Author: roseeriter

Political Activity (Hatch Act)

The following is a discussion of restrictions on political activity by federal government employees, and by employees of certain state and local government agencies, under the Hatch Act. You will find information on:

Hatch Act for Federal Employees

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
Hatch Act for State and Local Employees

Permitted Activities
Prohibited Activities
Penalties for Violating the Hatch Act
Advisories for State and Local Employees
OSC Role

Advisory Opinions
How to File a Complaint Alleging a Violation of the Hatch Act
Enforcement
 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

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))

penalties

OSC Hatch Act

Letter to Delay from Ranking Minority Leader

The bases of these Committee determinations are as follows.

            Your actions regarding the energy company golf fundraiser at The Homestead resort on June 2-3, 2002.  With regard to the solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions, the Committee has clearly stated that a Member may not make any solicitation that may create even an appearance that, because of a contribution, a contributor will receive or is entitled to either special treatment or special access to the Member in his or her official capacity.  This point is made on p. 34 of the Campaign Activity booklet that the Committee issued in December 2001.[1]  In the same vein, a Member should not participate in a fundraising event that gives even an appearance that donors will receive or are entitled to either special treatment or special access.

On the basis of the information before the Committee, the Committee concluded that your participation in and facilitation of the energy company golf fundraiser at The Homestead resort on June 2-3, 2002 is objectionable in that those actions, at a minimum, created such an improper appearance.  As a general matter, fundraisers directed to a particular industry or to others sharing a particular federal interest are permissible, and at such events Members are free to talk about their record and positions on issues of interest to the attendees.  In addition, of course, a Member has no control over what the donors at a fundraising event spontaneously say to or ask of the Member with regard to their legislative interests.  Nevertheless, there are a number of considerations regarding this particular fundraiser that make your participation in and facilitation of the fundraiser objectionable under the above-stated standards of conduct.

In particular, there was the timing of the fundraiser, i.e., it took place just as the House-Senate conference on major energy legislation, H.R. 4, was about to get underway.  Indeed, one of the communications between organizers of the fundraiser that you provided to us – an e-mail of May 30, 2002 from Mr. Maloney to Mr. Perkins that notes the legislative interests of each of the attendees – includes a specific reference to the conference.  That legislation was of critical importance to the attendees.  In addition, there was the fact that you were in a position to significantly influence the conference, both as a member of the House leadership and, by action taken about a week and a half after the fundraiser, your appointment as one of the conferees.

            In view of these considerations, other aspects of the fundraiser that would have been unobjectionable otherwise had the effect, in these specific circumstances, of furthering the appearance that the contributors were receiving impermissible special treatment or access.  One of these aspects was the presence at the fundraiser of two of your key staff members from your leadership office: Jack Victory, who handled energy issues, and your office counsel, Carl Thorsen.  In addition, there were the limited number of attendees, and the fact that the fundraiser included several events at a resort over a two-day period, both of which facilitated direct contact with you and your congressional staff members.

It has been suggested that every government which has ever existed has been a prime example of kakistocracy, or the rule of the worst, but this list of over 160 different types of leadership suggests that that might be a bit too simplistic. Each of the following words indicates a type of government by a certain kind of person or institution. Everyone seems to want to get in on this rulership gig, from saints and mothers to beggars and prostitutes (hmm …). Etymologically-minded folks should note the difference between the suffix ‘archy’, meaning ‘rulership’, and ‘cracy’, meaning ‘power’, which both come from Greek roots. This fact, of course, should suggest to any reasonable-minded person that the Greek people are inherently more fit to rule than all other groups. At least in my world …LINK

Word  Definition  
acracy  government by none; anarchy  
adhocracy  government in an unstructured fashion; an unstructured organization  
albocracy  government by white people  
anarchy  government by none  
androcracy  government by men  
anemocracy  government by the wind or by whim  
angelocracy  government by angels  
antarchy  opposition to government; anarchy  
argentocracy  government by money  
aristarchy  government by the best  
aristocracy  government by the nobility  
arithmocracy  government by simple majority  
autarchy  government by an absolute ruler  
autocracy  government by one individual  
barbarocracy  government by barbarians  
beerocracy  government by brewers or brewing interests  
biarchy  government by two people; diarchy  
binarchy  government by two people; diarchy  
bureaucracy  government by civil servants  
cannonarchy  government by superior firepower or by cannons  
capelocracy  government by shopkeepers  
chiliarchy  government by one thousand people  
chirocracy  government by physical force  
chromatocracy  government by rulers of a particular skin colour  
chrysoaristocracy  government by the wealthy; plutocracy  
chrysocracy  government by the wealthy; plutocracy  
corpocracy  government by corporate bureaucrats  
cosmarchy  rulership over the entire world, esp. by the devil  
cottonocracy  government by those involved in the cotton trade  
cryptarchy  secret rulership  
decadarchy  government by ten individuals; decarchy  
decarchy  government by ten individuals  
demarchy  government by the people; popular government  
democracy  government by the people  
demonarchy  government by a demon  
demonocracy  government by demons or evil forces  
despotocracy  government by despots or tyrants  
diabolocracy  government by the Devil  
diarchy  government by two people  
dinarchy  government by two people; diarchy  
dodecarchy  government by twelve people  
doulocracy  government by slaves  
duarchy  government by two people; diarchy  
dulocracy  government by slaves; doulocracy  
dyarchy  government by two people; diarchy  
ecclesiarchy  government by clerics or ecclesiastical authorities  
endarchy  centralised government  
ergatocracy  government by the workers or the working class  
ethnarchy  government over an ethnic group  
ethnocracy  government by an ethnic group or race  
exarchy  government by bishops  
foolocracy  government by fools  
gerontocracy  government by the aged  
gunarchy  government by women; gynarchy  
gymnasiarchy  government over a school or academy  
gynaecocracy  government by women; gynarchy  
gynarchy  government by women  
gynocracy  government by women; gynarchy  
hagiarchy  government by saints or holy persons  
hagiocracy  government by holy men  
hamarchy  government by a cooperative body of parts  
hecatarchy  government by one hundred people; hecatontarchy  
hecatontarchy  government by one hundred people  
hendecarchy  government by eleven people  
heptarchy  government by seven people  
heroarchy  government by heroes  
hetaerocracy  government by paramours  
heterarchy  government by a foreign ruler  
hierarchy  government by a ranked body; government by priests  
hierocracy  government by priests or religious ministers  
hipparchy  rule or control of horses  
hoplarchy  government by the military  
hyperanarchy  condition of extreme anarchy  
hyperarchy  excessive government  
iatrarchy  government by physicians  
infantocracy  government by an infant  
isocracy  equal political power  
jesuitocracy  government by Jesuits  
juntocracy  government by a junta  
kakistocracy  government by the worst  
kleptocracy  government by thieves  
kritarchy  government by judges  
landocracy  government by the propertied class; timocracy  
logocracy  government of words  
matriarchy  government by women or mothers  
meritocracy  government by the meritorious  
merocracy  government by a part of the citizenry  
mesocracy  government by the middle classes  
metrocracy  government by mothers or women; matriarchy  
millionocracy  government by millionaires  
millocracy  government by mill owners  
mobocracy  government by mobs or crowds  
monarchy  government by one individual  
moneyocracy  government by the monied classes  
monocracy  government by one individual  
myriarchy  government by ten thousand individuals  
navarchy  rulership over the seas  
neocracy  government by new or inexperienced rulers  
nomocracy  government based on legal system; rule of law  
ochlocracy  government by mobs  
octarchy  government by eight people  
oligarchy  government by the few  
paedarchy  government by children  
paedocracy  government by children; paedarchy  
panarchy  universal rule or dominion  
pantarchy  government by all the people; world government  
pantisocracy  government by all equally  
paparchy  government by the pope  
papyrocracy  government by newspapers or literature  
parsonarchy  government by parsons  
partocracy  government by a single unopposed political party  
patriarchy  government by men or fathers  
pedantocracy  government by pedants or strict rule-bound scholars  
pentarchy  government by five individuals  
phallocracy  government by men  
philosophocracy  government by philosophers  
phylarchy  government by a specific class or tribe  
physiocracy  government according to natural laws or principles  
pigmentocracy  government by those of one skin colour  
plantocracy  government by plantation owners  
plousiocracy  government by the wealthy; plutocracy  
plutarchy  government by the wealthy; plutocracy  
plutocracy  government by the wealthy  
polarchy  government by many people; polyarchy  
policeocracy  government by police  
pollarchy  government by the multitude or a mob; ochlocracy  
polyarchy  government by many people  
polycracy  government by many rulers; polyarchy  
popocracy  government by populists  
pornocracy  government by harlots  
prophetocracy  government by a prophet  
psephocracy  government resulting from election by ballot  
ptochocracy  government by beggars or paupers; wholesale pauperization  
punditocracy  government by political pundits  
quangocracy  rule of quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations  
rotocracy  government by those who control rotten boroughs  
septarchy  government by seven rulers; heptarchy  
shopocracy  government by shopkeepers  
slavocracy  government by slave-owners  
snobocracy  government by snobs  
sociocracy  government by society as a whole  
squarsonocracy  government by landholding clergymen  
squatterarchy  government by squatters; squattocracy  
squattocracy  government by squatters  
squirearchy  government by squires  
squirocracy  government by squires; squirearchy  
statocracy  government by the state alone, without ecclesiastical influence  
stratarchy  rulership over an army  
stratocracy  military rule or despotism  
strumpetocracy  government by strumpets  
synarchy  joint sovereignty  
technocracy  government by technical experts  
tetradarchy  government by four people; tetrarchy  
tetrarchy  government by four people  
thalassiarchy  sovereignty of the seas; thalassocracy  
thalassocracy  sovereignty of the seas  
thearchy  rule by a god or gods; body of divine rulers  
theatrocracy  goverment by gathered assemblies of citizens  
theocracy  government by priests or by religious law  
timarchy  government by the propertied class; timocracy  
timocracy  government by the propertied class  
triarchy  government by three people  
tritarchy  government by three people; triarchy  
tritheocracy  government by three gods  
whiggarchy  government by Whigs  
xenocracy  government by a body of foreigners

Katherine Harris to Headline “Reclaiming America for Christ”

Harris will give a talk on March 18 called “Bringing Faith to the Public Forum.”

The conference is sponsored by the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ – we’ll call them simply, CRAC — which boasts the following initiatives on its web site:

A letter-writing campaign to The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences castigating them for Brokeback Mountain’s Oscar nominations. According to CRAC, Brokeback Mountain is a movie that “…has little to do with honoring great moviemaking. Instead, it is just a high-profile attempt to mainstream the homosexual agenda. That this movie uses the classic symbol of the American male — the cowboy — to promote this agenda is offensive to the vast majority of Americans”

A “Petition to Defund and Expose ACLU” in which CRAC urges its supporters to “Take a stand against the ACLU’s radical agenda, which undermines our nation’s moral and religious heritage.” CRAC further pushes members of its Christo-Fascist zombie brigade to “Join with citizens across the nation in protest of ACLU policies and actions to strip faith in God from the public square while promoting anti-family and pro-homosexual initiatives.”

A “Stand for Marriage National Campaign.” This classic of the Religious Right movement is in support of the Constitutional amendment, sponsored by Republican Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado, to define marriage as a union between “one man and one woman.” Their stated goal is to “… rally at least 400,000 citizens to `Stand For Marriage.’ This petition simply states that marriage should be defined as `one man and one woman’ and encourages state and federal leaders to pursue both legislative and constitutional actions to define marriage in this way.”
Link

Bush’s Mysterious ‘New Programs’

A much discussed and circulated report,
the Pentagon’s Civilian Inmate Labor Program, has recently been updated and the revision details a “template for developing agreements” between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations.”

The plan is clearly to swallow up disenfranchised groups likes prisoners and Muslims at first and then extend the policy to include ‘Fifth Columnists,’ otherwise known as anyone who disagrees with the government or exercises their Constitutional rights.

Respected author Peter Dale Scott speculated that the “detention centers could be used to detain American citizens if the Bush administration were to declare martial law.”
LINK

1-5. Civilian inmate labor programs
a. Civilian inmate labor programs benefit both the Army and corrections systems by–
(1) Providing a source of labor at no direct labor cost to Army installations to accomplish tasks that would not be
possible otherwise due to the manning and funding constraints under which the Army operates.
(2) Providing meaningful work for inmates and, in some cases, additional space to alleviate overcrowding in nearby
corrections facilities.
(3) Making cost-effective use of buildings and land not otherwise being used.
b. Except for the 3 exceptions listed in paragraph 2-1d below, installation civilian inmate labor programs may use
civilian inmate labor only from Federal corrections facilities located either off or on the installation.
c. Keys to operating an effective civilian inmate labor program on Army installations include–
(1) Establishing a comprehensive lease agreement, interservice, interagency, and/or interdepartmental support agreement
(ISA), and/or memoranda of agreement with the corrections facility.
(2) Developing a cooperative working relationship between installation personnel and corrections facility personnel.
(3) Working closely with installation government employee labor unions to ensure union leaders understand the
program and have current information on program status.
(4) Training all installation personnel involved in the operation or administration of the program frequently.
(5) Developing a public affairs plan informing the installation and the surrounding local community of the program
and work projects assigned to civilian inmate labor.

Warning siren went unheeded on port deal

By MARTIN SCHRAM
Scripps Howard News Service
28-FEB-06

We are focusing today on one sentence in a two-page U.S. document officially known as number AFGP-2002-603856. It is a 2002 letter in which al Qaeda says that it has infiltrated United Arab Emirates security and other agencies.

It was a warning siren document that should have raised urgent concerns at the highest level of the U.S. government. President Bush and his entire team initially dozed through the alarm and apparently expected we all would, too. They rushed to approve a bid by Dubai Ports World (a United Arab Emirates company) to buy a British firm that runs six major U.S. ports without publicly addressing the obvious questions the document raises.

The document, a letter from the al Qaeda terrorist organization to the United Arab Emirates government, mainly warns UAE officials to stop arresting al Qaeda’s “Mujahideen sympathizers.” The second paragraph begins with a potentially chilling boast: “You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned.”

The federal government has agreed to pay $300,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by an Egyptian who was among dozens of Muslim men swept up in the New York area after 9/11, held for months in a federal detention center in Brooklyn and deported after being cleared of links to terrorism.

The settlement, filed in federal court late yesterday, is the first the government has made in a number of lawsuits charging that noncitizens were abused and their constitutional rights violated in detentions after the terror attacks.

It removes one of two plaintiffs from a case in which a federal judge ruled last fall that former Attorney General John Ashcroft, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other top government officials must answer questions under oath. Government lawyers filed an appeal of that ruling on Friday.

In the settlement agreement, which requires approval by a federal judge in Brooklyn, lawyers for the government said that the officials were not admitting any liability or fault. In court papers they have said that the 9/11 attacks created “special factors,” including the need to deter future terrorism, that outweighed the plaintiffs’ right to sue.

“A settlement like this is not a precedent, but it’s a form of accountability,” said Gerald L. Neuman, a law professor at Columbia University who is an expert in human rights law and was not involved in the case. “When the government finds it necessary to settle, that changes the government’s incentives. It doesn’t mean the government will settle future cases that it makes different calculations about,” like another lawsuit, brought as a class action on behalf of hundreds of detainees, that is pending before the same judge.
LINK

NEOCONSERVATISM has failed the United States and needs to be replaced by a more realistic foreign policy agenda, according to one of its prime architects.
 Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the best-selling book The End of History and was a member of the neoconservative project, now says that, both as a political symbol and a body of thought, it has “evolved into something I can no longer support”. He says it should be discarded on to history’s pile of discredited ideologies.
Neocon architect says: ‘Pull it down’.

In its narrowest form, neoconservatism advocates the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones.

Mr Fukuyama once supported regime change in Iraq and was a signatory to a 1998 letter sent by the Project for a New American Century to the then president, Bill Clinton, urging the US to step up its efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power. It was also signed by neoconservative intellectuals, such as Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, and political figures Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the current defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

However, Mr Fukuyama now thinks the war in Iraq is the wrong sort of war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

“The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism,” he argues.

“Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem more generally.”

Mr Fukuyama, one of the US’s most influential public intellectuals, concludes that “it seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention [in Iraq] itself or the ideas animating it kindly”.

Going further, he says the movements’ advocates are Leninists who “believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practised by the United States”.LINK

Privacy Guardian is a safe and easy-to-use privacy protection tool that securely deletes online Internet tracks and program activity records that are stored in your browser and other hidden files on your computer.

Privacy Guardian Is Still a Paper Tiger

WASHINGTON — For Americans troubled by the prospect of federal agents eavesdropping on their phone conversations or combing through their Internet records, there is good news: A little-known board exists in the White House whose purpose is to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are protected in the fight against terrorism.

Someday, it might actually meet.

Initially proposed by the bipartisan commission that investigated the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was created by the intelligence overhaul that President Bush signed into law in December 2004.

More than a year later, it exists only on paper.

Foot-dragging, debate over its budget and powers, and concern over the qualifications of some of its members — one was treasurer of Bush’s first campaign for Texas governor — has kept the board from doing a single day of work.

On Thursday, after months of delay, the Senate Judiciary Committee took a first step toward standing up the fledgling watchdog, approving the two lawyers Bush nominated to lead the panel. But it may take months before the board is up and running and doing much serious work.

Privacy Guardian Is Still a Paper Tiger

The board chairwoman is Carol E. Dinkins, a Houston lawyer who was a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. A longtime friend of the Bush family, she was the treasurer of George W. Bush’s first campaign for governor of Texas, in 1994, and co-chair of Lawyers for Bush-Cheney, which recruited Republican lawyers to handle legal battles after the November 2004 election.
The board vice chairman is Alan Charles Raul, a Washington lawyer who first suggested the concept of a civil liberties panel in an opinion article in the Los Angeles Times in December 2001. Raul, a former Agriculture Department general counsel currently in private practice, has published a book on privacy and the digital age and is the only panel member with apparent expertise in civil liberties issues.

The panel’s lone Democrat, Lanny J. Davis, has known Bush since the two were undergraduates at Yale. Civil liberties groups regard the Washington lawyer, who worked in the Clinton White House, as likely to be a progressive voice on the panel.

The board also includes a conservative Republican legal icon, Washington lawyer and former Bush Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, whose wife, Barbara, died in the Sept. 11 attacks. The fifth member is Francis X. Taylor, a retired Air Force general and former State Department counter-terrorism coordinator, who is chief security officer at General Electric Co.

“The system is broken,” says Rep. Christopher Shays (R) of Connecticut, who chaired the House Government Affairs subcommittee hearing.

Disclosures of flawed prewar intelligence, secret prisons and prisoner abuse, and warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency have launched a debate on the conduct of the war on terror within Congress and the American public. Critics say some of those disclosures also compromised national security.

“At the Central Intelligence Agency, we are more than holding our own in the global war on terrorism, but we are at risk of losing a key battle: the battle to protect our classified information,” wrote CIA director Porter Goss in The New York Times last Friday.

The struggle over dissent in dangerous times is not confined to national security matters, however. It appears to be settling deeper into the federal bureaucracy, where government scientists and even analysts at the scholarly Congressional Research Service – who are not actually blowing any whistles but who are staking out positions that deviate from the administration’s – report efforts to control their contact with the press and public.
LINK

Richard Levernier is one who went public with his security concerns – and feels he’s paid a heavy price. He first reported security breaches at the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons sites to management. Seeing no changes, he released an unclassified report to the media. While government investigators found his concerns credible, he lost his security clearance. Four years later, he’s unemployed and, he says, unemployable.

“I spent my whole life in the nuclear security business. And you can’t get a key to the men’s room without a clearance,” says Mr. Levernier, one of five whistle-blowers who spoke Tuesday before the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations.

Army Spc. Samuel Provance was demoted after disobeying an order not to speak to the press about prisoner mistreatment at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. “Young soldiers were scapegoated, while superiors misrepresented what had happened…. I was ashamed and embarrassed to be associated with it,” he told the House panel.

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer lost his security clearance after testifying to the 9/11 Commission and Congress about Operation Able Danger, a program that he says tagged four 9/11 hijackers before the attacks.

Former FBI special agent Michael German and former intelligence officer Russell Tice also testified that they felt they’d been retaliated against for speaking out about problems, and both lost their security clearances.