(old version) FISA, Religion and Campaign Financing
|
|
To all those concerned about Barack Obama's supposed "flip-flopping" on FISA, religion and campaign financing, they should go back and watch the ENTIRE content of his speeches and read his ENTIRE answers on these subjects. They should not rely on the one-liners the McCain campaign and its media cohorts keep throwing in his face. Obama's answers on serious subjects are seldom one-liners and almost never unbending decisions. His opinions are normally nuanced, leaving himself room to consider new information and to flesh out his opinions later. Those intent on discrediting Obama, deliberately cut-and-paste to remove the context in their quick sound-bites, because they know if we have the whole story, Americans are smart enough to understand Obama's thoughtful answers.
I also strongly recommend reading Obama's books; since it will shed a very bright light on his motivations and his decision making process. He is an outstanding writer, so it is also well worth the time.
I feel sorry for those most extreme liberals who have not read Obama's books and watched every speech as eagerly as I have, since his often liberal voting record might make them think he is as left of the center as they are.
The truth is: Barack Obama is a constitutional scholar, and no matter what your personal feelings are, if you believe in the constitution and you are in the US Senate, most of your votes will seem liberal. It is the right-wing extremists who have made voting constitutionally seem leftist. I think our founding fathers would be aghast at this development. On the other hand, Obama has also surprised his supporters by occasionally seeming to vote to the right. Sorry McCain, he isn't "flip-flopping" here either, he's only upholding the constitution.
I, by the way, am a pretty extreme liberal myself; but Obama never has been. It took some really strong arguments on his part, for me to see things the way he does. The very core of his being is about finding balance. That's no wonder, considering his diverse background; he had to find balance in order to find his own identity.
Out of this deep struggle with himself, came his core message: We all have more in common to unite us than we have differences that divide us. No matter whether we are Democrats, Independents or Republicans; black, white or Hispanic; Christian, Muslim or atheist; poor, middle-class or rich, we all want a chance to get ahead; we all want to be treated fairly; we all want financial security for ourselves and our children; we all want the world to be a safer place...etc. There is such a long list of concerns we ALL share as Americans; it makes the divisions seem meaningless.
Obama wants our government to be focused on the concerns we all share; but he also recognizes that the "other side" has not only a constitutional right, but a deep responsibility to express and work on issues we don't share. The government's job is to try to come to a constitutionally acceptable consensus, while fostering peace amongst those who disagree. Compromise is absolutely necessary, since everyone believes they are right and the other side is wrong. Obama points out that if everyone thinks they are right, they must BE right on some level. Respecting minority opinions is as much a part of "for the people" as is finding a consensus.
The FISA Court was originally established with a consensus in 1978 for the purpose of overseeing the government's surveillance of suspected foreign agents in the USA; it provided strict rules for this activity to protect the civil liberties of US citizens. The Bush Administration has broken FISA's rules by wire-tapping millions of Americans with little or no legitimate excuse and without seeking warrants from the FISA court. The Administration has claimed this was legal, using an argument that in war-time, FISA is superseded by the Patriot Act, and thus has loopholes for this very purpose. To see said loopholes, you need to squint and tilt your head far to the right; but we have a President well equipped for such gymnastics.
Obama and many others want desperately to close those supposed "loopholes" with a resounding bang, spelling out, in no uncertain terms, that the Administration does not have the special right to ignore FISA. The new FISA bill, however imperfect, does accomplish this critical goal, if only by being dated after the inception of the Patriot Act. As Obama himself wrote:
"The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited...The Inspectors General Report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues...I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention --once I'm sworn in as President-- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuses in the future."
Bush's faith based initiative program, as it stands, is an executive branch abuse, since it allows beneficiary organizations to discriminate against perspective employees and vendors based on their religious affiliations. Tax-payer money can be used to support social programs; but it is against the constitution for tax-payer money to be used to support religious discrimination.
Obama's program will disallow any discrimination and beneficiary organizations will be dropped from the program if they do not adhere to this rule. They will also not be allowed to use the program benefits for the purpose of converting "non-believers." There will be other significant secular restraints, since Obama is, after-all, NOT a right-wing extremist.
As a community organizer, Obama found that churches of all religious persuasions often have extremely efficient social programs. They reach out to help people in need throughout America and all over the world. He has said all along that working with these programs was at the heart of his own spiritual growth, and he has repeatedly asserted that faith has a place in politics. He has further stipulated that this place is mainly to instill a sense of moral purpose and concern for humanity. Religious beliefs must never supplant the Constitution or be used to suppress another person's constitutional rights, including religious freedom. Given his openness on this topic, it is not a big surprise that Obama would find a way to support these social programs in a constitutionally acceptable way.
As for campaign financing, Obama stated early-on that he would pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee that they would both use only Government provided public funds in the general election, with no cash from lobbyists and no use of 527 groups or other under-the-table financing methods. That was his wish-list.
Not long after this, McCain used his Government provided campaign funds as security on a private loan to keep his campaign afloat. This was not only illegal, it was a clear indicator that McCain would use ANY under-the-table financing methods he felt he could get away with. After he became the presumptive nominee, McCain also refused to attempt any control over the 527 groups, the RNC or any other group spreading lies on his behalf. McCain's extensive use of lobbyists to fund and organize his campaign should also be noted.
Obama may be a strong proponent of campaign finance reform, but he is no fool. No matter what McCain said, he was obviously NOT going to run an above-board campaign. Since Obama had never accepted lobbyist or PAC funds in this election; had already asserted control over the DNC to stop them from accepting lobbyist and PAC funds; had already made it clear there would be no under-the-table financing; had already convinced MoveOn.org to stay out of the general election; and had stated clearly that he wanted no help from 527 groups, Obama would be at an extreme disadvantage were he to rely solely on Government provided funds.
Even though McCain was able to justify it to himself, Obama could not, WOULD not accept Government provided funds and also unleash the DNC, MoveOn.org and the 527's. No under-the-table financing was acceptable for Obama. Being boxed in, he had only one choice: to use ONLY the small donations he had been receiving all along. It was a risky choice, since he could not guarantee the donations would keep poring in. He might eventually exhaust the resources of his mainly middle-class donors.
Since McCain has been proven untrustworthy in this area (and is under investigation for borrowing against Government provided funds), there can be no honorable agreement between him and Obama on this topic. Obama would be a fool to accept limitations that McCain does not. I don't think we want a fool for a President.
As for the charge that Obama may actually be a centrist...well...in many ways, he is more a centrist than anyone we have ever seen before in public office. He is level-headed and prone to thinking things through carefully, looking at all sides and then presenting sincerely balanced opinions.
In years past, I shook my fist and demanded a completely liberal Government. I pointed my finger accusingly at the right-wingers and said they were just wrong. I have grown up quite a bit since then. Now, Barack Obama's message rings clear and true in my ears: We all have more in common to unite us than we have differences that divide us.
*Please note: Just because I have pointed out that Obama has not actually "flip-flopped" on these subjects, that does not mean I think there is anything wrong with changing one's mind. People learn and grow as they acquire new information, so of course they also change their minds. That is why I have not itemized the many "flip-flops" of John McCain.
I also strongly recommend reading Obama's books; since it will shed a very bright light on his motivations and his decision making process. He is an outstanding writer, so it is also well worth the time.
I feel sorry for those most extreme liberals who have not read Obama's books and watched every speech as eagerly as I have, since his often liberal voting record might make them think he is as left of the center as they are.
The truth is: Barack Obama is a constitutional scholar, and no matter what your personal feelings are, if you believe in the constitution and you are in the US Senate, most of your votes will seem liberal. It is the right-wing extremists who have made voting constitutionally seem leftist. I think our founding fathers would be aghast at this development. On the other hand, Obama has also surprised his supporters by occasionally seeming to vote to the right. Sorry McCain, he isn't "flip-flopping" here either, he's only upholding the constitution.
I, by the way, am a pretty extreme liberal myself; but Obama never has been. It took some really strong arguments on his part, for me to see things the way he does. The very core of his being is about finding balance. That's no wonder, considering his diverse background; he had to find balance in order to find his own identity.
Out of this deep struggle with himself, came his core message: We all have more in common to unite us than we have differences that divide us. No matter whether we are Democrats, Independents or Republicans; black, white or Hispanic; Christian, Muslim or atheist; poor, middle-class or rich, we all want a chance to get ahead; we all want to be treated fairly; we all want financial security for ourselves and our children; we all want the world to be a safer place...etc. There is such a long list of concerns we ALL share as Americans; it makes the divisions seem meaningless.
Obama wants our government to be focused on the concerns we all share; but he also recognizes that the "other side" has not only a constitutional right, but a deep responsibility to express and work on issues we don't share. The government's job is to try to come to a constitutionally acceptable consensus, while fostering peace amongst those who disagree. Compromise is absolutely necessary, since everyone believes they are right and the other side is wrong. Obama points out that if everyone thinks they are right, they must BE right on some level. Respecting minority opinions is as much a part of "for the people" as is finding a consensus.
The FISA Court was originally established with a consensus in 1978 for the purpose of overseeing the government's surveillance of suspected foreign agents in the USA; it provided strict rules for this activity to protect the civil liberties of US citizens. The Bush Administration has broken FISA's rules by wire-tapping millions of Americans with little or no legitimate excuse and without seeking warrants from the FISA court. The Administration has claimed this was legal, using an argument that in war-time, FISA is superseded by the Patriot Act, and thus has loopholes for this very purpose. To see said loopholes, you need to squint and tilt your head far to the right; but we have a President well equipped for such gymnastics.
Obama and many others want desperately to close those supposed "loopholes" with a resounding bang, spelling out, in no uncertain terms, that the Administration does not have the special right to ignore FISA. The new FISA bill, however imperfect, does accomplish this critical goal, if only by being dated after the inception of the Patriot Act. As Obama himself wrote:
"The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited...The Inspectors General Report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues...I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention --once I'm sworn in as President-- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuses in the future."
Bush's faith based initiative program, as it stands, is an executive branch abuse, since it allows beneficiary organizations to discriminate against perspective employees and vendors based on their religious affiliations. Tax-payer money can be used to support social programs; but it is against the constitution for tax-payer money to be used to support religious discrimination.
Obama's program will disallow any discrimination and beneficiary organizations will be dropped from the program if they do not adhere to this rule. They will also not be allowed to use the program benefits for the purpose of converting "non-believers." There will be other significant secular restraints, since Obama is, after-all, NOT a right-wing extremist.
As a community organizer, Obama found that churches of all religious persuasions often have extremely efficient social programs. They reach out to help people in need throughout America and all over the world. He has said all along that working with these programs was at the heart of his own spiritual growth, and he has repeatedly asserted that faith has a place in politics. He has further stipulated that this place is mainly to instill a sense of moral purpose and concern for humanity. Religious beliefs must never supplant the Constitution or be used to suppress another person's constitutional rights, including religious freedom. Given his openness on this topic, it is not a big surprise that Obama would find a way to support these social programs in a constitutionally acceptable way.
As for campaign financing, Obama stated early-on that he would pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee that they would both use only Government provided public funds in the general election, with no cash from lobbyists and no use of 527 groups or other under-the-table financing methods. That was his wish-list.
Not long after this, McCain used his Government provided campaign funds as security on a private loan to keep his campaign afloat. This was not only illegal, it was a clear indicator that McCain would use ANY under-the-table financing methods he felt he could get away with. After he became the presumptive nominee, McCain also refused to attempt any control over the 527 groups, the RNC or any other group spreading lies on his behalf. McCain's extensive use of lobbyists to fund and organize his campaign should also be noted.
Obama may be a strong proponent of campaign finance reform, but he is no fool. No matter what McCain said, he was obviously NOT going to run an above-board campaign. Since Obama had never accepted lobbyist or PAC funds in this election; had already asserted control over the DNC to stop them from accepting lobbyist and PAC funds; had already made it clear there would be no under-the-table financing; had already convinced MoveOn.org to stay out of the general election; and had stated clearly that he wanted no help from 527 groups, Obama would be at an extreme disadvantage were he to rely solely on Government provided funds.
Even though McCain was able to justify it to himself, Obama could not, WOULD not accept Government provided funds and also unleash the DNC, MoveOn.org and the 527's. No under-the-table financing was acceptable for Obama. Being boxed in, he had only one choice: to use ONLY the small donations he had been receiving all along. It was a risky choice, since he could not guarantee the donations would keep poring in. He might eventually exhaust the resources of his mainly middle-class donors.
Since McCain has been proven untrustworthy in this area (and is under investigation for borrowing against Government provided funds), there can be no honorable agreement between him and Obama on this topic. Obama would be a fool to accept limitations that McCain does not. I don't think we want a fool for a President.
As for the charge that Obama may actually be a centrist...well...in many ways, he is more a centrist than anyone we have ever seen before in public office. He is level-headed and prone to thinking things through carefully, looking at all sides and then presenting sincerely balanced opinions.
In years past, I shook my fist and demanded a completely liberal Government. I pointed my finger accusingly at the right-wingers and said they were just wrong. I have grown up quite a bit since then. Now, Barack Obama's message rings clear and true in my ears: We all have more in common to unite us than we have differences that divide us.
*Please note: Just because I have pointed out that Obama has not actually "flip-flopped" on these subjects, that does not mean I think there is anything wrong with changing one's mind. People learn and grow as they acquire new information, so of course they also change their minds. That is why I have not itemized the many "flip-flops" of John McCain.