, evidencing debasement or perversion,” or shows indifference to the animal’s suffering.
SB 777 also would apply if a person fails to provide care that results in prolonged suffering or death or subjects one of those animals to certain types of injury or trauma in the presence of a minor.
The House bill defines it as knowingly torturing, mutilating, maiming, burning, poisoning or starving the animal.
HB 2788 is favored by the Farm Bureau and the Arkansas Poultry Federation, which have opposed past efforts to create a felony state animal-cruelty law.
The Humane Society and animal rescue groups prefer the Senate bill.
Under both bills, representatives of animal-welfare organizations could become authorized to execute search warrants to enforce the aggravated cruelty law, but only after being trained and certified by the state.
The training would include animal health and husbandry, and instruction on law enforcement procedure.
When serving the search warrants, the organizations ’ representatives would have to be accompanied by certified law enforcement officials.
The House bill would allow judges to order offenders into psychiatric treatment; the Senate bill would make such treatment mandatory.
The bills would expressly allow lawful veterinary care, the killing of animals to protect livestock and poultry, and exempt educational and research institutions regulated by federal animal-welfare laws.
The Senate bill passed with the support of Sen. Shawn Womack, R-Mountain Home, although it was reported on the Senate floor that Womack was in the hospital after suffering a “cardiac episode” at the Capitol on Tuesday morning.

How Lovely

We need a bit more news like this: leaders with a sense of humor.

Wanna Read Something Really Scary?

Feinstein Concerned over Resignation of at Least Seven US Attorneys Senator Feinstein to question Attorney General Gonzalez at Judiciary Committee Hearing later this week
By: Feinstein office
Published: Jan 17, 2007 at 08:48

In a speech on the Senate Floor, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today expressed concern about the fact that a number of U.S. Attorneys have been asked by the Department of Justice to resign their positions prior to the end of their terms and without cause.

In a little noticed provision included in the Patriot Act reauthorization last year, the Administration's authority to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys was greatly expanded. The law was changed so that if a vacancy arises the Attorney General may appoint a replacement for an indefinite period of time – thus completely avoiding the Senate confirmation process

Senators Feinstein, Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) last week introduced the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act, which would prevent further circumvention of the Senate's constitutional prerogative to confirm U.S. Attorneys and restore appointment authority to the appropriate District Courts.

The full text of Senator Feinstein's floor statement follows.

Recent newspaper articles have detailed the circumstances surrounding the departure of several U.S. Attorneys across the country:

- Politicizing Prosecutors: "United States attorneys are so powerful that their impartiality must be beyond question. One way to ensure that is to require them to submit to questions from the Senate, and face a confirmation vote." New York Times – 1/15/07.

- U.S. Attorney Vacancies Spark Concerns: "As the Bush administration enters its last two years, a number of U.S. attorneys are departing, causing concern that some high-profile prosecutions may suffer. As many as seven U.S. attorneys. . . are leaving or being pushed out." Wall Street Journal – 1/16/07.

- Lam is Asked to Step Down: "The Bush administration has quietly asked San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, best known for her high-profile prosecutions of politicians and corporate executives, to resign her post, a law enforcement official said." San Diego Union Tribune – 1/12/07.

- Nevada U.S. Attorney Given Walking Papers: "The Bush administration has forced Daniel Bogden out of his position as U.S. attorney for the District of Nevada, Nevada's two senators said Sunday." Las Vegas Review Journal – 1/16/07.

The following is a transcript of Senator Feinstein's floor speech:

"Mr. President, I have introduced an amendment on this bill which has to do with the appointment of U.S. Attorneys. This is also the subject of the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction, and since the Attorney General himself will be before that committee on Thursday, and I will be asking him some questions, I speak today in morning business on what I know so much about this situation.

Recently, it came to my attention that the Department of Justice has asked several U.S. Attorneys from around the country to resign their positions -- some by the end of this month -- prior to the end of their terms not based on any allegation of misconduct. In other words, they are forced resignations.

I have also heard that the Attorney General plans to appoint interim replacements and potentially avoid Senate confirmation by leaving an interim U.S. Attorney in place for the remainder of the Bush administration.

How does this happen? The Department sought and essentially was given new authority under a little known provision in the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization to appoint interim appointments who are not subject to Senate confirmation and who could remain in place for the remainder of the Bush administration.

To date, I know of at least seven U.S. Attorneys forced to resign without cause, without any allegations of misconduct. These include two from my home State, San Diego and San Francisco, as well as U.S. Attorneys from New Mexico, Nevada, Arkansas, Texas, Washington and Arizona.

In California, press reports indicate that Carol Lam, U.S. Attorney for San Diego, has been asked to leave her position, as has Kevin Ryan of San Francisco. The public response has been shock. Peter Nunez, who served as the San Diego U.S. Attorney from 1982 to 1988, has said, ‘This is like nothing I've ever seen in my 35-plus years.'

He went on to say that while the President has the authority to fire a U.S. Attorney for any reason, it is ‘extremely rare' unless there is an allegation of misconduct.

To my knowledge, there are no allegations of misconduct having to do with Carol Lam. She is a distinguished former judge. Rather, the only explanation I have seen are concerns that were expressed about prioritizing public corruption cases over smuggling and gun cases.

The most well-known case involves a U.S. Attorney in Arkansas. Senators Pryor and Lincoln have raised significant concerns about how "Bud" Cummins was asked to resign and in his place the administration appointed their top lawyer in charge of political opposition research, Tim Griffin. I have been told Mr. Griffin is quite young, 37, and Senators Pryor and Lincoln have expressed concerns about press reports that have indicated Mr. Griffin has been a political operative for the RNC.

While the administration has confirmed that 5 to 10 U.S. Attorneys have been asked to leave, I have not been given specific details about why these individuals were asked to leave. Around the country, though, U.S. Attorneys are bringing many of the most important and complex cases being prosecuted. They are responsible for taking the lead on public corruption cases and many of the antiterrorist efforts in the country. As a matter of fact, we just had the head of the FBI, Bob Mueller, come before the Judiciary Committee at our oversight hearing and tell us how they have dropped the priority of violent crime prosecution and, instead, are taking up public corruption cases; ergo, it only follows that the U.S. Attorneys would be prosecuting public corruption cases.

As a matter of fact, the rumor has it -- and this is only rumor -- that U.S. Attorney Lam, who carried out the prosecution of the Duke Cunningham case, has other cases pending whereby, rumor has it, Members of Congress have been subpoenaed. I have also been told that this interrupts the flow of the prosecution of these cases, to have the present U.S. attorney be forced to resign by the end of this month.

Now, U.S. Attorneys play a vital role in combating traditional crimes such as narcotics trafficking, bank robbery, guns, violence, environmental crimes, civil rights, and fraud, as well as taking the lead on prosecuting computer hacking, Internet fraud, and intellectual property theft, accounting and securities fraud, and computer chip theft.

How did all of this happen? This is an interesting story. Apparently, when Congress reauthorized the PATRIOT Act last year, a provision was included that modified the statute that determines how long interim appointments are made. The PATRIOT Act Reauthorization changed the law to allow interim appointments to serve indefinitely rather than for a limited 120 days. Prior to the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization and the 1986 law, when a vacancy arose, the court nominated an interim U.S. Attorney until the Senate confirmed a Presidential nominee. The PATRIOT Act Reauthorization in 2006 removed the 120-day limit on that appointment, so now the Attorney General can nominate someone who goes in without any confirmation hearing by this Senate and serve as U.S. Attorney for the remainder of the President's term in office. This is a way, simply stated, of avoiding a Senate confirmation of a U.S. Attorney.

The rationale to give the authority to the court has been that since district court judges are also subject to Senate confirmation and are not political positions, there is greater likelihood that their choice of who should serve as an interim U.S. Attorney would be chosen based on merit and not manipulated for political reasons. To me, this makes good sense.

Finally, by having the district court make the appointments, and not the Attorney General, the process provides an incentive for the administration to move quickly to appoint a replacement and to work in cooperation with the Senate to get the best qualified candidate confirmed.

I strongly believe we should return this power to district courts to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys. That is why last week, Senator Leahy, the incoming Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, and I filed a bill that would do just that. Our bill simply restores the statute to what it once was and gives the authority to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys back to the district court where the vacancy arises.

I could press this issue on this bill. However, I do not want to do so because I have been saying I want to keep this bill as clean as possible, that it is restricted to the items that are the purpose of the bill, not elections or any other such things. I ought to stick to my own statement.

Clearly, the President has the authority to choose who he wants working in his administration and to choose who should replace an individual when there is a vacancy. But the U.S. Attorneys' job is too important for there to be unnecessary disruptions, or, worse, any appearance of undue influence. At a time when we are talking about toughening the consequences for public corruption, we should change the law to ensure that our top prosecutors who are taking on these cases are free from interference or the appearance of impropriety. This is an important change to the law. Again, I will question the Attorney General Thursday about it when he is before the Judiciary Committee for an oversight hearing.

I am particularly concerned because of the inference in all of this that is drawn to manipulation in the lineup of cases to be prosecuted by a U.S. Attorney. In the San Diego case, at the very least, we have people from the FBI indicating that Carol Lam has not only been a straight shooter but a very good prosecutor. Therefore, it is surprising to me to see that she would be, in effect, forced out, without cause. This would go for any other U.S. Attorney among the seven who are on that list.

We have something we need to look into, that we need to exercise our oversight on, and I believe very strongly we should change the law back to where a Federal judge makes this appointment on an interim basis subject to regular order, whereby the President nominates and the Senate confirms a replacement"





Search --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entire Site RegionalGovt. MeetingsCAUSWorldColumnsOp-EdSci/TechLifeOdd NewsCartoon Advanced Search

Get the YubaNetAlert Weekly email newsletter featuring our latest regional stories and more

News Headlines Pelosi Announces the Creation of Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming

Pelosi: CLEAN Energy Act is the First Step Toward a Future of Energy Independence

Speaker fulfills pledge to pass key bills in new Congress' first 100 hours

Feds Slash Staff at National Wildlife Refuges in Midwest

Ex-Ohio Rep. Ney sentenced to 30 months

Reid and Pelosi Deliver Address on the State of Our Union

Congress Introduces Bill to Protect Great Lakes Boaters, Anglers, Fishery from Dangerous Non-Native Species

Interior Department Leaves Bison Range Employees in Dark

Bush Administration Undermines Public Protections with Executive Order Amendments

Boxer & Inhofe Announce Subcommittee Assignments

More





Copyright © 2007 YubaNet.com, all rights reserved. Email your news release or opinion | Editorial Policy | Opinions published are solely the opinion of the author. YubaNet.com

Did Everyone Have Their Crazy Flakes Today?

Someone had his share of Crazy Flakes today.

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club."

Then again, maybe it was just another day for him. I always wonder if people like him have real friends. You know? Because eventually everyone you know and love will do something that is against what you believe or feel is right. It's human nature. Maybe I'm just trying to humanize Pat Robertson. I need more tea.

Lie Where I Lay

You are a Social Liberal (78% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (23% permissive) You are best described as a: Strong Democrat Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid