Posts with the tag FISA

Please Sign Our Patriot/FISA Open Letter and Petition!

mquintus-Mark of Baltimore — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:33:38 EST

The Patriot Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments are under reauthorization review in Congress and we need your help now. Please sign our Open Letter To President Obama and Petition to urge President Obama to tell Congress to provide greater Constitutional protections for all of us!

Here's the story:

Shortly after 9/11, major changes were made to U. S. intelligence gathering laws. These changes were intended to give the U. S. government more effective power to intercept and track terrorists. All of us want the government to be effective in keeping us safe.

Yet, like the unconstitutional and unnecessary wholesale imprisonment of innocent Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, some provisions of these laws were wildly intrusive on innocent Americans. For example, the Bush Congress granted the executive branch the power to search your home not only without a court-approved warrant, but without your knowledge - and furthermore, the power to imprison you if you found out about the search and told anyone, including your spouse.

Such provisions, granted in the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments, still exist. The most controversial provisions are now being reviewed now by the Congress. To our astonishment, the Obama Administration wants these provisions renewed without effective civil liberties protections.

Senator Feingold and others have strongly objected.

The Get FISA Right group here on OFA has, since last July, urged then-candidate and now President Obama to repeal such provisions or to provide effective safeguards to protect us against over-zealous investigations and investigators.

PLEASE SIGN OUR OPEN LETTER AND PETITION asking the President to reconsider. (There are additional links to background information within our Open Letter.)

Many civil liberties organizations have worked with us on this campaign. By sending our respectful message, you'll help strengthen our founding principles for the future, while still ensuring government power needed to keep us safe.

Thanks!

P. S. We're passionate Obama supporters, too. There are over 23,000 hard-working Obama supporters in our OFA group.

the best relax is here

Fien from FPO, AE — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:21:51 EDT

.

proxy server unblock myspace from school knitted newborn cap patterns fast and furious english movies chevrolet closure list dr. jeff allison austin community colleg list of closed car dealerships cleavagefield movie list of closed gm dealerships in usa httpsn106w.snt106.mail.live.commail unblock school websites best friend poems to send how do you figure out the sequence of le great elephantbird site unblockers watch fast and the furious 4 bypass for myspace yearbook photo problem at sickles high s craigslist broyhill fontana gm canadian dealerships closing hoopz sex tape how to go to unblock websites cheer run ons game websites that are not blocked some code to unblock school websites sandra cantu best friend screen names aim amazing amie myspace general motors dealership closing list w sites to unblock myspace websites to unblock gm dealers clsing in oklahoma hit behind the ear car dealership closings in md myspae proxy unblock youtube in school sample reply letter to a request for ema chrysler dealership in jeopardy how to build a loft in a shed is gold key on gms list of closures charice a note to god in italy school proxy servers my eye is throbbing free printable block letter abc new proxies for myspace gm dealers to close sally quinn wikipedia usta french open schedule closing chevrolet dealerships houston who won the idol gm dealership closings in wisconsin gazeta shqip poetry rhyme schemes and examples unblock proxy list ohio gm dealership closing names of chicago g.m. dealers that are c what is non monetary funds gm dealers closing list the cutest coloring pages fourth grade end of the year project daisy of love joshua lee daisy of love making out with london seattle gm dealers closing web proxies to unblock sites cheap caltech shirts directions to morris plains train statio gm dealerships closing list list of gm closed dealerships photobucket hack new hack end of the year science projects how dolla get shot windows xp press any key to boot to the barry polychaete species nominal rate of return calculation car dealers closing in houston texas farmall bn tractor on utube gmc dealer closure gm closing dealershipsmd aubrey louis berry parents httpus.mc589.mail.yahoo.commcwelcom rhyme scheme-poems patrickswaze my forehead lips and face red hot swolle lenox mall atlanta how to put a proxy browser in your websi emergency store closing sign myspace unblock prox y sites flash cubefield speed up science insects art project for preschoo nc chevrolet dealers closing list gm dealership closings in md gm dealerships closing in texas free invoice for hotel nausea diarrhea congestion kenwood mall oh lake view plaza mall in il myspace proxies that cannot be block city default layouts

Re: Jim, I need your voice on health care--Sorry, sir

Jim Burrows — Fri, 22 May 2009 00:30:56 EDT

Mr. President,

It is with great sadness and regret that I must decline your emailed request. I do this with intimate and personal knowledge of how important this legislation is. I am a computer consultant by profession, and with the downturn in the economy, my income has been slashed to a small fraction of what it once was. In fact, our family has had to rely heavily on my wife's part-time income while I attempt to build a whole new business. Last week, that reliance ended. In a fall down the cellar stairs, my wife broke one ankle and the other foot. Because I have been self-employed for the last 2.5 years and my wife is only a part-time employee with no benefits, our only health insurance is what we can afford to pay for out of pocket. The bills arising out of her injury and her inability to work combine put us in a precarious position.I find myself having to rely on the charity of others, on the Council for Aging in our small town, on volunteer organizations such as Household Goods Recycling of Massachusetts, and the support of family members.

Believe me, sir, I know how important health care reform is. I understand intimately how critical the Recovery and Stimulus plan are. I could not believe more in the important work that lies before you economically and with regard to health care. I understand that health care was, quite understandably your primary object during much of the campaign and that the economy has become both a problem of its own and an obstacle to the extremely hard work of making progress on health care.

Sadly, sir, while I believe all that, and my own livelihood and home are threatened by the dual threat of healthcare costs and the collapsed economy, none of that is my primary concern. No, sir. My concern is for the health of our Republic and not of the body or the economy. I love my wife, and I love my family, and I love my home. But we are strong and we will survive, somehow. My deepest concern is for the heart and soul of this country, for the Rule of Law, for the principles upon which this great nation was conceived, and to which it is dedicated. And that, sir, I believe is endangered. It is endangered by torture; by indefinite detention; by warrant-less surveillance, search and seizure; by kangaroo courts that fail to uphold either our civilian laws or the uniform code of military justice; by the notion that the highest ranking officials can break our laws and not be investigated, let alone prosecuted; by a government that clouds its crimes in claims of secrecy and unspecified nationally security. Today, sir, it is endangered by you.

After eight years of a Presidency that plumbed depths of deceit, greed, corruption, war crimes and the arrogation of raw power, I voted for you in hopes that we could turn the page, that we could heal this land, that we could restore the rule of law. Sadly, sir, it seems that we cannot; that your view of the presidency, of executive privilege, of state secrecy, of the immunity of the powerful from the rule of law is too tainted by the power illegitimately accrued by your predecessor. It seems, sir, that the old adage is true. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So, no, sir, you may not have my voice on health care, nor on the economy. You may not have it even though the woman I love is in bad need of better health care, even though this economy is depriving me of the ability to support my family. At this time, even in the face of those great crises, I have only enough voice for this: "Return us to the Rule of Law, not men." Close Gitmo. Stop the Military Commissions. Try the prisoners or free them. Forswear prolong and preventative detention. Investigate the War Crimes and prosecute the guilty. Stop hiding behind Executive Privilege and National Security. Save my country. Save it for my children and their children. Save it for your children. This is not a distraction. Without our Soul this country dies.

I will find some way, through the charity of strangers, the support of my family or the Hand of Providence to get my wife the care she needs. I will find a way to join with others to build a company to employ us all and save our homes and livelihoods. It will be hard, but since they brought my multi-great grandfather to these shores in chains for the crime of being a Scot and supporting the wrong absolute ruler, my family has found a way to do those things. Somehow, I and mine will find the way to protect and fend for ourselves. What you, sir, must do, is defend this country, and despite all that has been said in this new century, the threat to this country is not foreign fanatics. It is domestic fanatics. It is power misused, law abandoned. It is forgetting what makes this nation great. It is abandoning our principles.

I am not of your party. I am an independent. Yet, I voted for you, and worked for you and wept with joy to see a man with your background, both in heritage and in principle, elected President. The promise of it! The hope. Live up to that hope, sir. Give us back our Country. That, above all, is what we need. Then, sir, I will join you in working for health care and the economy and the other great works there are before us.

Jim Burrows, aka Brons - Vox Libertas

Is there anything left to sell out on?

Card Player — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:34:21 EDT

No matter how much better he is than Bush on some things, the disregard for the rule of law and common decency makes Obama no better than the common criminals of the previous administration. In some ways he is even worse. At least with Bush I never held out hope that he was a man of true character. Between refusing to investigate torture and FISA, I can no longer deny that he is any more than the same kind of politician that we thought we had voted out. Sure, he says the right things and makes you feel good but that is what a con man does. The true test of character is in the actions and he has failed miserably. Why in the world should anyone believe that when the time comes, he is not going to sell out on health care too. Sorry, but all the hope for change I had is all gone.

Going Beyond the Limits Surveillance

Tom Awtry — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:21:21 EDT

Admittedly before 911 we were open to terrorists and we’ve paid dearly for our lacks and arrogant mistakes in many ways; loss of life of those involved in the twin towers attack, individual freedoms, increased taxes, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and international embarrassment on the Bush’s administration policies regarding torture to name a few.

However, we keep reading and hearing, for the past five years, how we’re “winning” the “War on Terror”, and reading an article such as this posted in the New York Times, entitled “N.S.A.’s Intercepts Exceed Limits Set by Congress”, authored by Eric Lichtblau and James Risen is disturbing to me.

I was taught and agree with the fact; we live in a country governed by the “Rule of Law”, which to me implies our laws were authored for one sole purpose and to prosecute those who break this intended law. Not to use the congressional passed legislation to uncover personal information concerning individuals for storage in a National Database and used for unknown purposes.

Here are a few excerpts from the Post article which I feel are significant:

The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.
Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.
The Justice Department, in response to inquiries from The New York Times, acknowledged in a statement on Wednesday night that there had been problems with the N.S.A. surveillance operation, but said they had been resolved.
The questions may not be settled yet. Intelligence officials say they are still examining the scope of the N.S.A. practices, and Congressional investigators say they hope to determine if any violations of Americans’ privacy occurred. It is not clear to what extent the agency may have actively listened in on conversations or read e-mail messages of Americans without proper court authority, rather than simply obtained access to them
After a contentious three-year debate that was set off by the disclosure in 2005 of the program of wiretapping without warrants that President George W. Bush approved after the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress gave the N.S.A. broad new authority to collect, without court-approved warrants, vast streams of international phone and e-mail traffic as it passed through American telecommunications gateways. The targets of the eavesdropping had to be “reasonably believed” to be outside the United States. Under the new legislation, however, the N.S.A. still needed court approval to monitor the purely domestic communications of Americans who came under suspicion.
One official said that led the agency to inadvertently “target” groups of Americans and collect their domestic communications without proper court authority. Officials are still trying to determine how many violations may have occurred.
Notified of the problems by the N.S.A., officials with both the House and Senate intelligence committees said they had concerns that the agency had ignored civil liberties safeguards built into last year’s wiretapping law. “We have received notice of a serious issue involving the N.S.A., and we’ve begun inquiries into it,” a Congressional staff member said.
And in one previously undisclosed episode, the N.S.A. tried to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant, an intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said.
Following is a video I produced during President Obama’s Presidential campaign, which I feel outlines the problems associated with the FISA legislation:

Senators Obama, Clinton, McCain - The Patriot Act

As one can surmise it is my personal feelings that in the coming November election we will be voting for Senators Obama, Clinton or McCain to be our next President. Also, it is my sincere hope that this newly elected president will restore many of the personal liberties, we as citizens of America have given up over the past eight years.

One example of surrendering our liberty, and for me the most important, is our Patriot Act. If I resided or visited a country outside the United States, and this country was on our country’s “watch” list, as being hostile to America; then I would fully support our current Patriot Act, has authored. But, me visiting a “friendly” country, to our nation and electronically communicating to my family, friends or work from this country, then I deem this an uncalled and unjustified surveillance an invasion of my privacy.

Over the past six months I have attempted to follow all the candidates closely through their web sites, televised debates (via the Internet wire services) and YouTube; but really do not have a clear understanding of their feelings on this issue. I am not expecting any direct response from any of these three aforementioned candidates, but would like clarification stated within their respective web sites’.

The video, produced by the ACLU and distributed by iTV presents our two governmental agencies that facilitate the usage of the Patriot Act and how it is implemented to monitor our electronic communications.

Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:

OK, Today, 2/9/9..we continue with our ritual of the YEAR OF THE CAT...

Tony — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:38:35 EST

Ok, as we said we will continue PLAYING this version of this music masterpiece every 9th of every month to conmemorate the year 2009, the 9 the YEAR OF THE CAT.,.and we now play and post comments about it..we will continue until my daughter's B-Day 9/9/9, and also until my own one, 11/11/11, and the YouTube Video is approaching 999,999 views and we need this number for the curse to work before 9/9/9, this is a double curse, it is good to you if you do not bother or hurt innocent citizens, if you do bad or are a GOV agent doing illegal espionage on innocent citizens under the unethical FISA program then you better start choosing your cemetery lot as my GOD will give you a punishment like some that hurt me when I was a teen and are DEAD in the cemetery, and HE only knows what he will assign to you, destroyal of your body or happiness, you decide, as I have been had my calls monitored by the dictator HUGUITO since 2004, all my family is wiretapped by workers with crime records who monitor the calls from overseas and inside, and yesterday it sounded like it was domestic spying somebody hanging up a phone that was heard in the background by me and my relative in Venezuela, My next post will be the long awaited post, it will be a protest post and a planned post that I knew it was going to happen and I am making it, if you are involved in ordering me fired from the scumbag Texas Environmental Agency, TCEQ, hurting me my US kids and my career and where there was a conspiracy for this malice act and I will detailed it in NEXT POST, The long awaited Post, now That I am a supporter of a president of the USA, the previous abusive one is long GONE, where the "Q" for Quality is too much (reason will be explained in next post) as they are a scumbag agency full of stupid scumbag people with low intelligence IQ who never had 1% of my education, knowledge and intelligence especially the white bosses who STINK..wait for the post that I knew It was coming someday, they probably thought that I forgot, but NO I have a super strrong memory and it will be a sweet bad-mouthing protest post..so lets wait and PLAY this music masterpiece, Al Stewart, THE YEAR OF THE CAT..

===>THE YEAR OF THE CAT- PLAY HERE..

The Failed Policies of George W. Bush

Steven from Norman, OK — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:54:23 EDT

According to almost every news source in America, the Democratic Party will win big on November 4. Presidential candidate Barack Obama is far from the only Democrat who will ride into Washington on the coattails of bad feelings for President George W. Bush. Almost every Democratic candidate for office in America, fairly or not, has enjoyed a bounce in popularity by campaigning on a platform of being anti-Bush, or by linking his/her opponent to the "failed policies of the Bush administration". Indeed, George W. Bush has never had a lower approval rating than right now, partly because of the recent financial crisis. But what these Democratic candidates are not doing is reminding people what it is that is so bad about the "failed policies of George W. Bush" in the first place. If the American public remembers that it can't stand that Bush guy but can't remember why, then the "failed policies" will surely be repeated by elected members of the Government. So to serve as a reminder mostly to myself, I've jotted down 33 "failed policies" that I think have made our country worse off thanks to the 43rd President of the United States of America.

1) "The United States doesn't torture." Except when it does. George W. Bush vetoed anti-torture bills, watered down water-boarding by referring to it as an interrogation technique (like how rape is just a sexual technique), and flauted the Geneva Conventions time after time when confronted in interviews or press conferences.

2) Unfounded wars on sovereign nations. Bad intelligence that should have been ignored about WMD and yellow cake fissile material led to a war against Iraq. The previous sentence was the best-case, most P.C. explanations for George W. Bush's intentions in the Middle East. Speculation abounds as to his real reasons for war with Iraq, most of which would be inconceivable if you told it to anyone eight years ago.

3) Secrecy. Over-classification of classified documents.

4) The Patriot Act

5) Bullying. Bullying of foreign nations for support for the above unjust Iraq war. Bullying of congressional leaders for support. Bullying of the U.N. to pass the war resolution, or else. It's called negotiating when there's a give and a take, and it's called persuasion when there's a well-explained and well-grounded rationale for action. It's called bullying if threats are made and fear is induced in entities that should be our allies.

6) Over-simplification of foreign viewpoints. You don't have to be either "for us or against us".

7) "Axis of evil". Well so much for negotiation.

8) Isolating North Korea to the point that they needed to build an atomic weapon to get any bilateral negotiation with the U.S.

9) War on terror. How does one win a war against extremism? You can't kill 'em all. There are always fringe elements in even the most tightly regulated societies, like gay people in Iran, bloggers in China, and terrorists in America.

10) Pre-emptive wars. The "Bush Doctrine", I think. Even police *should* have to wait until a crime is committed to detain people. And speaking of detaining people...

11) Guantanamo Bay. And more importantly, the lack of trials for prisoners there. (I hesitate to call them "detainees".)

12) Oh wait, not "prisoners" or "detainees". "Unlawful Combatants".

13) "Extraordinary renditions". They lead to "erroneous renditions" in the absence of the law.

14) Over-reaching of executive power to facilitate illegal wiretapping. FISA courts are just not necessary anymore.

15) The Alberto Gonzales Department of Justice. Attorney firings for partisan reasons, mealymouthed testimony by most Department of Justice officials including the Attorney General himself on several occasions, the approval of warrantless wiretapping, and the attempted repeal of Habeas Corpus.

16) Incompetent "loyal Bushies" like "heckuva job" Brownie.

17) Highly competent yet highly evil "loyal Bushies" like Dick "Overlord" Cheney.

18) Anti-choice-ism

19) Anti-intellectualism

20) Anti-Europeanism.

21) Right-wing judicial nominees. I'm not talking about Roberts or Alito, which almost any other Republican president would have nominated. I mean all the other judicial appointments to lower courts that add unfounded legitimacy to an extreme right-wing judicial viewpoint by giving high-level careers to cronies. This will lead to future right-wing judicial nominees to the Supreme Court who should have gotten rejected long ago for their lack of objectivity being seen as legitimate. These juditial nominees also nearly tore up the rules of the Senate.

22) Federal Marriage Amendment. So glad that one didn't get anywhere.

23) Stem cell research. Not so much for the position (federal funds only for "existing" stem cell lines) but for the process of letting the church's viewpoint into a science decision.

24) Not signing the Kyoto protocol for anti-UN reasons.

25) While we're at it, John Bolton.

26) Sabotaging the EPA to the point where entities are now suing the EPA because it's not strict enough in regulating emissions.

27) Trying to privatize social security. How's that stock market idea looking now?

28) Increasing the national debt from about $5 trillion to about $10 trillion. This riles me up so much, I'm going to need some more bullet points about the budget.

29) Tax cuts benefitting the wealthiest of our society at a time when we were finally getting Reagan's debt under control.

30) Massive non-mandatory spending increases primarily benefitting the military industrial complex. We've got loads of money for super advanced fighter jets, but we're losing wars against people who make explosives out of pvc pipe and wire.

31) Making war spending separate from the budget. This would make sense only if the expenses were unforseeable.

32) Not addressing health care at all. Seriously, during a decade in which health care spending rose faster than any other industry, how was health care almost completely ignored by the Bush administration?

33) Well, he did address one thing. He vetoed SCHIP.

I'm sure there are plenty more policies I dislike, and I know there are plenty more policies that others dislike (No Child Left Behind, immigration). But none of this stuff gets specifically talked about by any of the Democratic candidates. We need to remember this so that we can hold future administrations accountable.

(cross-posted at quibblingpotatoes.blogspot.com)

Democracy to Banana Republic in a Few Easy Steps

Dave — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:31:12 EDT

A reminder of all the things that went wrong over the last 8 years:
Democracy to Banana Republic in a Few Easy Steps

PRE-WEEKEND BROWARD PLANS & STRATEGIES

Broward Amateur Strategist ( FL ) — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:08:07 EDT

if your read the whole thing you'll appreciate it!! alot of info.. BUT SEND TO AS MANY FIRENDS AS POSSIBLE AND COMMENT!!!!! ''Maria Shriver said 8 inspirational words..
'We are the ones weve been waiting for'
but
'the world is the ones whos been waiting for us!'

waiting for us to lead on Global Warming..etc...ect.. (IND- favorablities)

(i think obama should use that as closgin campaign.)

Hello Everyone!! This blog is my ideas/suggestions for the weekend before the November election. We all now the United States is well aware of a massive movement that has swept across the country red and blue, he actually created a new American ''electoral color'' -- PURPLE. The human brain remembers alot, but when you vote on a Tuesday and your out on the weekend and you see massive...i mean M A S S I V E support for Obama that memory is going to stick with that person for that very important vote 3 days later. Broward County could/will offset the physical geography advantage of the conservatives in Florida (Broward County had risen to almost 1.8 million people, and increased by 10.1% between April 1, 2006 and July 1, 2006. This number is accounted for by an increase to 441,678 (25.3%) in its black population and an increase to 408,335 (22.8%)..Broward County is now "minority-majority". voter registarion needed though..35% of Floridas population in tri county area .I've listed resources and links to certain sites pertaining to the suggestion/idea.1. FRIDAY SATURDAY NIGHT (halloween/voters going out on the town)---We need big exposure in certain areas-las olas-a1a-downtown Ft. Lauderdale-downtown Miami-sawgrass mall-combing the beach-South Beach-Weston-Coral Springs-Parkland-swap shop-movie theaters in areas of higher dem pops/ & hispanic.. Also If you see parents try an angage!!!! A. FLAG WAVING-- Flag waving (Obama & American & State flag) visual is nothing but a positive.. 2 Areas of Flag Waving Needed (1)up and down las olas and a1a-downtown ft laud downtown miami south beach....(2) on major instersection/major offramps *oakland park-sr7*95-broward & 95-Sunrise-Borwas Blvd.*75 royal palm blvd area (coral springs)* YEARD SIGN ARE INMPORTANT IN ALL AREAS BUT ..in my opinions registration is over---go to the area with least supp. (w signage) http://www.united-states-flag.com/fl3x5p.html- FLORIDA STATE FLAG - PRICEhttp://www.united-states-flag.com/usflagprinpo1.html- USA Flag - PRICEhttp://bestcustomflags.com/- OBAMA FLAG/CUSTOM B. YARD SIGNS-BUMPER STICKERS-CONVERSATION-- I'll fist start off with bumper sticker (my niche is marketing/advertising) a bumper sticker is a visual advertiseent that us in south florida get an est. 800 cars a day that see that bumper sticker. (so i said it =)----Yard signs: We all know theres a sign war that has been going on for years but in this county the percentage is decresed because of the poltical lean in Broward - LIBERAL- but the point is agin VISUAL - READ THIS------------needed in all major broward (also tri county) instersections and offrapms to INTERSTATES/EXPRESSWAYS)There is growing interest in mental imagery for good reasons. First, imagery has ample potential for drawing information stored in long-term memory into working memory. This phenomenon has been called "high elaboration" by MacInnis and Price (1987), and tapping long-term memory is believed to lead to greater communications effectiveness (MacInnis and Jaworski 1989). Second, mental images have potential to be more personally relevant because they are anchored in the person's experience base and generated by his/her own mental processes. Strong relevance is a desirable facet of persuasive communications (MacInnis and Jaworski 1989). Next, imagery has the capability of being multisensory and thus could provide for multiple avenues of information processing. Triggering multiple channels of information processing is believed to enhance advertising effectiveness (Rossiter 1982; Lutz and Lutz 1978). Also, images are experiential rather than discursive; thus, they afford a richer base of raw stimuli. Finally, it can be argued that because imagery is believed to be more closely linked to long-term memory, is more personally relevant, and is richer, its effects on consumer attitudes and intentions will be more robust than stimuli which do not engage such depth and breadth of information processing. In fact, Richardson (1983) claims that the consequences of self-initiated thought imagery are indistinguishable from its genuine sensory counterparts. This contention underpins what should be the strong appeal of imagery to advertising strategists.--Conversation--conversate with people..example..''in the grocery line see a mag with obama- make a positive comment see there reaction-analyze it pos or neg...neg stae pos...pos well then...have a moment..lol =).... C. Media--keep ckeacking the event listing in the 150 mile range and if enough people call in and say theres 200 events going on today..belive they'll play a story. <---thats a big oneWell.. In my conclusion I am just a 22yo gay male working at technical support call center division in an internation satellitee company (whoms customer only get international channels 80% middle east i might add)..i make 10.00 an hour...I am just what I am but damnit I want this man in the white house!

I Am Back.

sirshannon — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:48:52 EDT

I just made another small donation to the Barack Obama campaign.

Because I so publicly withdrew my support, I feel that I should make this announcement in the same place I made my previous announcement.

This election is too important to me; I must do what I can to save our country from the people running the current McCain campaign (and our current administration).

For a longer statement, please see this post on my person blog (WARNING: contains some language not suitable for posting here or viewing at work):

http://sirshannon.com/2008/10/05/vote-early-vote-often/

Donate, talk to your friends, support Obama, FISA

BigSean — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:35:19 EDT

After the FISA vote, I stopped donating and suspended blogging here. Mostly I was bitching about FISA anyway. While I'm not happy about that vote, I firmly believe that Barack Obama will make a great President and have renewed my financial support for his campaign. I hope that you will do the same.

http://my.barackobama.com/townhalldebate

Louisiana is now a tossup state based on current polling data, one that has been deep red for a long time. As an independent voter, one who does not belong to any political party, I remain encouraged about this as I think that a change in the political landscape presents an opportunity for those who are all over the political spectrum.

There are a few points of disagreement I have with Barack Obama and while he will not always make decisions I agree with, I believe that those decisions will be made with due consideration and in consultation with people who view different angles of an issue. This stands in stark contrast to the leadership we've had for the last few decades.

Louisiana can deliver her electoral votes for Obama. Vote, encourage your friends, families, and colleagues to vote. Make your voice heard.

If you have the means, chip in a few bucks here: http://my.barackobama.com/townhalldebate

The finish line is within sight. Let's get there and get ready to run the marathon.

Nero or Lincoln? Checks and balances and oversight needed.

Dr. Jeffrey Kargel — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:08:49 EDT

History certainly has its tragic figures and role models, and about the time the election hoopla winds down, I am confident that our Presidential hopeful will be the President-Elect. What a terrible mess Barack Obama will inherit. However, adverse conditions are what builds the greatest--and sometimes the worst--leaders. Think Churchill, and Lincoln-- and Nero. We know Lincoln's story; he was the first President who grew up outside the original Thirteen colonies; the child of impoverished farmers, he grew up amidst meager means, in a one-room log cabin. His childhood qualified him to take the kinds of positions he took in his Presidency, when perhaps no other President, certainly no child of the Aristocracy, could have allowed it. Lincoln's childhood adversity coupled with American turmoil of the 1850's made this humble man into perhaps the greatest American President.

Similar childhood adversity and chaos can work the other way. Nero, though born amidst Imperial splendor, as a toddler had a a father who was murdered and a mother who was exiled; he was raised by an uncle, outside Rome, amidst the harshest poverty. When the chaos of Rome gave opportunity for him to return, he received a first-rate education by a famous tutor, and soon he was the young Emperor of Rome. He started his rule with all the hallmarks of a populist, of one who cared even for the slaves of Rome. He ended as a persecutor of Christians at the time of Paul, as a self-absorbed power monger and ruthless killer. If ever there was an example of the corrupting influence of absolute power, it is Nero, who infamously fiddled while Rome burned.

Barack Obama will, we hope, become our President. I will never get tired of hearing of and re-reading Barack Obama's story of his childhood. I sincerely believe that we have a Lincoln in waiting, that Barack Obama will fill out the circle that Abraham Lincoln started but whose life and great works were cut short. And here, I mean not only will Barack Obama do justice for African-Americans, though I am sure he will. Barack Obama will pick up the shattered pieces of a nation, a nation not shattered in political pieces, but shattered just the same in ideology, in economic condition, in moral standing in the world, in our ability to move forward as a coherent positive force for itself and for others in the world. It seems we are so near collapse.

Barack Obama will also inherit powers of the Presidency that are in some ways greater than any other President has had. Under the Bush Regime unprecedented expansions of Executive powers to spy on American citizens has produced a centralization of power unlike any previous American leader, or any leader of any nation anywhere, ever. The President now has the ability to eavesdrop, without warrant and without oversight, on American citizens, including political opponents; even though that is still against the law, it is not something easily caught under the FISA provisions. In my opinion, Barack Obama's vote for the FISA bill, however anguished it may have been, is the lowest point in his political career. He has taken so many other honorable stands on other issues that I have no doubt about where his heart and mind and spirit currently rests, and he has my unequivocal support. But also in my opinion, the difference between a 21st Century Lincoln and a Nero is a fine line, which crossed, makes crossing back very difficult. I appeal to Barack Obama to begin his Presidency not only with a thorough review of the $700 billion bailout, but a review of FISA. We do indeed need to fight terrorism. But checks and balances and oversight is what will bring out Barack Obama's "Lincoln."

On The Nation’s Open Letter to Obama

Jay Garrano — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:54:41 EDT

(This is an article that was printed in Revolution newspaper (www.revcom.us) the week prior to the DNC. I think it's still relevant, especially for those questioning Obama's vote for the FISA spy bill...what do you all think?)

On The Nation's Open Letter to Obama:
Wishful Thinking and Deadly Self-Deception
by Sunsara Taylor
(www.revcom.us)

The August 18 issue of The Nation magazine published "Change We Can Believe In. An Open Letter to Barack Obama," online at thenation.com.

The letter begins by congratulating Obama and extolling how, through his candidacy, "Hundreds of thousands of young people have entered the political process for the first time, African-American voters have rallied behind [Obama], and many of those alienated from politics-as-usual have been re-engaged."

But they express concern that, "Since your historic victory in the primary, there have been troubling signs that you are moving away from the core commitments shared by many who have supported your campaign, toward a more cautious and centrist stance--including, most notably, your vote for the FISA legislation…"

While making clear that they "recognize that compromise is necessary in any democracy," and "understand that the pressures brought to bear on those seeking the highest office are intense," they advise Obama, "Retreating from the stands that have been the signature of your campaign will weaken the movement whose vigorous backing you need in order to win and then deliver the change you have promised."

After listing some of Obama's positions that they like and some that they don't, they pledge: "If you win in November, we will work to support your stands when we agree with you and to challenge them when we don't. We look forward to an ongoing and constructive dialogue with you when you are elected President."

The signatories to this letter are an impressive list of writers and intellectuals, a number of whom are respected tremendously as voices of conscience. But, this letter, and its whole logic and method, is very bad. Whatever their intent, those who put their names on it are wielding their influence to get people to join them in a deadly exercise in self-delusion.

Tell Obama to get FISA right

Chris from San Diego, CA — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:40:13 EDT

I've been outraged that Barack has betrayed us on FISA. I think we should stop campaign contributions until we get an apology and a position reversal:

http://dimmeria.com/?q=node/1791

Dammit, TELL ME THE TRUTH!!!

Tanya — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:51:17 EDT

Ummmm..Mr McCain?…are ya sitting down? Here’s a few of your own words that lead all of us to distrust you overwhelmingly, every day! You’re an embarrassment to yourself, McSame! This is the age of the “Internet(s)” and “the” Youtube using Bushian malaprops. We’ve got you on record, McFlip/Flop! Facts are just silly things that get in your way…ehhh, McSame?

Many, many, many thanks to one of my true media heroes and ever-present mentor..Keith Olbermann!

Fisa/Telcom let down

Josh Panter — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:07:35 EDT

this is my first and only post here.

I WAS a very enthusiastic supporter of you,

I believED in your mesage of hope, change, and integrity.

Then you voted AGAINST your PROMISE not to give retroactive immunity to the telcoms for their illegal activities.

I have not heard any explanation.

I do not believe in you...you lied. Simple truth. You lost my vote. I will not vote for McCain, though. I believe he is an obviouse disaster trying to happen. I doubt I will vote. I refuse to be forced to choose between two candidates I do not support. I refuse to subscribe to the lesser of two evils. This is one of the reasons I was so enthusiastic and excited about your candidacy. For the first time in my adult life there was a candidate I truely believed in, that made me WANT to participate, that made me feel like there was actually someone there WORTH paying attention to. All of that went away when you broke that promise. What other promises will you be breaking. Mr. Obama?

You have left me lower than I was before your candidacy. I had no faith in our system (largely thanks to "W"), and you raised me up. Unfortunately, you let me down. I would have been better off simply disbelieving in the system under "W", than having my hopes built up and let back down again. I simply cannot support you, and that really sucks, since you really had me going. Change...ha

I guess they really are all the same.

joshp

Political Party OVER COUNTRY.

Jeremy from Bardstown, KY — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:50:41 EDT

I love this country and the MILLIONS of dumbasses that will believe ANYTHING the politicians tell them. And refuse to vote for the other party..even if they are BETTER...like RON PAUL.

Obama VOTED TO GIVE telecom companies IMMUNITY For ILLEGALLY spying on citizens.

He also voted for the PATRIOT ACT...which allows the government to spy on We The People...without warrants or even a reason for the need to spy.

but who cares about his voting record..ITS party OVER country...NO MATTER what.

The Truth about Barack's Vote for FISA Compromise

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:30:20 EDT

Many people are still expressing disappointment over Barack's vote for a FISA compromise bill, even when they do not understand why Barack did it, and the real consequences of that vote for our nation's security and our own individual rights to privacy...

Thoughts on consensus building.

Blue Sun — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:29:54 EDT

One of Barack Obama's strongest appeals is his desire to break down the walls of ugly party partisanship and replace them with a mechanism of governance based more on consensus based on a common wish to solve America's problems than with the brutal scorched-earth partisanship that has marked the recent Republican rule.

This is a laudable goal once he is in the White House and has the power and Congressional backing to deal with the Republican as equals.

But, I have noted a disturbing shift (dare I call it 'Change" in his campaign since he became the presumptive Democratic nominee.

One critical element in consensus government is the willingness of all sides to compromise and move away from extreme positions for the common good of everybody. However, Obama's unilateral compromise in the campaign is not only not being met with similar cooperation from the Republicans, it is being used, and used very effectively, to portray him as a flip-flopper, a weakling, not entirely honest, and without a central core belief system - willing to betray his core constituency and principles in search of votes.

We have seen this in Bill Clinton, whose early compromises with the Republicans shifted the Democratic party to the Right and marginalized its progressive wing. For this one-sided cooperation he was rewarded by the GOP with 8 years of smears, attempts to create phony scandals, and ultimately the indignity of an impeachment trial.

Al Gore and John Kerry, in their turn, tried to 'triangulate' by moving toward Republican positions in hopes of gaining the center, but, in the end, lost by, in large part, the votes of the very same working class "Reagan Democrats" they were trying to woo - most of whom voted for Bush anyway.

Now, I see a pattern repeating itself. Barack Obama has come out in favor of the Supreme Court ruling gutting gun control. Barack Obama has supported the idea of the death penalty for rape of a child (not understanding that, if the rapist is already subject to the death penalty, there is nothing to keep him from killing his victim and getting rid of the only witness). Obama's vote on the FISA bill simply can not be rationalized or excused - it is not leadership but follow-the-herd. Obama supports expanding taxpayer aid to faith-based charity. Obama has advocated limited off-shore drilling. Obama supports keeping a contingent of troops in Iraq, and, worse, would trade our quagmire in Iraq for a much bigger and more brutally violent quagmire with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Obama has backed away from his earlier promises of public financing and not accepting PAC or corporate funding. Obama's health care plan still keeps the private for-profit health insurance companies at its core - there will never be both universal and quality health care in this country while for-profit health insurance companies sit at the table. Obama has turned his back on many of the same progressives who were his earliest supporters in hopes of not alienating the middle.

Right now, Obama's compromises and shifts to the Right do nothing to win new votes in the middle, while merely providing easy fodder for McCain's slime-eel smear machine. What should by now have been a runaway election sees Obama shrinking daily in the polls (the last one I saw was McCain 44% and Obama 44%).

It is not just the Hillary fanatics who may end up sitting out this election (or, worse, vote for McCain). All through the progressive netroots I'm hearing people seriously considering voting for a third party; Green, Nader, even Libertarian or one of the Socialist parties. They seem to be taking John Quincy Adams' advice to heart this year:

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

How do we, as Obama supporters, communicate to our candidate that so far the only Change he has shown us has been in his positions - and not for the better?

- Blue Sun

" If you want to build a ship, don't herd people together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea."

--Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

How Obama is About to Lose

David in Toronto by way of New Orleans — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:01:47 EDT

Forty years ago, the Right created their "think tanks" and enlisted their talkshow propagandists to frame the political debate in our country. We all know their sad tropes, because they were so wildly successful--The poor are lazy, Government is the problem, Responsibility rests on the least powerful not the most powerful, and Without discussion, the United States is the greatest country in the world.

Changes in law regarding States of Emergency, COG and martial law

Laura Schneider — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 23:10:05 EDT

In case of an emergency in the United States, Congress has long had the power to declare an emergency and set in motion all the U.S. provisions that deal with emergencies. There are the Patriot Act and the War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933 and more. Presidents over the years have assumed more and more power by issuing a multitude of Executive Orders, many of them secret. There is nothing in the constitution to authorize these, but they are “the law” none-the-less. There is also a National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html) and a Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html) which assigns all power to the executive branch in case of a catastrophic emergency.

The outlook for our democracy in case of emergency has always been bleak. Our democracy is in danger with all the above lurking. Once an emergency is declared, we will live in a dictatorship.

The situation today is MUCH WORSE than even the above would indicate. Prepare to UPDATE THE HORROR!

Online Platform Meeting 'Civil Rights' Plank Update

Lee from Durham, NC. — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:08:41 EDT

The Netroots Political Platform project is still active at the MixedInk Site. As described by Ellen Mendlow in her myBO event listing for the Online Platform Meeting

Did you want to contribute to the democratic platform but aren't able to attend a platform meeting in your area? . . . Would you like to be part of a collaborative platform building exercise that will go to the Obama campaign and the DNC? We'd like as many voices to be heard as possible and give people a chance to contribute by proposing planks, editing, revising others and rating so we send a platform proposal that represents the clearest voice of the community possible. Just go here: www.netrootsplatform.org to check it out. We need you to help ensure that all the planks are strong, and that the platform accurately reflects our collective views.

I have been working on the Civil Rights plank. The two highest rated 'Civil Rights and Civil Liberties' planks continue to be the 'Get FISA Right' and 'Restore our Constitutional Rights' planks from the 'Get FISA Right' group.

In the spirit of collaboration, I drafted a new 'Civil Rights Plank' combining the top 4 highest rated planks and some 'balance of power' language from the plank written at the myBO.com "Restore Our Constitution" Platform event held in Jenkintown, PA.

The planks in the 'Civil Rights Plank (multiple combined plank edit)' are:
HUMAN RIGHTS AND JUSTICE
RESTORE OUR AMERICAN CONSTITUTION AND BALANCES OF POWER IN GOVERNMENT
RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY
GET FISA RIGHT
LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER/TRANSSEXUAL (LGBT) EQUALITY

Since the combined edit includes both of the 'Get FISA Right' group planks - if we rate this new combined plank up, we could have both of our planks included in the final submission, as well as some other strong planks.

Please go here to rate the 'Civil Rights and Civil Liberties' planks, to edit and/or combine them further.

Flip Flop Flap

Stadum — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:33:15 EDT

This is the title of an excellent comment by Hendrik Hertzberg in the July 21 issue of The New Yorker addressing the concerns of many Obama supporters that our candidate has flip flopped on some important issues, notably:

FISA [the vote in favor of the final version shielding the telecoms]
Withdrawal from Iraq [fudging the timetable conditions]
Gun Control [praise for the recent S.Ct. decision]
Late Term Abortion [opposition to late term]
Church & State [aid to "faith based" programs]
The Death Penalty [demurred from recent S.Ct. decision outlawing death for child rape]
Public Financing of Campaigns [rejected it after having promised to use it]

Hertzberg examines each and gives it a Flip Flop rating, as follows:

FISA [a flip flop no doubt, but perhaps a jusitifiable one under the circumstances]
Withdrawal from Iraq [only a marginal tweak of his prior position]
Gun Control [a substantive tweak, counts as a weak flip flop]
Late Term Abortion [not a flip flop]
Church & State [more a shift of emphasis than a true flip flop]
The Death Penalty [a flip flop -- goes beyond prior position in support of death penalty]
Public Financing [hard to avoid conclusion it was a broken promise, but Obama campaign's small donor fundraising program can be seen as a form of public financing]

Supporters may find Hertzberg's comment a source of comfort for themselves and/or a source of persuasion in conversations with voters not yet on board and expressing reservations. The full comment can be found at: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/07/21/080721taco_talk_hertzberg

Obama Platform Proposal

Patrice Ventresca — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:36:20 EDT

Democratic Party Platform Proposals

From: Blue Horizon Skyline Voters for Change

--We can see clearly now the reign is gone--

Thank you for inviting all Barack Obama supporters to take part in forming the Democratic Party platform for this campaign and for the next four years of office. The following proposals are from the people of Silicon Valley who live and work together in our dynamic, technological capital of the world.

***The Three E's
The Democratic Party has among its top priorities progressive policies that affect what our group is calling out as the "Three E's":

- Energy: conservation and alternative sources
- Environment: protection and planning
- Education: expansion and enhancement

These areas represent three legs of progressive change within our society and economy. A short list of examples that tie them together for multiple benefits includes:

1. Installing solar panels on all school buildings and other public buildings.
2. Elevating environmental awareness as a priority subject in K-12 education.
3. Investing the savings from ending the Iraq war in both K-12 and higher education.

California's "Renewable Energy Rebate Program" can be an example for the nation. Homes reducing costs in any manner should be eligible for credits.

For more information, see:
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/california.html

***Timely Withdrawal from Iraq
The Iraqi government has made it clear that it is sovereign and expects U.S. forces to leave within 16 months. America must listen. We must draw up a timetable and implement it as soon as Senator Obama takes office.

***Universal Health Care Reform
Americans need to know that our government cares about our health and will protect it.

- No American should be without basic health care services for lack of insurance
- No American mother or father should be frantic over a child's health for lack of comprehensive coverage
- No retired American should be hoarding or splitting prescription medications for lack of money

***ERISA Reform
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) must be reformed. ERISA-participating employees are not seeing their interests protected.

ERISA protects the interests of employee benefit plan participants and their beneficiaries by requiring corporate plan sponsors to disclose to their employees all financial and other information concerning the plan. This requirement must be enforced, including the creation of new legislation and regulations as needed.

***Women's Reproductive Choice
Incorporate Roe vs. Wade in legislation, and implement the necessary Executive Orders in order to:

- Protect a woman's right to choose
- Act on that right without danger to herself or to medical professionals
- Our government must not interfere in any way with a woman's reproductive choices.

***Tax Credits for High-Income Earners
Remove tax credits for the top 3% of income earners. These credits are patently unfair. Instead, use the increased revenues to fund the "Three E's" and other programs that benefit all Americans.

***Voting Transparency and Ease of Voting
The Federal Election Commission must implement national standards governing the voting process, and require that all states adhere to the following standards for their voters:

*Transparency in every stage with voting system software, including open-source software
*National standards for electronic voting machine certification
* External, non-partisan certifying groups that publicly disclose testing results
*Reliable voter-verifiable systems with a paper ballot as the ballot of record
*Robust auditing procedures that include absentee ballots
*Updated and thorough recount procedures
*Public ownership of all voting systems and software
There can be no trade secret methods in the voting systems
*All processes, including computerized processes, must be fully open to public scrutiny.
Important Ultimately, extend voting periods to all day on the weekends so that working people and parents can cast votes more easily

***"No Child Left Behind" and Other Failed Reforms
Our country benefits from an educated populace. Students and working people must be assured that if they want to further their education, especially in critical subjects such as science, foreign studies, and environmental planning, that they can do so without great economic sacrifice.
The Democratic Party must stand behind all efforts to:

- Increase class attendance at the K-12 levels
- Decrease drop-out rates
- Encourage students to avail themselves of higher education
- Make it possible for working people to return to school if they so desire
- Make free education available not just through high school, but for advanced studies as well

***HIPAA Reform
The "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act" (HIPAA) must be reformed to protect the privacy of medical records.

To ensure our Constitutional right to privacy, medical records should not be placed in a national database.

Computerizing and storing this private information not only carries the potential threat of severe breaches of security: it also raises cost for doctors and medical institutions, a cost that will be passed onto many patients already hard-pressed to obtain affordable health care.

***Our Constitutional Right to Privacy
Protection of privacy, as guaranteed by our First and Fourth Amendments is paramount to American citizens. Our government must:

- Ensure honest reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
The new FISA law for the first time legalizes warrantless wiretapping and grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications providers that have participated in this privacy-invading behavior.
FISA as amended must be repealed. A better version, based on the recommended investigations and respectful of the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution, must be passed in its place.
- Investigate privacy invasions by the Executive branch
Congress and the National Science Foundation must conduct thorough investigations of privacy invasions that may have been committed by the Executive Branch, including those that may be unconstitutional and illegal.

- Reverse telecommunications provider immunity from wireless eavesdropping lawsuits
Executive and administrative requests without warrants must be eliminated as a defense against warrantless wiretapping in the civil lawsuits now being prosecuted against the telecommunications providers.
If these lawsuits reveal illegalities on the part of the Bush Administration, then these illegalities must be investigated and prosecuted by the Justice Department.

***Separation of Church and State
We must reaffirm the freedom of religion so dearly bought with the blood of our forebears.

We uphold the principle of separation of church and state: for the sake of the church, that it is truly free and non-conformed to the state; and for the sake of the state, that it benefits from religion's many voices.

We admonish the state when it dictates and coerces the church, and the church when it coerces the state to achieve its purposes.

It is our best hope that the church remains the free conscience of the state and that the state remains the guardian of free religion in America.

I Can See Clearly Now

I can see clearly now, the rain is gone,
I can see all obstacles in my way
Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind
It's gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun-Shiny day
It's gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun-Shiny day

Oh yes I can make it now, the pain is gone
All of the bad feelings have disappeared
Here is the rainbow I've been prayin' for
It's gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun-Shiny day

Look all around, there's nothin' but blue skies
Look straight ahead, nothin' but blue skies

I can see clearly now, the rain is gone,
I can see all obstacles in my way
Here is the rainbow I've been prayin' for
It's gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun-Shiny day
It's gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun-Shiny day
bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun-Shiny day
It's gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun-Shiny day
It's gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun-Shiny day
- Bob Marley

Barack Obama, to me, for us, with hope, dignity and truth.

Duane Kuehn — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:56:58 EDT

     A young man stepped up to the podium at the 2004 Democrat's National Convention to give a speech. A riveting speech it was. He touched the heart, the mind and the soul as he spoke of the civil rights of all Americans. About the need to take back our government, to change the way government operates and make it transparent to the people once more.

     That we ARE one nation and should refuse those who would tear us apart for their own political gain. That we are a diverse nation, Latin’s, Blacks, Whites and every shade in between. Members of various religious creeds, races, and individuals along the vast spectrum of sexuality financial capability. That we are God’s diversity and in our diversity is our true strength. That we are a house divided by political mudslinging and lies. That we must come together as a house united. Not mentioning what we all know, that a house divided can only fall.

     A "Keynote Address" he was giving too, a message of hope for the future, its unarguable truth unheard of in modern politics. I was glued to my seat, listening as this man spoke. Reminding myself that we are so good at coming together for one another in times of tragedy. Knowing that the current Bush/Cheney Administration itself was a tragedy of our proud heritage.

     His speech was in favor of John Kerry and we watched as a group, now indicted for their actions, called the “Swift-boat Veterans” slung heaps of lies and mud upon one honored veteran; and in doing so slung mud upon every veteran in the grand military history of this country. The people we swayed by the mud, untruth and spread of fear which would never come to be. He advocated John Kerry and John Kerry lost the election.

     Giving us four more years of economic decline, military bumbling, an oil consortium growing rich as the rest grew poorer. But for the rich, like Warren Buffet who, upon receiving his $395 million dollar tax break said he didn’t ask for it, he certainly didn’t need it. The other wealthy were not so forthcoming as another four years of feeding the rich at the expense of every hard working American.

     But, the average American was also rewarded with tax breaks. Little did they suspect that they would pay dearly much more than they received. The Bush administration stood tall and proudly demanded that the dollar was strong, the economy on the upswing, as they had for four years prior. No one seemed to pay much attention that the dollar, for seven straight years, had been continually falling on the world market. The world market being the true barometer of a national economy, though the elite like to confuse things with GNP and deficit spending or consumer buying.

     For six years, George Bush replaced “unemployment” with “unemployment rolls”, a smooth move. “The unemployment rolls are down this month”, not mentioning that the unemployment rolls are reduced each month that any unemployed person’s benefits have run-out. They didn’t get jobs, they just were off the rolls. When they did get jobs, it was usually making much less money than they had been.

     Seven, going on eight, years of deceitfulness and blatant lies in government, all allowed by an obviously controlled press. Yes, you can fool all of the people some of the time. Even for eight years running.

     This man who gave that keynote address speech that was so riveting. His name, we know, is Barack Obama.

     I watched him over the years and yes, he fulfills his promises. He acts in a bipartisan manner and even produced the most compelling ethics laws that the State of Illinois has ever seen. In the United States Senate, he began to open the government, in spite of George Bush's disabling of the Freedom of Information Act.

     He recently created a huge stir with his support of the new FISA legislation. Though fulfilling his promise to fight to have the immunity provision removed, it remained in the bill, as expected. The rewrite of this FISA bill itself, reins in Bush's domestic surveillance but allows for International surveillance, so long as an American citizen is not involved in what is espied.

     That the PAA was to expire in August and Bush had already demanded that he would veto another extension, the passing of this bill is necessary. Add the fact that it was known that this bill would pass the Senate with little friction, I must wonder. Why did Barack Obama support it when it would pass with or without his vote? The only answer is that there was an "Old-School" trade-off.

     You see, Obama knew that his support would create a wave of unrest in his supporters but said, "I will take my lumps". What nobody seemed to be watching at the time is that, probably the most important financial and health legislation was also going through the Senate, a Medicare bill that Bush promised to veto.

     A number of Republican's oddly did an about face and approved the new Medicare legislation. John McCain the only Senator absent for the vote (but he has a history of being absent from the Senate floor for his entire career more than any other Senator anyway). Ted Kennedy, recover ing from brain surgery even made an appearance, casting the deciding vote, which made the legislation veto-proof. Hence, I believe that Obama put himself on the line for an "Old-School" trade-off. He is, after all, only a Senator and must work within the system. I think that everyone might understand that.

     I almost forgot the "Change" thing. Yes, "Change" has been used in many campaigns before. However, contrary to what many people claim, Barack Obama defines "Change" if one reads his proposals or listens to his speeches it is all there.

     Open (called now, "transparency") Government is Barack Obama's "Change". A change in how government operates. A reopening of the doors that have been closed as government operates behind them. Promising executive order to reverse many of those Bush put into effect. Like George's lengthening the President Act that the activities of Presidents would not be public knowledge for a full 25 years! Moreover, reversing the executive orders Bush used to disable the Freedom of Information Act. Barack also promises to correct George Bush's extension of the "National Security" classification to include what Cheney had for lunch at a public restaurant. (My joke, me bad.)

     I hope that everyone recognizes that Barack Obama does bring us a new Hope. That the "movement" part of his campaign is the promise to Change the way that a government we have come to mistrust, operates. This from a man whose political history is the "proof in the pudding" that he keeps his word.

     I watch now as the McCain campaign begins to smear tactics. Slinging lies blatantly into the media which devours them like Adam and Eve devoured the Fruit of the Garden. I wonder how many people will be swayed into believing these lies and campaigning spins.

    I hope very few.

Loveya,
Duane Kuehn

Obama says he'll order review of executive orders

Bruce Moses — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:48:42 EDT

Article by JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama told House Democrats on Tuesday that as president he would order his attorney general to scour White House executive orders and expunge any that "trample on liberty," several lawmakers said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080730/ap_on_el_pr/obama;_ylt=AoNyZW30Yqq1ryA0AjaDk_yyFz4D

Help put the Get FISA Right ad on TV!

Lee from Durham, NC. — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:49:13 EDT

The ‘Get FISA Right Group’ has made a 30 sec TV ad which highlights the damage the recently passed FISA Amendments Act has done to the 4th Amendment and calls on people to join the continued struggle to “Get FISA Right”.

Through SaysMe.TV, individuals can pay by credit card to run the ad in local cable markets, including choices of CNN, MSNBC, FOX News Networks. The ads can be run for as little as $24.50 on MSNBC during off-peak hours in the Raleigh. NC market, although it can cost up to $1,856 to run on CNN in New York City between 6 p.m. and midnight. To organize with others to pool to sponsor the ad, visit the discussion forum at GetFISARight.com.

The ad campaign was featured in a wired.com blog, Opposed to Wiretap Amnesty? Run a TV Ad for Six Bucks, by Sarah Lai Stirland:

"Determined to keep the [FISA] debate alive into the next Congress, GetFisaRight is using SaysMe.TV to bring their message to television, 30-seconds at a time. It's a first for online activists: A netroots invasion of a medium traditionally dominated by deeper pockets like special interest political groups, official political campaigns and corporations. Spots have already been purchased in Charlotte, North Carolina, Dallas and Los Angeles.

. . .

""The value of these ads is that they expose this issue to people who haven't otherwise heard about it," says Jon Pincus, the chief organizer of the effort. "In the aggregate, this effort as a whole has value."
"Pincus teamed up with SaysMe.TV and other activists on the group's Wiki to create the 30-second ad.
"The point, he says, is to build up enough political clout to change the debate in races where candidates are running with significant online support. He also hopes to influence Congress and the next administration to revisit the issue of amnesty and domestic spying.
""We care about this issue, we're not going away, we expect things to change, and we expect Congress and the administration to get FISA right," Pincus says.

KEEP OUR EYES ON THE PRIZE - Even if we are disappointed by some of Barack's positions, we MUST continue to contribute to the campaign; we MUST win this election

Ian — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:28:08 EDT

HI. my name is Ian and I started this blog to make sure that all of Obama's supporters do not lose enthusiasm for the campaign over disappointements such as Barack's position on the FISA Bill. The polls are waaaaayyyy too close for comfort, and our fundraising has been insufficient. Now is not the time to get caught up in protests against Obama's positions on certain issues. Now is the time to work our hearts out to get Barack Obama elected. We cannot forget what is at steak. So please, even if you've been disappointed by him lately, do not stop donating or volunteering for the campaign. GET FIRED UP - GET READY TO GO - AND PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GET BACK TO WORK. America - the whole world - is counting on us!

How to answer the FISA question, from friends

Cos — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:24:11 EDT

Here at Netroots Nation, the DNC's Parag Mehta gave an excellent presentation about the field plan for 2008, which focuses on neighbor-to-neighbor relationships. Afterwards, he took questions, and the first question was no surprise: "What if my neighbor asks me about Obama's vote on FISA with telecom immunity?"

I didn't like Parag's advice answer on this, and I think I have a better suggestion.

What he suggested was to say, "all I can do is point you to Obama's words on this," followed with a summary of Obama's explanation of why he compromised. I think there are two big problems with this kind of response:

Sorry, I can't support you any more, Barack

McNeil from Salt Lake City, UT — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 05:20:45 EDT

I am not a one issue guy, and I am fairly left leaning, though I'm centrist on some things, like the right to bear arms, the death penalty and a couple of other things. I absolutely do not want McBush in the Whitehouse, either, BUT, I cherish the Constitution and all that America is supposed to stand for.

Senator Obama, and EVERY Democrat who voted for the FISA bill is a traitor to our Constitution and our country and all that it has stood for since its inception. This is no small matter. This is not just another giveaway and rolling over for Bush, like the Democrats have continuously done, and why we Americans are disgusted with them and hate Congress.

No, this is not an insignificant issue. That you and all those other Dems are so weak and scared of the right callling you soft on terrorism, tells me that you do not have the leadership abilities we all thought you had. Democrats could easily have OWNED THIS ISSUE by saying to everyone that supporting this bill is letting hte terrorists win! If we have to trash the Fourth Amendment and let Bush off scott free AGAIN to fight terrorists, then they are winning!

As Jesse Ventura said the other night, "Only the Democrats could blow this one." Meaning the election and passing FISA, which had the Repugnicans dancing in the aisles with joy and shock that the Dems so completely caved in and gave Bush EVERYTHING he wanted AGAIN!

Shame on you and all of them and you do NOT deserve to be President any more than McBush because as President you are sworn to UPHOLD the Constitution and fight all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC!

FISA Vote: Senator Obama Explains

Hope4Unity — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:41:44 EDT

This is a post for those who still have concerns. Senator Obama's rationale is well considered.

FISA: Senator Obama Explains His Vote:

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.

It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I voted in the Senate three times to remove this provision so that we could seek full accountability for past offenses. Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.

OBAMA '08

FISA , the ACLU, and YOU

Chesco Bill — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 10:35:05 EDT

ACLU Challenges Unconstitutional Spying Law

In July 2008, Congress capitulated to the White House's demands and scare tactics by passing the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, giving the NSA even more power to spy on Americans without warrants than it exercised under its illegal surveillance program.

The ACLU is asking the court to protect the privacy rights of all Americans and declare the FAA unconstitutional.

Why the FISA Amendments Act is Unconstitutional
The FISA Amendments Act gives the government nearly unfettered access to Americans' international communications. Government surveillance that sweeps up the communications of U.S. citizens and residents should be conducted in a manner that comports with the Constitution, and in particular with the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "general warrants" and unreasonable searches. The FISA Amendments Act allows the government to engage in mass acquisition of U.S. citizens' and residents' international communications with virtually no restrictions. Some of the main problems with the law are:

Unidentified Targets
The government can intercept U.S. residents' international telephone and email communications without having to even name the people or groups it is monitoring or show its targets are suspected of wrongdoing or connected to terrorism . The target could be a human rights activist, a media organization, a geographic region, or even a country. Nothing requires the government to identify its surveillance targets at all.
Anywhere, USA
The government can intercept U.S. communications without having to identify the facilities, phone lines, email addresses, or locations to be monitored. Theoretically, the government could use the new law to collect all phone calls between the U.S. and London, simply by saying to the FISA court that it was targeting someone abroad and that a significant purpose of its new surveillance program is to collect foreign intelligence information.
No Judicial Oversight
Our system is one of checks and balances. The constitution requires real judicial oversight to protect people who get swept up in government surveillance. The new law gives the FISA court an extremely limited role in overseeing the government's surveillance activities. Rather than reviewing individualized surveillance applications, the FISA court is relegated to reviewing only the government's "targeting" and "minimization" procedures. It has no role in overseeing how the government is actually using its surveillance power. Even if the FISA court finds the government's procedures deficient, the government can disregard this and continue illegal surveillance while appealing the court's determination.
No Limits
There are no real limits on how the government uses, retains, or disseminates the information that it collects. The law is silent about what the government can keep and what it has to get rid of. It fails to place real limits on how information can be disseminated and to whom. This means the government can create huge databases that contain information about U.S. persons obtained without warrants and then search these databases at a later point.
Not Just Terrorism
The law does not limit government surveillance to communications relating to terrorism. Journalists, human rights researchers, academics, and attorneys routinely exchange information by telephone and e-mail that relates to the foreign affairs of the U.S. (Think, for example, of a journalist who is researching the "surge" in Iraq, or of an academic who is writing about the policies of the Chávez government in Venezuela, or of an attorney who is negotiating the repatriation of a prisoner held at Guantánamo Bay.) The Bush administration has argued that the new law is necessary to address the threat of terrorism, but the truth is that the law sweeps much more broadly and implicates all kinds of communications that have nothing to do with terrorism or criminal activity of any kind.
Purely Domestic
The law gives the government access to some communications that are purely domestic. The government can acquire communications so long as there is uncertainty about the location of the sender or recipient. A reasonable law would have required any uncertainty to be resolved in favor of the privacy rights of U.S. citizens and residents, but this law requires uncertainty to be resolved in favor of the government. Thousands or even millions of purely domestic communications are likely to be swept up as a result.
Immunity for Lawbreakers
The law immunizes the telecoms that participated in the Bush administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping program. Telecommunication corporations that violated the law and allowed the government to trample the privacy rights of thousands of Americans should be held accountable for their activities. Letting them off the hook only invites further abuse in the future.

>> Read an extended analysis of why the FAA is unconstitutional

>> More on the FAA lawsuit

Senator Obama on Support for FISA

Compassionate Badger — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:17:20 EDT

See Oringal Post

Senator Obama posted a note on the Headquarters Blog at his campaign website about why he is choosing to support the current FISA legislation. After the note was posted, 3 of his top advisors were available to respond to comments and questions that were posted by readers. Here is the note (empahsis added):

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfectI wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. 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. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

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. The recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, 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 abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country's destiny.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.

I appreciate Senator Obama taking the time to address the dissension (and listen to the dissension) that has arisen out of his support for this legislation.

Oregonians: Thank your senator(s) for standing up for the Bill of Rights

RhOrdway — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:59:54 EDT

Friends, I just thanked our senator(s) who voted no on warrantless wiretapping, and I hope you will too. Please have a look at this CREDO Action e-activism campaign. There was some terrible news out of D.C. on July 9th: sixty-nine senators voted to gut the Fourth Amendment. They voted to hand President Bush the power to spy on Americans without warrants, and to immunize the telecoms who allegedly helped him break the law in the past. But there was some good news, too: twenty-eight senators -- including Senator Wyden -- stood up for the Constitution and for the civil liberties of all Americans. By voting "no" on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, these courageous senators sent a message to President Bush: Some of us are still willing to do what is right instead of settling for what is easy. You can make your opinion heard by signing this petition and speaking out for our civil liberties. http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/fisa_senate_good/?r_by=562-1647007-66e0W.x&rc=confemail Thanks!

Does “Targeting” Authorize the Vacuum Cleaner?

Laura Schneider — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:41:07 EDT

June 25th, 2008 by Jim Dempsey

Does the new FISA bill authorize wholesale interception of all communications to and from the US, or does it only authorize the interception of the communications of particular individuals?

Continuity of Government (COG)

Laura Schneider — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:37:43 EDT

The laws are already in place for the president to declare a national state of emergency, after which the Congress and the Judiciary would be disbanded and a group of administrators would take over the government.

If you read my blog on the state of emergency and the various acts that created this, you will see that the original act required Congress to declare an emergency, but it also required Congress to officially declare the emergency over. The original act was in, I believe, 1939, and that state of emergency was not officially called off by Congress until 1952. Under that act, there are several states of emergency still in effect, including one from 1971, that have never been declared over. Because of that, the president could effectively and legally establish a dictatorship now under COG.

A later amendment expanded national emergencies to include insurrection, natural disasters, etc., not just acts of war on the homeland. Katrina could have set the COG in motion should the president have decided to do so.

This blog is right. We are in much greater jeopardy of losing our republic than anyone imagines. The FISA law was just another nail in the coffin of democracy. There are several blogs I have written that apply to this (one is not an original article, but another's work -- credited properly):

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/lauraschneider/CNWl

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/lauraschneider/CRGP

The subject came up about the Patriot Act provisions, so I scanned the Patriot Act again and War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933. Since the War and Emergency Powers Act, every president has usurped lawmaking powers. Their 'laws' are called Executive Orders (EOs). These EOs, not our Constitution, are what is governing America today. The War and Emergency Powers Act enables ... the president to declare a national emergency, and thereby become a dictator." (Wiki)

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Link

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind ex.php?title=State_of_national _emergency
Link

United Supporters of Obama

Bill F — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:53:57 EDT

The group United Supporters of Obama has been published. Please join and ask your friends to join. The message of the group is that even though we sometimes disagree on one or two issues, we are still behind Barack and only Barack. We need a Democrat in the White House, period. A Republican will bring a second Great Depression and a third World War. We cannot allow that to happen. Put FISA behind us, and show we are all united behind Barack.

New Strategy? What about the old one... Integrity?

David Rothmiller — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:44:22 EDT

I'm sorry to whip the FISA horse again... but

Will the good Senator please address this issue that is not going away?

The New Strategy speech delivered to us yesterday was an intellectual gem - but delivered in a boring talk-down manner like an impatient Community College Prof lecturing a class of fidgety Freshmen.

Where was the passion of the campaign? Where were the Sorken "West Wing" moments - and chills of proud patriotism?

Congress & GW Bush are giving away your rights!

Chesco Bill — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:40:14 EDT

They don't get it. We want Congress to stand up for our freedom, but they keep caving in to fear mongering!

Help the ACLU spell it out for them.

Moments after President Bush signed the bill into law, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the unconstitutional FISA Amendments Act.

Help us demonstrate to our leaders that we believe in freedom -- not fear. We're running a full-page ad in a national newspaper this week that carries that simple message.

But we need you to add your signature letting Congress know exactly how you feel about them selling out your right to privacy. Add your name to the ACLU's newspaper ad. We'll do our best to get as many names as possible in the ad, but may not be able to fit every one.

Is this law for real?

Congress has not only legalized the Bush administration's secret NSA spying program, it has given the government even more power to listen to our phone calls and read our emails than even the Bush administration illegally claimed for itself under its secret program. And, by granting telecoms immunity, it has made it highly unlikely that we will ever learn the extent of the administration's lawless actions.

Eating Crow

Duane Kuehn — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:49:09 EDT

Hi All,

     Unfortunately, for me, I have to eat crow.
     I have said that the FISA law was to expire in August, hence the passing of this bill.

     It is the Protect America Act, which was originally to expire in February, extended by Congress so a new law could be written, until August.

     The PAA was set to expire. Its expiration would have meant the loss of much intelligence information. I find no stipulation allowing for domestic surveillance in the law. This is where the Bush/Cheney Administration broke Constitutional law (treasonous to their oath of office), domestic surveillance being specifically not allowed in the law.

     None-the-less, Barack did the right thing in voting for it, little choice if one is to be considered strong on National Security. He tried to have the immunity clause removed and failed, expected though unfortunate. Most importantly, he did not lie to the people.

Loveya,
Duane Kuehn
P.S. Yuck! It tastes like badly prepared escargot. The kind that is like chewing bubble gum and you must eat a loaf of French bread just to swallow.

Judge On Experience?

TarekP4Obama — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:50:49 EDT

I am behind a day until we get to the DNC, so I apologize. We got to really get on the ball here in a hurry folks. After listening to John McCain's reference to Barack Obama's plan for foreign policy as "premature", I got really interested in how Senator McCain's expertise.

American folk, wake up!!!! The good senator from Arizona used the current methodology in his explanation of how diplomacy should be carried out. He must have not listen to Senator Obama's entire speech. What I heard, and millions of us heard was the reason on why Senator Obama would take the 4 step process to diplomacy. Have you thought of why we are the country mostly vested in Iraq? We have spent the past 5 plus years alienating the intelligence of our allies. In order to be respectful as a leader, you have to also know when to gather your forces together and unite them for a common purpose. When we sought help for a war in Iraq, we were not able to draw on all of our allies, because they, as we, did not see the smoking gun. We did see the smoke, drummed up by this current administration. And they used this to bank role our debt by an additional $200B. Afghanistan has not been a focus by us as a country, the media, or military. Can we say that we have supported our troops so that we can get to the end of either conflict expeditiously? No. So, we cannot be premature about any of our actions now. We have incubated this philosophy 5 and 7 years respectively. It is time to give a fresh perspective a try when you find this one not working.

Now, let's not forget for all the heat that Senator Obama took last week for FISA. Senator McCain DID NOT VOTE!!! How do you not contribute a vote on something as serious as this? I would rather disagree with a leader who takes a decision than one who sits it out. That is true experience.

Information Policy

Mary M — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:49:58 EDT

Declan McCullagh

posted the best info I've found on information policy issues, back in February (and before FISA vote). Does anyone have anything more recent or more comprehensive?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9864581-38.html shows more detail

Net neutrality Telecom immunity DMCA fair use Real ID Act ISP data retention
Strong yes No Probably yes No No

Response to FISA concerns

Farheen Qurashi — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:35:47 EDT

The following is the response from the Obama campaign on my questions about the recent FISA bill vote: (see below)

I will look into the bill more, because I realize I haven't researched enough to know the intracacies of the bill and what was changed/what wasn't from the previous one. And it does comfort me to know that he tried to take out the retroactive immunity...but I guess not everything always goes your way. I guess we all need to realize that, huh?

You most definitely have my support, Sen. Obama.

Netroots Under the Bus -- No more donations

Steven — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:30:25 EDT

Sorry. You had my support. You had my family's support. Obama was perfectly willing to commit to filibuster against retroactive immunity for the telcos' and Bush administration's illegal spying when he needed netroots' support.

If you don't think you need us now that you have the nomination, fine. But the 4th amendment is a core issue. The Bush crimes and abuse of power are core issues. That you call your position a "compromise" on FISA is so disingenuous and cynical, I can not in good conscience support you with another penny.

I expect leadership from my leaders, not capitulation to a Republican party imploding from failed policy and assault on our constitution and liberties.

That you were always a politician's politician never had me fooled. But that you had energized a whole new block of young voters with your message of change and hope was truly exciting. What a precious resource you have squandered. My heart is broken for the younger generation that believed in you.

Policy vs. Process

AaronBoBaron — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:19:25 EDT

Here’s the catch - I never felt that Obama’s policies were that liberal. In fact I disagreed with him on many points, and still do. As he said himself when he visited my hometown of Casper, “Clinton and I actually have very similar stances on most things, it’s just that she likes to list them” (I'm paraphrasing a bit here). Obama was certainly never the most liberal member of the Senate.

What set him apart from the other democractic contenders was his commitment to process. He vowed to open up government, to welcome the public back into the halls of congress and into the offices of the executive.

They way things are going, let's keep moving forward

Duane Kuehn — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:41:47 EDT

I do not know where to start this writing.
     My support of Barack Obama did stumble a bit with the FISA fiasco, but I investigated before coming to a conclusion. That conclusion being that Barack Obama, and the Democrats in the House of Representatives, did the right thing.

     Yes, it is a sadness that the immunity clause, in spite of Barack Obama’s Senate fight remained in the bill. Nevertheless, the original FISA wiretapping bill would have expired next month and the Bush/Cheney Administration would have had a free hand in spying on anyone, anywhere that they chose.

     We gained in the new FISA bill much more than we lost. That surveillance of the people has always been a possibility, is not outside the Fourth Amendment as some proclaim. The intelligence and common sense and foresight of our founders remain true. National Security has always taken a front seat in Constitutional debate and the bill demands, again, that the Executive Branch go through the courts using a preponderance of evidence that the wiretap is essential. The Constitutional law, which the Bush/Cheney Administration capriciously and criminally broke, is reiterated. Hopefully, the Bush/Cheney Administration will one day face criminal charges. Yes, what they did is a treason to their oath of upholding the Constitution as well as a total disregard for the people of the United States of America.

     It was well known that the bill would pass in the Senate with or without Barack’s vote. Should Obama have taken the easy road and voted, “No”, for a FISA bill that, in essence, had to pass even with the unfortunate circumstances of the immunity clause? I am proud of him for voting for what was necessary and the right thing, rather than take what, for him, would have been politically expedient to his campaign. The man’s honesty and integrity amazes me.

     If we chose to be upset at the immunity clause, find those who penned the law and included that clause. They are the ones accountable. Who they are is what I would very much like to find.

    Now we have the issue of Iraq and Barack. As we have all read his original proposals and taken special interest in his proposal for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, we know he has not changed his position. That in his proposal, he states emphatically that he will maintain, in Iraq, those troops necessary to guard our new Embassy there.

     That the Bush Administration is working to defeat any future withdrawal puts a lot of strain even on the withdrawal itself, but I believe that Barack Obama, when elected, will have the tenacity, integrity, intelligence and understanding to thwart the moves which the Bush/Cheney Administration, albeit illegally, puts in his path during the remainder of the current Administration.

     We should all be prepared that they fully intend to invade Iran for no good evidence or reason. However, the “spin” is already building to garner the approval of the people.
     I should also mention that I beg everyone to contact his or her legislature, State and Federal, to pass a bill denying the President from using military force of war without Congressional approval, outside of Iraq.

     We, after all, did finish what we started in Iraq, did we not? The original intention being to oust Saddam, mission accomplished. Now, all that is left is the oil and do not ever expect that the greedy energy consortium is going to bring the price down.

     Now, after all of our hard work, let us not see it wasted away. John McCain using the loopholes is attracting huge donations from the big boys with the big money.
     We are each small, but together we are very large.
     I cannot again donate until my monthly check comes. I do however, ask, beg that each of us donate whatever we can and one dollar more, anytime we can.

     I know it is tough with the price of living so high, but it will not get better without Barack Obama. John McCain has the exact financial plan as Bush. Be very afraid because, bit money buys commercials and untruths and often people believe untruths.

Loveya,
Duane Kuehn

Compromises

Peter from Brookline, MA — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:26:18 EDT

I have been greatly disappointed by Barak's handling of the FISA legislation. He has clearly expressed his views on these issues in the past speeches, and I found myself in complete agreement. This was an opportunity to take a lead on morally and legally important issue, and instead Barak has fallen into complacency together with many other Democratic members of the Senate. I can think of three potential reasons behind his actions, and all of them would be severely detrimental to Barak's potential in leading this country in the right direction.

The first possibility is that Barak voted for the flawed legislation to avoid being painted as "unpatriotic" or "soft on terrorism" by his opponents. While allegations have been successfully used in the past few years to defeat political opponents, they are fundamentally wrong. The reason they have worked in the past is exactly because the Democratic "leaders" could not bring themselves to make a stand and defend the fundamental principles of this country against flag-painted bigotry. Obviously, if Barak is as easily pressured into compromises by baseless name-calling, he will not make a great leader.

The second possibility is that Barak was unable to build a sufficient coalition of his own party fellows to improve or at least stall a flawed legislation. Given the strength of the political winds at his back, this would be a clear failure of leadership.

Finally, the third possibility is that Barak truly accepted the provisions of the legislation as a reasonable compromise. This would be most troubling, and would suggest that instead of reversing the damage of the current administration, Barak may condone further erosion of our rights and government transparency in the name of security.

In the run-up to the Senate vote numerous Barak supporters have asked him to actively resist passage of the current FISA legislation. Roughly a third of all Barak's supporters registered on the campaign site have joined a group asking Barak to vote against the legislation. Given Barak's vote and lack of coherent explanation as to why he changed his position, I feel that these voices, along with mine have been ignored. While a politician should not cater to specific groups, ignoring a third of your active supporters requires a good reason and an explanation.

As a result, I no longer feel that being an active supporter is worthwhile. Furthermore, if such political compromises continue to erode Barak's position, I am likely to abstain from voting altogether. I also feel that contributions to organizations protecting our civil liberties (e.g. ACLU) is more worthwhile at this point.

Obama and FISA

Alien Nation Refugee — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:36:34 EDT

s some of you may know, Sen. Barack Obama has recently voted in favor of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) compromise. FISA is basically a set of laws, procedures and special courts to grant the government expedited authority to put individual American citizens under both physical and electronic surveillance. The Bush Administration has continuously claimed that it didn't need to comply with FISA rules and apparently convinced most (though not all) American telephone companies to participate in warrantless domestic wiretapping with the National Security Administration (NSA) [1]. Critics have charged that this was done in violation of both the original FISA law and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution against illegal search and seizure [2]. The new FISA rules will force the Administration to comply with FISA (in theory) but also includes provisions that would grant the telephone companies immunity from prosecution for all past violations. Bush signed H.R. 6304, FISA Amendments Act of 2008 into law on July 10th [3].

This is truly a complex issue that was unfortunately made worse by Bush's wreckless disregard for the existing FISA law. The whole issue is a red herring for a couple of reasons.

#1. The existing FISA law granted the Administration all of the authority that it needed to obtain warrants to put anyone under surveillance for any reason at anytime. It appears that the whole issue was really based on seperation of powers--can the Executive Branch be limited in its national security endeavors by Congress? Of course the real question was does the Executive Branch have to obey the Constitution. Oh nevermind.

#2. Long before Bush, 9/11 and FISA, the US government including both Democratic and Republican administrations have always put US citizens under surveillance without court issued warrants. You will have to take my word on this one. The only regard the NSA, FBI and CIA have ever had for the Fourth Amendment was whether or not evidence gathered illegally (i.e., without warrants) would be admissible in court. Generally speaking, they are much more concerned (at least initially) in detecting wrong doing than being able to prove it. Remember this the next time you pick up your cell phone or surf the internet. Telephone companies are required to keep years of all such electronic traffic online just for such purposes.

So actually Obama voting in favor of the FISA amendments really doesn't change any facts on the ground regarding protections of US citizens from warrantless surveillance. Actually, I support Obama's vote if in fact it will encourage the current Administration to obey the FISA laws. It is important to me that there be some process and procedures in place which will at least produce a paper trail in the event that someone does need to prove harm from wreckless government surveillance and deliberately damaging leaks by intelligence agencies.

Why should I vote Obama given FISA position

Steve from Bostic, NC — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:28:16 EDT

I had been an ardent Obama supporter and contributor. I say had been because since Obama's vote on the FISA (How to Gut the 4th Amendment and Get Away With It Ex Post Facto - A Primer for Despots) Law I am wondering how I can possibly vote for him and whether it is too late to draft Dodd or Finegold for president.

In trying to be fair, I am interested in hearing whether there is some sufficient justification for violating the Bill of Rights of which I am unaware. Does anyone out there know of any justification for Obama's action that will stand up to rational scrutiny?

Yes Vote = No Money

Brian Briggs — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:26:53 EDT

I had fully inteded Barack Obama to be the first politician I donated money to. Unfortunately, his vote for the FISA bill, and his call for more money for faith-based groups has really turned me off. Sure, he's a better choice than McCain, but that's not saying much. I guess I'll keep waiting for a politician of true change.

Redeem yourself, Senator! Take a stand against this Oily President and declare, "No offshore leases!"

David Rothmiller — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:10:42 EDT

With FISA still smoldering, Senator Obama has an opportunity to lead the news cycle. Declare that Big Oil has taken enough from Americans. The environmental cost will not cover the price of gas in the short-run. In the long run, no-bid contracts and sweetheart deals will be delivered to the same nefarious crowd that has reaped the bloody wealth of Iraq.

War profiteering was made illegal during WWII when W's grandfather was selling off pilfered rail iron to Hitler. but no one has the courage today to decry it from the Senate floor. Where are our champions?

Please, Senator, we will forgive your expediency on FISA if you'll take the megaphone away from this criminal president. Let us cheer you again proudly.

A side question: How has your fundraising suffered since your FISA vote?

A follow-up: Was it worth it?

A question about FISA vote and money

KJ in TX — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:06:58 EDT

Hello! I have just become a member of the online news network "The Real News" at http://therealnews.com and one of their stories hit a nerve with me due to my concerns about the way the FISA voting went. It followed the money from the telecoms to our legislators including Senator Obama. It said that Senator Obama received more than $220,000 in 2008 from the telecom companies! My question is: Does anyone know if this is true? If so, then what are we to think of the position he has stated about not taking money from lobbyists and special interests? OF COURSE, the amount he received is DWARFED by the numbers given to Senators McCain and Clinton.

I am a staunch supporter of Senator Obama for President because I feel that he is our only hope of improving our government, restoring democracy, and renewing respect for our country. A vote for anyone else or even refusing to vote - will just result in the election of McCain and things will just get MUCH worse. I guess that I just want to know the facts and would appreciate anyone willing to clarify all this. Thanks!

Misdirected Outrage - Vote Obama

J. from Montpelier, VT — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:31:20 EDT

The anger and frustration with Sen. Barack Obama for not voting against the FISA bill is misdirected. This is not to say that people should not disagree with Sen. Obama's decisions. However, the idea of working against him or abstaining from voting is perhaps one of the most fickle and dangerous positions to date. Make no mistake about it, John McCain will be worse than Bush! At a time when foreclosures loom as large as since the great depression, and so many of us have lost what we've worked so hard to attain, John McCain intends to continue down this disastrous path. Much like Herbert Hoover, who during the great depression, determined that the crisis would have to work itself out, John McCain believes that government does not exist to help people, but rather create a privatized free market society in which government is called upon (in every capacity, except war) as an absolute last resort. In other words, the economic and environmental crisis we currently find ourselves in, will (without his help as president) have to work itself out. He states that he doesn't know much about economics, and that people are doing pretty well under the Bush Administration. John McCain, like Bush, wants to continue to hold Americans hostage, forcing us through high oil/propane prices to line the pockets of Exxon, Chevron and Halliburton etc. John McCain expects us through the free market to buy costly inadequate health insurance, and continue to make rich criminal health insurance companies! In addition, he intends to (for the first time in the history of this country) tax our company health insurance contributions! He wants greater corporate deregulation. He wants to re-establish offshore drilling and in particular, he wants to lessen regulation to quickly increase the number of nuclear power plants to 50 by the end of his first term, and 100 within ten years. This is without any consideration to environmental protection or public safety. Last but certainly not least, education. John McCain intends to redirect public education funds into the private sector, forcing all but the wealthy into an unattainable and unaffordable private school voucher system. This is reproachable and must be stopped! Now, President Bush and his administration circumvented FISA and broke the law! He wrote the letters directing the telecommunication companies to break the law by spying on Americans! Bush wrote the letters, and President Bush along with his administration broke the law. He needs to stand before a judge in criminal court as any one breaking the law would. President Bush broke the law when he decided to go around the FISA courts and re-write the law. Therefore, the expectation of the telecoms to ignore a direct request from the President of the United States, (during a time of extreme national crisis/terrorism) is as absurd as any of us ignoring a direct request from our bosses to carry out an inappropriate or perhaps unethical task -- most of us can't afford to quit our jobs, or be fired, or lose our health insurance, let alone face the possible consequences of refusing a direct order from the President of the United States. The absurdity lies not in disagreeing with Sen. Obama's decision, but making a decision to try to undermine his campaign! There is nothing I believe in more than holding political figures responsible for reprehensible actions. I am a firm believer that when politicians break laws, they should not stand above the law but rather be held more accountable to our nations judicial system than the civilian population. After all, the responsibility and oath undertaken by the President is to protect all of its citizens, not unethically or illegally turn against them. Regardless of our race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity or social status, the President of the United States of America is not supposed to abuse the power vested in him and turn against or spy on the citizens of the country. This is, however, exactly what President Bush and his administration has done. In many instances, this president/vice president have either lied, bent or broken the law. The situation with the telecommunication companies was no exception! President Bush broke the law, when he made the decision to bypass the FISA court! This is not to suggest that the telecommunication companies should not bear some guilt, but I do believe that in a world of government corruption and growing instability, we can not afford to have our telecommunications companies refuse participation -- when surveillance is lawfully requested by the FISA courts -- for fear they'll be sued. FISA must exist. Many of you are extremely unhappy with Sen. Obama's vote, and Obama himself admits that it was not the bill he would have drafted. However, it was different from the original bill in that it puts into place the inability for future Presidents or telecoms to bypass the FISA courts and supersede the law. While I recognize that many of you continue to be frustrated, I also recognize some confusion regarding Sen. Obama politically. It is critically important to read Barack's policy papers, examine his voting record, see where he stands on issues via his website, and listen to his policy discussions, to get a better understanding of his political positions. It would be a mistake to think of Sen. Obama as either a liberal or conservative democrat. Government is laced with complexities, and I would certainly appreciate a president who is intelligent and flexible. A president who examines the facts and actually cares about how the decisions of our federal legislative body will effect the environment and citizenry of the country, as well as the world. It matters not what theories I, or anyone upholds regarding the 911 tragedy. I believe FISA must exist, and would challenge anyone to be president for a day, and honestly suggest that we do not need to have the necessary legal measures in place to determine who or what organizations intend to do bad things to this country. As a 42 year old, trans lesbian, I hardly posit myself on the conservative side of the FISA issue, or any government policy. I consider myself an angry liberal democrat who views Sen. Obama as a pragmatic progressive moderate, and though I may not always agree with every position he takes, I can understand his point of view. Along with his understanding of constitutional law, personal insight and vast political as well as social experience, I trust his judgment and believe in his profound ability to move this country in a direction that is prosperous for all. I would not be working this hard to get him elected if I did not think it true. This country can not afford John McCain! I would not through understandable, though misdirected anger, want to tell a neighbor, elderly parent, child determined to be educated, farmer, laid off worker, veteran, pregnant teen or the people of Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran, that my disagreement with an Obama decision put John McCain in the White House! Not only is that a burden too great to bear, it is unforgivably irresponsible.

Obama's Own Words on FISA

Nickie — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:47:12 EDT

For Anyone who wishes to know WHY Obama voted for the FISA Bill please educate yourselves.

Following is his statement on why he voted the way did:

Obama on the FISA 'Compromise' ...

"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.
"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

A new paradigm...

ldasteelworker — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:11:29 EDT

What I can and cannot get over and do…

NOTE: Please read all of this post before you dismiss it out-of-hand.

Because of his deliberate actions my solid vote for Barack Obama in November has gone from a sure thing to a maybe…

Ok, let’s get one thing straight… I am not going to get over how Barack Obama or any other members of Congress voted on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008 {a.k.a. H.R. 6304}

I am not getting over it. Understand? (See my other posts for detailed specific reasons)

"It" -- being exactly how we got to the point where it is perfectly ok, understandable, and almost expected of even, for a political candidate to: break their word (e.g. lie to their base supporters); violate their pledged Oath of Office (i.e. to support and defend the Constitution); and sanction and become an accessory to the cover-up and disappearance of Felony crimes against the Constitution and American citizens in order to win an election... After all the ends justify any means right?

It’s not beating a “dead horse.” It’s not over. Yada yada yada… It is something I intend to never forget as a lesson!

A lesson that I should have known better than believe that any member of Congress could be a candidate of "CHANGE" given their current corporate payroll dependency and lack of understanding of exactly where most of the American people are at this moment in time -- regardless of what they and their campaign may say…

And yes, it really is my fault, see I can blame the victim just as well as the rest, since I wanted to believe and put Barack Obama up on the holy pedestal of “CHANGE” for something completely different in politics and suffered all the accompanying emotions when he fell off of my self-deluded alter of “HOPE.”

What I can do is attempt to change my expectations and direction of thought. Develop a new paradigm. I t would be better for me to focus on the horrors of the Bush administration, or the potential horrors of a McCain administration rather than focus on the shortcomings of Barack Obama’s recent actions and statements. That perhaps would be a more positive endeavor.

Some would say without question that a Obama presidency will be vastly different from a McCain one. I would like to believe that. But in reality the fact is that increasingly the American public’s perceptions and our elected officials are managed through the Media and vast Moneyed Interests like Multinational Corporations, etc. as a cost of doing business… Whether that “business” is actually in your best interest is for you to decide!

So I go back to the reality of political cynicism: “a distrust of politicians and the influence of their corporate campaign contributions.” And I try to work on areas where I can actually make things better and/or help people understand what facts are closest to the truth.

Things like this:

[ http://www.pbs.org/now/election-2008/question11.html ];

[ http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/242/index.html ] (See Video);

[ http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_cleanelections.html ] and;

[ http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/cleanelections.html ]

Obama a snake oil saleman - FISA vote

Unknown user — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:14:45 EDT

Obama's FISA vote reveals his true face, a snake oil saleman. A Presidential candidate who can't defend US constitution is not qualified to be a President, and doesn't deserve my support.

Unbelievable that a Harvard law graduate believes that a "compromised" FISA is his way of defense of US constitutions. His vote illustrates how naieve and innocent of this Harvard law major!

I just removed the Obama sign on my lawn (the only one in our neighborhood), won't donate and volunteer Obama campaign anymore. He is just a classical snake oil saleman without ture belief, leadership and confidence to defend US constitutions, particularly inlight of his Harvad Law degree!
He doesn't even have the same backbone as Hillary Clinton who voted against FISA this time. Obama is in lock step with Bush/McCain in FISA to trash US constitutions, what a "Change" that we can believe in!

Shame on you Obama, you snake oil saleman! Fianlly, we see your true picture.
I am an independent. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

FISA 2008 Act, Unconstitutional?

Chesco Bill — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:39:52 EDT

Our Warrantless Wiretapping Lawsuit
posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 07/10/2008 @ 3:36pm

This afternoon, President Bush signed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, a piece of legislation that will needlessly expand the government's ability to spy on Americans and ensure that the country never learns the full extent of Bush's unlawful wiretapping. There were many good Senators who showed courage in standing up to the White House and for the Constitution, but not enough.

A few hours after Bush's signing, The Nation joined with the ACLU in a lawsuit filed in the US District Court (Southern District) of New York challenging the constitutionality of the Act. The Nation is suing on behalf of itself, our staff and two of our contributing writers--Chris Hedges and Naomi Klein. The defendants are the Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey; John M. "Mike" McConnell, Director of National Intelligence; and Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Security Service. We filed suit along with a coalition of other plaintiffs including Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, Global Fund for Women, PEN American Center, Washington Office on Latin America, Service Employees International Union and several private attorneys.

Why are we joining this lawsuit?
For 143 years, The Nation has believed that an essential element of patriotism is the unyielding defense of civil liberties. Immediately after 9/11, as a fog of national security enveloped official Washington and the mainstream media enlisted in the Administration's war, it was clear to us that the need for an independent and critical press seemed never more urgent. The speedy passage of the repressive Patriot Act, with scarcely a murmur of dissent in Congress, and the establishment of military tribunals were troubling signs that a wartime crackdown on civil liberties was under way and called for vigorous opposition. Criticizing government policy in wartime is a not a path to popularity. Our patriotism was questioned, we were called "anti-American." Yet, as it has at different times in our country's turbulent history, The Nation marched to a different drummer and stood firm in defense of our core constitutional values--believing then, as we do now, that it is possible to defend this country from terrorists while also protecting the rights and freedoms that define our nation.

Today, we are proud to join with the ACLU and other plaintiffs in this lawsuit in the belief that the government 's surveillance activities should respect, not trample, the Constitution. Our history as America's oldest weekly journal of opinion has taught us that surveillance powers can easily become a threat to a free and open society.

In the brief filed today in the US District Court, we provide reasons for participating in this defense of our republic. Here are a few:

Because of the nature of our work, The Nation's editors, columnists and contributors routinely engage in telephone and e-mail communications with individuals outside the US. These communications are vital to providing up-to-date, accurate information about emerging news stories and informing longer-range analytical articles on international topics. Some of the information exchanged by the Nation's editors, columnists and contributors through these communications constitutes "foreign intelligence information" as defined by the challenged law. For example, the Nation's staff members and contributing journalists routinely communicate by telephone or e-mail with political dissidents in other countries, foreign journalists in conflict zones, representatives of foreign government and individuals with connections to dissident political and social groups. Some of these communications relate to the involvement or alleged involvement of the US government or its allies abroad, or of the US military and its contractors, in repression and human rights abuses. Some of these communications relate to the subjects of terrorism, counterterrorism, or the foreign affairs of the US.
We believe the challenged law undermines the ability of The Nation's editors, writers, contributors and staff to gather information that is critical to their work. The ability to communicate confidentially with sources is essential to journalists' work. Many of the people with whom the Nation's staff and contributors communicate will not share information if they believe that their identities cannot be kept confidential. Some of them fear retribution by their own governments; others fear retribution by the US government; still others fear persecution at the hands of terrorist groups. The risk that their identities will be revealed will lead some sources who otherwise would have shared information to decline to do so.

Specifically, we cite the work of our regular contributors Chris Hedges and Naomi Klein in our filing. Hedges, in his reporting on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the so-called war on terror regularly communicates with sources in countries like Palestine, Iran, Syria and Sudan. Klein, in her essential critique of the extension of radical free-market capitalism and the resurgence of imperial militarism, routinely communicates with journalists, political activists, human rights campaigners in the Middle East, South America, and around the world. Sadly, we believe that the communications critical to their reporting could and would be monitored under the FISA Amendments Act. Certainly scores of other journalists would shoulder the same risk.

We are proud, then, to join with other patriots who understand the government's legitimate interest in protecting the nation against terrorism can be fulfilled without sacrificing the constitutional liberties that make the US worth defending.

DNFTT

ldasteelworker — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:03:04 EDT

I normally, as a rule, refrain from judging someone... But since you deleted my post directly to you kid5rivers2 I have a desire to call you out on this...

You are attempting to be the consummate Troll on this Forum (Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right )...

A complete review of your recent posts and personal profile reveals the truth of this matter.

I will not continue to feed you after this post!

DNFTT = “Do Not Feed The Trolls”

“An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.” - Wikipedia

How can troll posts be recognised?

No Imagination - Most are frighteningly obvious; sexist comments on nurses' groups, blasphemy on religious groups .. I kid you not.

Pedantic in the Extreme - Many trolls' preparation is so thorough, that while they waste time, they appear so ludicrous from the start that they elicit sympathetic mail - the danger is that once the group takes sides, the damage is done.

False Identity - Because they are cowards, trolls virtually never write over their own name, and often reveal their trolliness (and lack of imagination) in the chosen ID. As so many folk these days use false ID, this is not a strong indicator on its own!

Crossposting - Any post that is crossposted to several groups should be viewed as suspicious, particularly if unrelated or of opposing perspective. Why would someone do that?

Off-topic posting - Often genuine errors, but, if from an 'outsider' they deserve matter-of-fact response; if genuine, a brief apposite response is simply netiquette; if it's a troll post, you have denied it its reward.

Repetition of a question or statement is either a troll - or a pedant; either way, treatment as a troll is effective.

Missing The Point - Trolls rarely answer a direct question - they cannot, if asked to justify their twaddle - so they develop a fine line in missing the point.

DUOPOLY

Suz Andreasen — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:58:07 EDT

Dear All,

Since I have been consistently censored from this list for one day now, (I posted censored comments on myBO Blog if anyone cares to see what they censored)

Note to monitors: why is it ok to allow posters who use explicatives like

F&*! U through and not intelligent dissenters who want an explanation from Obama?

I can't say much else except, that I started a magazine called DUOPOLY which will cover politics and art. Barack will be on the first cover, so stay tuned and if there are any contributors photographers out there who want to be involved, drop me a line!

Hopefully the moderators won't censor this one too.

SUZ

Thought toss

Tim — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 04:23:09 EDT

As someone who calls himself a union democrat I always thought I was just a bit left of center. However, I've found myself "tacking" quite vigorously to the left as I think about the last 25 + years of conservative arrogance and shortsightedness. Imagine my surprise as I watch Obama shift to the center.

Am I worried? No.

It's the issues themselves that matter and I've never been a single issue voter. I can win some and I can lose some and if Obama wants to "refine" his thoughts on Iraq I guess I'm ok. Wiretapping? A surprise but not a dealbreaker. I still have lots of things to be happy about.

Bottom line. If McCain wins, I lose. I think the rest of us do, too.

Get To Know The Leadership Style Of Obama

Nia "Hussein" J. — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:51:44 EDT

By Earl Ofari

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

I'm starting to suspect we've all missed the real story behind Barack Obama's leadership style. His recent actions may not have been driven by calculation or centrism, as most people thought, but by something else. He may have a core value that's new to our political process -- one that exists on a different plane, grounded in a web of personality, spirituality, and culture.

I had to think back many years -- and many thousands of miles -- before I remembered where I'd seen his kind of style before:

Japan.

When I did some work there nearly twenty years ago I encountered some of the same traits we're seeing in Obama now: The urge for consensus. The courtesy toward all parties, no matter how strong the disagreements. The nearly-holographic quality of appearing different to different observers. The centeredness and self-control.

It may be coincidental. Or it may be the result of growing up with Hawaii's Pacific Rim influence. But Obama's management style resembles the classic Japanese model. And, at least historically, these haven't just been behaviors. They're living embodiments of a spiritual perception which says that all humanity -- all existence -- is interconnected and equal.

The operative word, the core value behind this behavior, is unity. Unity means preserving the integrity of a social group. Where elections and debates emphasize process, and policies focus on outcome, unity creates an emphasis structure. That's unfamiliar to us.

People who value unity will always choose structure over process, or even outcome. If Obama's core value is unity, Democrats should know better than to expect him to fight their partisan fights for them. And while he may disappoint them, they can also learn to respect the fact that he's being true to himself.

Obama's been frustrating observers across the political spectrum lately. Progressive bloggers are debating whether he's driven by cynicism or centrism, while the rightwingers at Human Events claim there's a "Secret Plan Behind Obama's Move to the Right!"

They're all missing the point. He's not moving to the Right. His political architecture isn't built on the old foundation of Right vs. Left -- or on Right vs. Wrong, for that matter. It isn't even binary. When it comes to policy he inclines toward the progressive position, but he's not thinking in terms of "winning" or "losing." His goal is group unity around the best possible realistic outcome. That means assess the situation, get what you can, then move to bring the parties together around a new consensus.

We can speculate on why Obama might be driven by unity. Family history? Community organizing? Christianity? That Pacific Rim upbringing? We can't know for sure. But if the model's right Obama's highest loyalty will always be to the nation as a group, and he'll sacrifice partisan interests to preserve its cohesion. He won't get overly attached to any specific policy position. In the end, he'll make his assessment about what he can get and then default to the unifying position.

He won't "bring the fight to the enemy" where the GOP is concerned, either. In fact, he doesn't necessarily even see an enemy -- just fellow group members with whom he must eventually reconcile. He will be able to inspire and lead -- but he won't be able to inflame and arouse. He will never be a firebrand. (Interestingly, despite his ability to excite a crowd he struck me as cool and analytical -- "clinical" was the word that came to mind -- the one time I saw him in close quarters.)

If I'm right, how should progressives respond? First, by making their voices heard through groups like Get FISA Right. Don't stop now. A consensus-builder's process will always be influenced by groups like this. Secondly, by not taking it personally when he moves on. Recognize that it's part of his style: He believes he's done all he can do (whether you agree with him or not -- in FISA's case I don't), and that now it's time to bring the group together.

In some ways Obama's novel values could be extremely valuable, even transformational, for our political process. But they could also lead him down some blind alleys and leave him open for sucker punches. So far he's been impressive at dodging those punches -- but where the Right's concerned, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

Still, I wouldn't bet against him.

Obama's unific style has sometimes disappointed me. But I've also found it fascinating to watch. And it's given me an opportunity to re-examine my own style, which has been rewarding.

Two factors are making this election historical: the political power of the Internet, and Obama's management approach (whatever its origins.) That gives us a chance to relate to a politician in new ways -- by detaching from him, studying his leadership model, and then interacting with him tactically and strategically.

Strangely enough, I get the feeling he'd like that. More importantly, it's a good exercise for us.After all, the best thing we can do politically is to become smarter and more flexible. That makes each of us more capable of supporting our most important value - whether it's unity or something completely different, like freedom. Or justice.

But whatever your core value, we can agree on one thing for unity's sake: It's going to be an interesting year.

The FISA Fiasco

Max from Las Cruces, NM — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:47:23 EDT

In response to my message to the Obama Campaign critical of the Senator's vote for the new FISA bill I received the following reply:

"Friend,

Thank you for contacting us and sharing your strong feelings about this important issue. Please find a statement from Senator Obama below.

We appreciate hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Obama for America

Senator Obama's statement curiously does not address the fact that under this bill warrantless wiretapping will be resumed--only this time under the cover of an egregious law.

According to the ACLU "The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by Congress on Wednesday and signed by President Bush today, not only legalizes the secret warrantless surveillance program the president approved in late 2001, it gives the government new spying powers, including the power to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans' international communications."

By stating that the President's "illegal" program of wireless surveillance is over Senator Obama cleverly misleads his readers into concluding that warrantless surveillance has ended rather than clearly stating that the new law now makes it legal for the government to listen in on American's international phone calls and e-mails without a warrant. I find this to be a cynical and deceptive reply to the criticism of his yes vote on the law. It does not respond to the heart of the criticism.

Was Obama's FISA Betrayal Encouraged by The Israel Lobby?

this-aint-my-first-rodeo — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:44:22 EDT

It's rockin' right now at HuffPo: New Group Wants To Overthrow Obama At Convention and the author is Thomas B. Edsall, one of their most respected essayists.

Maybe, just maybe, a bunch of delegates to the Democratic Convention in Denver will change their minds at the last minute. Maybe there is an outside chance that between now and the last week of August a critical mass will decide that Barack Obama is not their guy -- that, to the surprise of one and all, Hillary Rodham Clinton is to be the 2008 nominee after all.

That is the thinking behind a small but determined band of Hillary backers, some of whom have formed a 527 fundraising committee that has already run one $9,700 ad in the Chicago Tribune, and plans more in the weeks to come.

The Denver Group: Keeping the Democratic Party democratic, created by Georgetown Law professor Heidi Li Feldman and freelance advertising man Marc Rubin, ran an ad in Friday's Chicago Tribune declaring:

"Senator Clinton's name must be put in nomination. Her supporters must be allowed to make speeches on her behalf of her candidacy. There must be an honest roll call vote, not a symbolic one, so superdelegates can cast their votes honestly, for either candidate, as their judgment, conscience and democratic principles dictate."

Feldman told the Huffington Post that the goal of the Denver Group "is to insure substantive and legitimate selection of the nominee." DNC chairman and other party leaders "should be taking responsibility for making sure it's a legitimate procedure. They cannot demand that people simply unify around either one of them."

Feldman argued that it is entirely conceivable that an open vote could produce a Clinton victory. "Then, the decision comes down to the superdelegates. I have no Idea what they are going to do six weeks from now.".... read the entire article here.

Edsall has this framed as a rebellion by disgruntled Hillary supporters such as those at P.U.M.A. (Party Unity My Ass). That's only partly true; the energy for the uprising is coming from Obama Progressives who feel betrayed by their candidate's recent unexplained flip-flop to vote in support of the 4th-Amendment-crushing FISA juggernaut pushed through by AIPAC, a trampling of civil liberties that gave Bush much more than he even asked for in terms of legalized spying on the American people, including its notorious provision for retroactive telecom immunity from civil litigation and criminal accountability. This, despite opposition by 70% of American citizens.

Progressives also watched wearily last week, despite his promise early on in the primaries to limit the influence of lobbies -- a promise that produced a surge of support among progressives and then sustained him throughout the primaries once Dennis Kucinich dropped from the race -- as Obama negotiated with the Israel Lobby during recent visits in Washington D.C.. He is also suspected by progressives of having negotiated with the NRA and the religious right wing, resulting in his statements of support for the recent Supreme Court's radical reaffirmation of the 2nd Amendment and what seemed like pandering support for the death penalty in cases of pedophilic violence as well as his announcement on behalf of the continuance of Bush's Faith-Based Initiative.

In fact, he has stopped speaking of removing the influence of special interests all together, a reform that is seen as absolutely essential by progressives if we are to re-establish the American Republic.

Several watchdog groups and journalists, including Tom Flocco, reported that in late 2001 Carl Cameron of Fox News investigated an Israeli telecom network that may have warned the Bush Administration, through its internal Mossad and CIA connections, about the coming terrorist attack on 9/11. The four-part series has since been removed from their internet website by Fox News.

Despite Fox's apparent cooperation with government censorship, a few mirror sites continue to feature the series. Non-government analysts who have reviewed Carl Cameron's suppressed investigative journalism now think Cameron may have unwittingly turned up evidence related to the Bush Administration's NSA illegal data collection systems and the contractors they use, specifically the Israeli telecom companies Amdocs and Converse-Infosys (now Verint) who provided the prior intelligence on 9/11 and who may have even participated in it's facilitation, if independent investigators looking into the connections prove accurate. [See 4-Part Fox News video series below, following this article.]

The FISA immunity provision, attached to the controversial FISA bill that passed with Obama's support last week, is said to have come attached with a classified list of 25 telecoms seeking protection from civil and criminal action associated not only with NSA's illegal spying activity, but also from further 9/11 investigation-based litigation now being demanded from grass roots organizations. French intelligence sources are said to have confirmed a list of Israeli-based companies with connections to AIPAC. AIPAC took the lead in lobbying efforts in favor of telecom immunity just at a time when Barack Obama was working furiously to gain their support; although, this editor has been unable to confirm Obama's precise motivation regarding the already infamous "flip-flop." Nevertheless, the implication is obvious.

According to Fox News, “virtually all records and billing in the U.S. are done for the telephone companies by Amdocs Ltd., an Israeli-based private telecommunication company, contracting with the 25 biggest phone companies in America, and more worldwide,” said Fox chief political correspondent Carl Cameron in a four-part series—the video and transcript content of which were removed from Fox’s website after both were preserved by internet sources. [cf. Tom Flocco.com]

One of the main concerns raised by Cameron's series for Fox News is evidence of security breaches in the system. In effect, it means that no citizen of the United States is secure in their electronically transmitted personal communications, bank accounts, retirement funds, investment portfolios, medical records or other private demographics. It means that the United States government is not secure in its communications.

Most importantly, it leads one to wonder why the Israeli government, working through AIPAC and representing the interests of not just the Israeli private telecommunications industry, but also the Mossad and CIA partnership that worked to mine the data being produced, would have such a highly sensitive and apparently classified interest in immunity from litigation, given what we now know of their role in providing the intelligence warnings prior to 9/11 vis-a-vis these very resources. In an interview after the vote, Senator Hillary Clinton was curiously quoted to have said that the immunity provision of FISA now severely restricts future investigations into 9/11. That is quite an amazing statement when you stop and think about its implications.

Here is a portion of Senator Clinton's written statement to the press, provided at Huffington Post, that for some reason the controlled media believed insignificant or that it didn't quite communicate the talking points they were looking for:

"...But the legislation has other significant shortcomings. The legislation also makes no meaningful change to the immunity provisions. There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct. It is precisely why I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions, both today and during previous debates on this subject. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful.
"What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions. On an issue of such tremendous importance to our citizens - and in particular to New Yorkers - all Senators should have been entitled to receive briefings that would have enabled them to make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation. I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity..."

Progressives have become increasingly concerned as well that recent nuanced modifications by Obama on Iraq may indicate the early stages of back-peddling that will lead to his caving on the major promise that has been the hallmark of his campaign -- the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. The concern is that Obama, if not by directly obfuscating and delaying withdrawal, may initiate a politically placating strategy of simply moving American forces to Afghanistan while leaving a contingent in Iraq to manage the 150,000 Blackwater mercenary force currently in place. By simply playing a carnival shell game with US Forces in the Middle East, the Pentagon and the neocon cabal who currently call the shots can still maintain forces within striking distance of Iran.

But moving the occupation to Afghanistan -- while playing up both his promise and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki's demands for withdrawal -- may belie yet another campaign deception: Obama has spoken against the privatization of government functions that has led to so much additional corruption, such as the misplacement of billions of taxpayer funds directed to the "war effort" and the plague of Blackwater supervised atrocities that have been occurring with increasing frequency as their forces multiply throughout the region. Leaving Blackwater in Iraq will never be seen as a withdrawal of American forces unless Fox and CNN get behind the effort to sell it as such, which is exactly why nothing is heard from the controlled media about the numbers, control or effectiveness of mercenary forces in Iraq under Blackwater and others.

At this point, the incipient journalistic investigation following Obama's shocking turn-around on FISA is founded upon coincidental negotiations with AIPAC -- circumstantial evidence -- and subject of much speculation based upon rumor and innuendo resulting from his general "move to the middle." In fact, Lieberman seems to be providing cover by dogging his every step. Notwithstanding the "FISA Betrayal," progressives have already been subject to increasing anxiety regarding the meaning of Obama's redeployment of campaign rhetoric aimed at claiming the moderate position for the November election while everyone works together at defining McCain -- appropriately -- as a member of the radical right-wing associated with the BushCo global corporatists, including the Wall Street barons of high finance, cronies representing the Military-Industrial Complex and Straussian war hawks. Progressive journalists are therefor comparing notes and asking questions.

As they say, "sooner or later the Truth will out" as the investigation continues into Obama's campaign funding sources, especially given the report that the Senators and Representatives who voted in favor of FISA have just recently received an overall average of $8000 more in contributions from the Israel Lobby than those who opposed it. Notedly, Senator Hillary Clinton was among those few who opposed the bill.

Therefore, we will be watching to see if the "FI$A Effect" has significantly benefited the Obama Campaign while we "let the dogs out" in this very suspicious wood.

Yesterday, in a piece entitled Betrayed by Obama, Salon's Chief-Editor Joan Walsh observed, perhaps with more caution than he deserves, that Obama's "move to the center" is one of perception rather than intentional deception; although, progressives are hard-pressed to find cause to agree:

...Meanwhile, Barack Obama is complaining that his "friends on the left" just don't understand him -- he's not moving to the center, he is "no doubt" a progressive, just one who now supports the scandalous FISA "compromise" and Antonin Scalia's views on gun rights and the death penalty, no longer plans to accept public campaign funding, and wants to make sure women aren't feigning mental distress to get a "partial-birth" abortion (the right's despicable term of choice; the correct phrase is either late-term or third-trimester abortion).
I actually have some sympathy for Obama. He was never the great progressive savior that his fans either thought he was, or peddled to their readers. While Arianna Huffington and Markos Moulitsas and Tom Hayden were hyping him as the progressive alternative to Hillary Clinton, Obama was getting away with backing a healthcare bill less progressive than Clinton's, adopting GOP talking points on the Social Security "crisis" and double-talking on NAFTA. So why shouldn't he think his "friends on the left" will put up with his abandoning other progressive causes?

I've admired Obama, but I never confused him with a genuine progressive leader. Today I don't admire him at all. His collapse on FISA is unforgivable. The only thing Obama has going for him this week is that McCain is matching him misstep for misstep. While we're railing about Obama's craven vote on FISA -- rightfully; Glenn Greenwald is a hero for his work on this topic -- McCain was outdoing Dick Cheney with neocon crazy talk, warning that Iran's test of nine old missiles we already knew they had increases the chances of a "second Holocaust." Every time I wonder whether I can ultimately vote for Obama in November, given all of his political cave-ins, McCain does something new to make sure I have to.

But Obama needs to watch himself. Telling voters they have no place else to go, before he officially has the nomination, is not a winning strategy. That's what his people told Clinton voters. That's what they're saying about opponents of the FISA sellout. That's the line on those concerned about his "partial-birth" abortion remarks. It's arrogant -- up against the backdrop of Obama's big plans for an Invesco Field acceptance speech in Denver and a Brandenberg Gate extravaganza in Berlin, I'm starting to worry about grandiosity -- and it could backfire.

The Progressive Movement is raising hell and fairly should be. The current populist and progressive UPRISING is not purposefully directed for Hillary's sake, although she seems the likely beneficiary at the moment; it is on behalf of the American Republic. Such duplicity as Obama's promises to bring about "change" -- which can be seen realistically as no better than "half-assed" -- should not be rewarded with election to the highest office in the land, nor should his betrayal of the Progressive Movement be overlooked at this, perhaps our last chance, to save American Democracy from the corporatist oligarchs that Obama now seems to be courting.

* * *

APPENDIX-A: Fox News 4-Part Video Series on Amdocs and Converse-Infosys

PART I

PART II

PART III

PART IV

APPENDIX-B: Comverse-Infosys - Verint

Last updated 17.07.07

This article is a translation of the Dutch article Nederlandse tapkamers niet kosjer that will appear in c't 2003-01, which will be available in the shops on december 19 2002

Dutch tapping room not kosher

by Paul Wouters, Patrick Smits

According to anonymous sources within the Dutch intelligence community, all tapping equipment of the Dutch intelligence services and half the tapping equipment of the national police force, is insecure and is leaking information to Israel. How difficult is it to make a back-door in the Dutch Transport of Intercepted IP Traffic[1] system?

The discussion focusses on the tapping installations for telephony and internet delivered to the government in the last few years by the Israeli company Verint[2].

This company was called Comverse-Infosys[3] until half a year ago, but was quickly renamed when the FBI started several investigations against it and arrested some of its employees in the US on suspicion of espionage. (See pulled FoxNews stories, Politech, Cryptome or Google).

Complete article

Israeli Spy-Ring in the USA

.........It turns out that Israel has had a potential wiretap on every phone in America for years, along with the ability to monitor and record who any person is calling, anywhere in America; information of great value even if one does not listen to the calls themselves. Amdocs, Inc., the company which subcontracts billing and directory services for phone companies around the world, including 90 percent of American phone companies, is owned by Israeli interests. Yet another company, Comverse Infosys, is suspected of having built a “back door” into the equipment permanently installed into the phone system that allows instant eavesdropping by law enforcement agencies on any phone in America. This includes yours.....

Complete article (alternative)

Israeli Security to Protect London's Underground

(IsraelNN.com) Verint Systems, a subsidiary of Israel's Comverse Technology announced that Metronet Rail has selected Verint's networked video solution to enhance security of the London Underground, according to an Israel21c report...........

Complete article

____________________________
APPENDIX-C: June 23, 2008 -- The backstory to the telecommunications immunity bill -- Wayne Madsen
publication date: Jun 22, 2008
June 23, 2008 -- The backstory to the telecommunications immunity bill

At first blush, the recent adoption by the House of Representatives of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act, which gives telecommunications companies that illegally eavesdropped on the telephone conversations, faxes, text messages, and emails of Americans retroactive immunity from lawsuits from privacy-violated and aggrieved customers, would see to have little to do with the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

However, the support for the bill by AIPAC's biggest boosters, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, whose sister, Bernice Manocherian, was an executive president of AIPAC, and Jane Harman, who was slated to become chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) but whose nomination was nixed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi after a Justice Department investigation of Harman's contacts with AIPAC, poses an interesting question: Why would Israel's lobby be adamantly opposed to lawsuits against phone companies that illegally spied on Americans? WMR has obtained internal Department of Justice memos and emails that document the department's concerns for the possible penetration by Israeli intelligence of federal law enforcement T2S2 digital wire intercept facilities, including those located in High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) operations centers across the United States.

Harman, who would have had oversight over FISA matters as HPSCI chair, was under investigation by Justice for trying to make a deal with the Bush administration to curtail an espionage investigation of AIPAC stemming from the receipt by two AIPAC officials -- Keith Weissman and Steven Rosen -- of highly classified intelligence documents from the CIA and the Pentagon from convicted Israeli spy Larry Franklin, in return for AIPAC support for her as HPSCI chair and other support for Bush administration initiatives. The documents were passed to a Mossad agent attached to the Israeli embassy in Washington. Harman's bid to become HPSCI chair was backed by wealthy Hollywood mogul Haim Saban, who also funds the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and is currently nesting a number of pro-Israel policy makers who will likely enter a Barack Obama administration to ensure no deviation from the United States in its unbridled support for Israel. However, these Israeli acolytes may be sorely disappointed by a President Obama. The Democratic candidate vowed to gut the retroactive immunity provisions from the amended FISA bill if he is elected president.

To ensure a lock on the no retroactive lawsuit provisions, the man who became HPSCI chair, Sylvestre Reyes, supported the measure. He was joined by other AIPAC sure bets, including Brad Sherman (D-CA), Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), John Yarmuth (KY), Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Jason Altmire (D-PA), and, for added measure Pelosi.

If lawsuits were permitted against telecommunications firms, the discovery process may have resulted in details being unearthed about the extent of Israel's involvement in federal wiretapping and illegal surveillance of Americans.

The Justice Department red flags were first raised after the Fox News expose of the espionage activities of Israeli "art students." A December 18, 2001 Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) email cites these concerns (it is also noteworthy that the report on the suspicious pre-9/11 activities of over 120 Israeli "art students" originated with the DEA:

From: [DELETED]
Sent: (DELETED]
To: [DELETED]
Subject: [DELETED]
I'm not sure what is meant by "Bottom line we should have caught it."
------Original message-------
From: Raffanello, Heidi M.
Sent:Tuesday, December 18, 2001 3:04 PM
To:Zeisset, Dale M.
Cc:Newton, Otis L; Howard, JP
Subject: Comverse
As you may have heard Security Program is briefing the Administrator[42] tomorrow morning on the Israeli students investigation to include T2S2 Comverse and JSI. This was a result of the Fox network expose on Israeli counterintelligence activities. In our discussions about remote maintenance for JSI and Comverse, we realized that Comverse remote maintenance for field systems was not addressed in the C & A process. We will approach it in the similar fashion as we did in the JSI issue, however the foreign national factor doesn't apply. It remains unclear if Comverse personnel are security cleared and if so, who are they and what type of clearances are on record. If you have names, I can run their status in Personnel Security. If not, we will need to have Comverse and ST identify a short list of personnel that will require clearances.

Fox News Transcript of above (Appendix-A) videos follows. [Edited]

Donating to Obama IS NOT ABOUT Obama

""""Jeff C."""" — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:35:34 EDT

I know many of you, like myself, have been disappointed with a few of the votes cast recently by Barack Obama; specifically FISA. To some extent, the bloom is off the rose a bit. However, chalk me up in the group of people that believes this is actually a good thing. I've never been too big a fan of placing all my eggs in one basket. Barack Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party, which means his success translates to the implementation of a Democratic Party political agenda. As of now, that is a political agenda that is vastly more popular than the initiatives being pushed by Republicans. It is imperative that we provide Barack with the means to effectively respond to the upcoming ad blitz.

I've seen this movie before and I don't particularly like the ending the first time. The Republicans are gearing up for a massive August ad blitz that will be used to "define" Sen. Obama. One of the disadvantages to being relatively new to the national political landscape is that Barack is more susceptible to being biographically "defined" by the Republican Party. Here's a rundown of how the Republican ad blitz will unfold; I can name that tune in about five notes:

HUSSEIN!!

PATRIOTISM!!

DOESN'T SHARE YOUR VALUES!!

SCARY BLACK PREACHER!!

SECRET MUSLIM!!

Let's not lose the forest for the trees.  If you, like myself, have been disappointed with Barack's recent specific votes, I'd ask you to consider donating to the following causes instead:
1. Securing universal [or, at a minimum, near universal] health care.
2. Securing [or frankly, even caring about & movings towards] energy independence.
3. Veterans Benefits [Veterans are quickly becoming the new Republican Party version of a fetus--they care about you from conception to birth, but after that, you're on your own].
4. Ending the war in Iraq [as opposed to the hallucinatory idea that we should maintain a large, long-term presence ala Korea/Germany].
5. Not instigating a war with Iran.
6. Progressive taxation.
7. Women's reproductive choice.
8. Bringing back some semblance of government regulation [as opposed to the ridiculous, Phil Gramm, 'let-the-free-market' dictate everything form of conservatism].
9. Allowing poor John Paul Stevens to retire [for the love of god, the man's about 673 years old--can we please elect a Democrat?  I think he'd might like to step down].
10. Fiscal responsibility [some might say sanity].

There are obviously many others, but I'm sure that everyone gets the drift; especially if you're either a registered Democrat or Independent.  Please use the link below to donate [or go to the website itself if not comfortable using mine].  Thanks.

Hope everyone has a fantastic weekend.  Take care and, as always, keep up the good work.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin

Sincerely,

Jeff Cronin

What happened to my Obama-campaign donation?

chemoelectric — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:58:51 EDT

So, will Barack Obama continue to be able to collect megacash from small donors? It's a question to which I would like to know an answer.

I can say this: If I had learned that Barack Obama had taken charge of the situation, and made Steny Hoyer stop what he was doing, not only would I have been impressed by Barack Obama's ability to take the lead (which now is not so impressive), but also I'd have made a rather generous small donation. As things stand, I have given a couple of times to the Dodd presidential campaign, and I have given to the Clinton campaign to help pay off its debt, to reward Clinton for doing the right thing when she dropped out and sided with Obama, but I have given nothing directly to the Obama campaign. In fact, by far the biggest contributions and pledges I have made, starting a while ago and continuing today, have been to the funds that will be used, for example, to see that Steny Hoyer is primaried out of the House in 2010.

I just don't know what else to do. If Obama does a remarkable shaping up, that's worth rewarding; or if Obama continues to make himself unpopular with people like me, and somehow ends up looking as if he might actually lose to John McCain (or a replacement candidate should McCain start forgetting his own name or losing the way to any of his mansions), then what else am I supposed to do but try to help Obama, even though he would be turning out to be an incredible loser? But let it not go that route.

I want Barack Obama to know that by capitulating to Bushist demands he does not take "national security" off the table, but rather that this behavior is precisely why so many voters correctly perceive Democrats as "weak on Republicans" and thus infer that Democrats would likely be "weak on terrorism". People are not just being duped by Republicans, but are making reasonable inferences from the fear and submissiveness being displayed by Democrats such as Barack Obama. And I'm not going to reward that loser behavior with my donations. Behave like a winner and I'll donate.

Feingold statement on the FISA aftermath

Jay.Cee.Gee. — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:44:20 EDT

"Having a Democratic president and particularly Barack Obama should allow us to change this mistake. Barack Obama believes in the Constitution. He's a constitutional scholar. I believe that he will have a better chance to look at these powers that have been given to the executive branch and even though that he will be running the executive branch, I think he will understand and help take the lead in fixing some of the worst provisions. So this is a huge setback and it would have been much better for Democrats to stand together and not let it happen in the first place ‘cause it's much harder to change it after the fact. But I do believe that Barack Obama is well positioned both in terms of his knowledge and his background, and his beliefs, to correct this. And so I do think that people have a right to be disappointed but I also think they have the right to hope for change on this issue in particular starting in January."

Personally, I couldn't agree more, which generally I find myself saying 99% of the time when Senator Russ speaks. While extremely disappointed in Obama's vote, it ironically makes me want to work harder for his election because I trust his calm, even temperment and don't want to imagine the damage of another 4 years of Republican rule with these new expansive executive powers at their disposal. I firmly believe that a President Obama would ultimately do much to reign in the "unitary executive" runaway train created by the current administration.

Was FISA a trade off for the people, and a very good one at that?

Duane Kuehn — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:39:33 EDT

Hi All,

Covered by the FISA fiasco we weren't watching behind the scenes.

As Barack Obama was taking the big hits for voting "Yes" on the FISA bill (which it was known was already going to pass by a huge majority without his vote), nobody seemed to notice the Medicare bill and the number of Republican Senators that jumped ship and voted, "Yes" on it.

Many of us were wiping the tears from our eyes as if maybe Barack Obama had stood us up for a date. When in fact, as Barack is not President yet but we are very aware of his persusive bipartisan influence; the Medicare bill was being passed with a majority vote that George Bush cannot veto.

A huge victory for the people of this country. What happened? We all know the give and take of Washington politics, the behind the doors goings on which Obama says will Change when he is President. But, Obama is not President yet and still apart of the give and take of Washington Politics.

I would venture to gain that the give and take was a trade off on a FISA bill which was going to pass anyway, for a Medicaid bill which wasn't going to pass. A bill which will now help to pave the way for a badly needed Universal Health Care bill.

Who knows but, I say 3 cheers to mybarackObama!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/opinion/11krugman.html?em&ex=1216008000&en=ba067d25713ebe77&ei=5087%0A#secondParagraph

Loveya,

Duane Kuehn

Strangebedfellows

Paradigm Shift — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:16:04 EDT

Who Are The Strangebedfellows?

Strangebedfellows is a unique and diverse left--right coalition which has come together to put a stop to the eradication of civil liberties in America. Modeled on a similar group in Britain, the initial Strangebedfellows group encompasses Ron Paul supporters (BreakTheMatrix.com, Rick Williams and Trevor Lyman), leading bloggers from the left (Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com, Jane Hamsher of firedoglake.com) and many more who share the view that warrantless surveillance, telecom immunity and other such outrages of the lawless surveillance state MUST END—AND END NOW. Our group of Strangebedfellows is organizing a moneybomb on behalf of AccountabilityNowPAC, and we’re reaching out to friends and colleagues from across the political spectrum who believe in the Bill of Rights and freedom in America. So join us-- become a Strangebedfellow! Add your name and group to our list of backers, and enter your pledge today to donate to AccountabilityNowPAC. Let’s reverse these police state sellouts by our political leaders—FOREVER.

http://www.accountabilitynowpac.com/

Ex-NYT correspondent: FISA update is ‘giant step toward fascism’

Choice Voter — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:33:23 EDT

http://www.truthnews.us/?p=2285

FISA=Old News VP=New News

David Rothmiller — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:45:09 EDT

Licking our wounds we rally onward. Is Hillary still in the running or is Obama playing the field?

Sen. Obama's recent chatting up of a moneyed Clinton donor keeps "hope alive" for those who still believe in the Dream Ticket. See article: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-veep12-2008jul12,0,2671030.story

But then, Obama's biggest problem would not be the FISA Bill - it would be the Clinton Bill. And how do you solve a problem like... William Jefferson Clin-ton?

Everyone, join in the chorus... "a flibberty-jibbet, a willow-the-wisp, a Clown."

How do you respond, Senator Obama?

Phillip from Broomfield, CO — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:15:03 EDT

I don't think it's any surprise that Progressive Demcrats are angry about Senator Obama's vote on the FISA bill; and with good reason. The FISA bill that passed through Congress last week is an egregious violation of our Constitution, and, more importantly, the basic principles for which it stands, namely our essential liberties.

Now that Senator Obama has, mistakenly, cast his vote in favor of this terrible legislation, there has been a tremendous response from his supporters denouncing his decision. The largest group (currently) on MyBarackObama is a group doing just that: denouncing this vote.

What troubles me the most, though, is not the anger or frustration from his supporters, not the potential harm this will do for his campaign, and not even the idea that Senator Obama, seemingly, disagrees with us on this issue. No, what bothers me most is that there has been absolutely no response to his frustrated constituents and supporters. What bothers me most is acting as if ignoring us will make this go away. What bothers me most is that the only insight we have to Obama's decision comes from a canned memorandum sent out to the bloggers on July 3, before the vote was even taken.

Senator Obama's canned response concerning the FISA vote makes no attempt to explain away how or why he would even consider voting YEA on a bill that rips our essential liberties from us, and puts the interests of corporations above those of ordinary citizens. Let me repeat that last point for clarity: this bill puts the interests of corporations above the interests of ordinary American citizens. Other than Republican money mongers, and a select few Democratic corporatists, who, in their right mind, thinks that it is okay to put the interests of corporations above those of American citizens? The only explanation we get from this canned response is that he does not support some of the key provisions (i.e., retroactive immunity to telecoms, spying on US citizens, etc.), yet he voted for it anyway.

I, for one, am sick and tired of our government not representing my interests as an individual. I am sick and tired of corporate interests and their "gimmies" from our government. Make no mistake about it, this bill does not protect us from any harm. Indeed, it does more to harm the American way of life than any threat of terrorism ever will.

Senator Obama, your explanation of your support for this bill is far from complete. On one hand, you state that you want to protect American's rights and liberties, and on the other you vote to strip them away from us. How can you, in all honesty, not expect us to see through this game of politics as usual? You are supposed to be our candidate of change. You are a Constitutional scholar that should understand that there is NO legislation worth voting for, no matter what its intent, if it undercuts the fundamental values that our country was founded on.

I don't want to keep re-reading the nebulous response Obama sent on July 3. I want to hear something new. I want Obama to diretly address this issue with us. He needs to regain our trust when it comes to protecting our liberties, something we've heard him express support for, and something his actions directly denied us. I want a detailed account, from a Constitutional scholar, about the constitutionality of this bill, how he expects to make this right if we elect him President, and a promise that he will not let our government get away with the continued erosion of our Consitution. I don't want a fluffy campaign speech. I want to be talked to like an intelligent adult, capable of understanding our Constitution, our laws, and what liberty means. I want specifics. I want to specifically know why (and how) Obama was capable of casting that vote, and walking away with a good conscience. Or, if he didn't walk away with a good conscience, why he voted YEA instead of NAY.

This issue is important enough to so many Democrats that it deserves more attention, and we deserve more respect.

Let this much be clear: it is NEVER okay to remove ANY of our essential liberties, no matter what the potential reward may be.

The end does not justify the means. Don't ever forget that.

A Noun, A Verb and 911

Suz Andreasen — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:11:00 EDT

Dear Senator Obama:

Remember how basically all Guiliani knew in the campaign was a noun, a verb and 911?

Well – No one bought it, least of all me, who as I mentioned was there under Tower 1 on Sept 11th. I was supposed to be at Jury duty...but that is another long sad tale.

My point is that while I may have been ahead of the curve here by being there when the attack happened and seeing the aftermath, i.e. How angry NY’ers were and still are that people don’t seem to think we may have the critical and most valuable point of view on this terror subject because it was we who got attacked,

While – I may have been thinking this way all along – the fact is that Guiliani and McSame are not scaring ANYONE with security.

Senator, I ask you again:

Breaking the 4th amendment is not a remedy and has no correlation to the threat of "terror" You know that and so do most Americans. Why do you continue to ignore the issue of what 23288 members, supporters on your website want you to account for?

The very reason your platform of hope grew like a snowball rolling down a hill was because people DO care about their hopes, dreams and free speech and they don’t buy a noun a verb and 911 anymore.

L,
Suz Andreasen

www.suzandreasen.com

NY, NY

Simple Math on FISA

Justin from Chicago, IL — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:42:33 EDT

Oath of Office--US Senate

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

OBAMA WRONG ON FISA

A must read for all Obama supporters

Justin from Chicago, IL — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:37:02 EDT

The Bill of Rights (see extended post)

Anyone who thinks the FISA vote opponents are "whiners" should really read this.

I can't wait until someone calls me a troll for defending the constitution.

Dissent at All Levels

Gordon Broom — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:48:02 EDT

I came across this Obama blog entry this morning that pretty much expresses where I am at after Senator Obama's decision to support the FISA bill.

Gordon

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

Dissent at All Levels

From Bryan K. Long

I think it is fair to say that Senator Obama and most Obama supporters are

opposed to the Republican tactic of silencing dissent by calling it

unpatriotic. We recognize that it is the responsibility of every citizen to

speak out against our Government's actions when we think those actions are

against our nation's best interests. Similarly, it is the responsibility of

every Obama supporter to speak out when the Senator takes positions or

actions which we feel betray the best interests of the nation.

Accountability can not be delayed until after the election; we cannot afford

to sacrifice principles for political expediency and we must demand the same

from Senator Obama. It is true that we must not give up on him -- yesterday

I was ready to, but today with cooler head I know he is still much better

than the alternative. I disagree with Mr. Pitts only when he suggests that

many might just give up without speaking out: the truth is that the 23,000

who signed onto the Get FISA Right group are among the most informed and

ardent of Obama's supporters. Despite their anger, they will vote for him

anyway. But their ardor has been cooled, and they will be watching Senator

Obama with more dubious eyes.

Why the furor?

Twoberry — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 04:42:32 EDT

I continue to be baffled by the furor of liberals who feel that Barack has betrayed them by voting for the FISA bill.

I have often said, and Barack has often said, and he is one of the few politicians I've heard say it (though I imagine several have said so, I just haven't heard it from very many) that "politics is a dirty business." And there's no way not to be a politician if you want to serve in elective office, so Barack has taken a position unpopular with folks who are aghast at the telecom immunity just voted on.

Here is another quote:

"Politics is the art of the possible." Otto Von Bismarck, remark, Aug. 11, 1867
German Prussian politician (1815 - 1898)

While we are many of us -- including you and me -- disappointed in the fact that a bill was voted into law that grants telecoms civil immunity from acts of warrantless wiretapping, I am not as disappointed in Obama as I am in the fact that the bill was going to pass no matter what he did. So he did what was POSSIBLE to do -- he voted for a bill that improved the situation, if only slightly, and not nearly as much as he has clearly said he wished could have been the case.

Obama has explained his position adequately -- that the bill before Congress was an improvement over what existed prior to passage. At least now there are strong provisions for judicial and Attorney General review and criminal prosecution IS still possible. Even with those improvements, Obama tried to amend the bill so as to remove the immunity provision. He failed. But he did try.

In fact, I'll say this: had not Obama voiced his position last year in terms that you and I agree with, we would NOT have been able to vote a bill into law that contained ANY provisions for judicial or Attorney General review. So while he's being unfairly accused of flip-flopping here, it is a fact that his previously stated position is one of the big reasons that the just-passed law is slightly better than the old law.

And, yes, it's true, Obama is "moving to the center" on issues that are dear to us on the left, and his actions are calculated to get votes.

What's undeniable is that he can't do us any good if he doesn't get elected. Politics is a dirty business. It is going to become significantly less dirty once Obama takes the oath of office. That is my sincere belief.

Creating a More Secure America?

Jamiah — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:57:18 EDT

Senator Obama's support of FISA is damning to the protection of rights of Americans. I wholeheartedly disagree that its passage is making the United States more secure. Wiretaps on ordinary citizens and protecting telecom companies from suit is the business of making a stronger democracy? I think not Senator Obama. Were these protections in place prior to 9/11/01 could the government have stopped the terrorists from attacking the United States?

No. Unequivocally no.

Teaching Arabic is key. Does anyone remember the call from FBI, CIA and other three letter governmental agencies for Arabic speakers? Translators and communication missteps have started wars.

Will Obama's presidency rollback these damning laws towards our democracy? Is it a bait and switch tactic? Did Obama vote in the affirmative because he plans on doing away with the Patriot Act? Is he listening to Bill Clinton?

Don't fail us Senator Obama. I support your centrist views and know that it is paramount to getting the country to elect you but please remember me and other progressive/leftist and perhaps nationalists folks who champion you as a promise of change. I can't believe in my ability to bring about real change in Washington when you are supporting business as usual politics.

Move to the middle? So what?!

JimB — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:38:15 EDT

We all know that no matter how different, how change-minded Barack is, he's got to fight to win this election...and sometimes that fight requires "acting like a regular politician". Unfortunately, the final decision in this election will be determined by those who are not "die-hards" like many of us on these blogs are. And, also unfortunately, the Republicans love to sling the word "liberal" around like it's some kind of mortal sin, and furthermore, the independent voters are actually influenced by that. Sure, we can say this and say that about Barack's move to the middle, but no matter what any one of us says, Barack needs to make the INDEPENDENT voters comfortable with him. A move to the middle was to be expected...and deep down, I don't think it means a thing in terms of Barack's core values. Sure, I don't agree with his FISA vote (I can't excuse him for that), but to judge him on one issue is like saying you'll never ever talk to your kids again because they are eating too much candy. The best we can do is to make sure that Barack knows that we aren't happy with his vote on FISA and cheer him on for all the good he espouses on every other issue. There's no need for me to say that this country does not need four more years of Republican indifference to the needs of the middle class, those who labor for a living, those who are jobless, and the poor (OK, so I did). To continue the oppressive corporate-run culture as we now know it will be to destroy the very fabric of what makes this country great...and McCain represents that continuation.

Threats do not equal the dismantling of the 4th Amendment

Suz Andreasen — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:21:25 EDT

Dear Obama for America, Senator Obama, Dave and Jim

As a lifelong Democrat, Here is my problem with Barack Obama's statement:

"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have

> the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they

> strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties

> of the American people."

1. I was under Tower 1 when the first plane hit on 9/11. I ran for my life.

No one knows better than I do about the "threats" on America.

However, Senator Obama did not respect the privacy and civil liberties by voting for this bill, and further, those two things do not go hand in hand, "the threats we face" and the removal of individual privacy. That argument is a non-sequitur argument that is not salient.

That position is a little like Bush - "since we face threats, we have to take away rights." or, to put it in more simple child like terms, "If someone throws sand at you in the sandbox, take away the sandbox"

2. In his compromise, as he put it, he sold out his supporters - ardent, hard fighters, of which I was one. If it isn't what he would want as he put it, he should not have voted for it. The cost politically of that vote is far more dear than whatever it was he thought he was gaining or doing.

Further - his entire campaign talked of a "new kind of politics" and of "not giving in to fear"

So -again, I ask you Senator, why on earth would I trust you when you just sold my rights down the river for whatever your reasons are? Do you really think that the 4th amendment isn't going to be something you will now pay a dear political price for?

Once you answer these questions and apologize for your vote, and re-explain this logic without the national security baloney of which none of us are buying, I might be willing to stop dissenting.

Short of dealing with me and those like me who see through this smoke filled mistake,

- Until you deal with your blunder - a blunder as huge as Hillary's vote for the war, you are looking at it costing you the election and I ask you Senator - was it worth it?

All the best,

Suz Andreasen

All the best,

Suz Andreasen

SUZ ANDREASEN COUTURE

http://www.suzandreasen.com

On 7/11/08 7:51 PM, "Obama for America Correspondence Team" <no-reply@barackobama.com> wrote:

> Dear Friend,

> Thank you for contacting us and sharing your strong feelings about this

> important issue. Please find a statement from Senator Obama below.

> We appreciate hearing from you.

> Sincerely,

> Obama for America,

> ---

> Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have

> the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they

> strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties

> of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush

> Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies,

> has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the

> communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required

> court orders.

> That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which

> expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient

> independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent

> Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those

> who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

> After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far

> from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

> Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against

> terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless

> surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap

> statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that

> the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of

> the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight

> over all domestic surveillance in the future.

> It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I voted in the Senate three

> times to remove this provision so that we could seek full accountability for

> past offenses. Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful. But this

> compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our

> national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and

> ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding

> oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped

> yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

> It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face,

> providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards

> is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm

> pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the

> report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any

> additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of

> the American people.

FISA - In His Own Words...

Mickiboop (P.O.B.) Be the Change — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:00:05 EDT

I watched and recorded Barack's speech on CNN.com, in Fairfax, VA yesterday and at the end, he took a few questions from the audience. One of the attendees asked about his FISA vote and he answered giving clarity about the new bill and why he voted for it. Here’s the transcript of the exchange as I typed it out (my formatting accents and emphasis included). I recorded the program, but haven’t figured out how to cut and embed a downloaded section of the video, or the whole thing for that matter – LOL. The most important part is in the last paragraph…

Attendee: I'm an attorney who represents federal whistle blowers, and I was very disappointed when I learned that you supported the bill that lets phone companies off the hook when they've helped the federal government without warrant, wire-tap phones.
Obama: So you want me to respond
Attendee: Yes
Obama: Let me first of all say this; I actually used to be a plaintiff’s attorney that represented whistle blowers, and in fact, I wrote the brief for the law - the federal whistle blowers law to make sure that it applied in more situations and it went all the way to the Supreme Court and we won. So I know a little bit about whistle blowing and making sure that those folks get protection. That was not the issue in this situation.

The issue here had to do with, we've got a surveillance program that tracks people who can potentially do us harm. It was supposed to run through FISA. FISA is the law that ensures that you have a court overseeing what the Federal government does in its various surveillance activities. There is little doubt that the Bush administration decided to ignore FISA in setting up this surveillance program, went around the courts, went to the phone companies, and said to the phone companies, the telecoms you know what, we have made a determination that this is legal, and so turn over all these records and cooperate with this surveillance program; and the phone companies and the telecoms for the most part complied.

The reason that we didn't want to originally give these phone companies and telecoms immunity, was not simply because we wanted to punish the phone companies, it was that unless you had these issues in open court we might not know how the program had been abused by the Bush administration. That in addition we might not have any leverage to ensure that going forward the program wasn't violating the basic privacies and civil liberties of the American people.

And so I voted against the original version of the bill that would have given the administration as well as the phone companies a clean bill of health. The bill that we just voted on, which is not a perfect bill and not one that I would have drafted myself, did do two important things:
number one - it said explicitly that you can't run any surveillance program except through the FISA courts to make sure that George Bush or any president or Barack Obama can't unilaterally go snooping on people without somebody checking to make sure that they were doing it legally. And the second thing that the bill did was to institute an Inspector General to investigate any past abuses by the Bush administration in how this program was managed.

Now, I recognize that some people feel like yeah well, the phone companies still were complicit in this, they should be held accountable still. I understand that argument, but the problem was the surveillance program is actually one that I believe is necessary for our national security, and so I had to balance or weigh voting against a program that I think we need, and that had been created so that your privacies were protected, or create a situation in which we didn't have that program in place, and we would continue to argue about this for months to come.

I made the decision it was better to go ahead and support the program as currently constituted knowing that I will be sworn in with your help on January 20th, and then I can go make sure that the program is working exactly the way it should be - alright?"

In His Own Words...

Mickiboop (P.O.B.) Be the Change — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:19:41 EDT

FISA and Obama's Bad Decision

Amber Smith — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:02:02 EDT

I know this blog entry is a day (or two) late but WTF is going on with Obama and FISA? He know's it's clearly against our 4th Amendment and yet he's selling out to the corrupted Washington Lobbyists. I'm taking this harder because he taught OUR Constitution. How does he think he's going to fix things by taking our rights away, one by one? If he keeps this up, I'm afraid he is no better than Bush on screwing the American public over. How dare he say he's for us when he clearly votes against us? I believe it's becoming clear that lobbyists have found the price for Obama. He's really starting to be just another schemer and liar in American government. How corrupt is he going to become. Really?

What a bunch of wimps!

auntikrist — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:43:10 EDT

Well, CRAP!

Senator Obama's vote is a real disappointment to me. In fact I am furious that the Senate caved in to a black-mailing, double-dealing, law-breaking president! The FISA bill, will make it even harder than ever to hold the Shrub and his minions accountable for ordering the wholesale invasion of the privacy of all citizens of the U.S.

The "telecom immunity" clause basically blocks ongoing lawsuits against the telephone companies that carried out the administration's illegal wiretapping program, which infuriates me no end. Those lawsuits were one of our best hopes for finding out what actually happened and just who was responsible.

That's not just bad policy—it's bad politics. I believe that U.S. citizens want those who violate the Constitution to see consequences; that's a core American value and a winning position for the election. This along with his strong stands on healthcare, the energy crisis and ending the war could really help the Senator win in November.

It's not too late for him to promise full accountability will be pursued when he becomes president. There are still other avenues, -- from independent investigations to the Inspector General's office. The question is, will Obama commit to using these and any other avenues available? Thank God for the ACLU who immediately cried "foul!" and stepped up to the plate to question the legality of FISA! You better believe I'm donating more money to those guys.

I know we will be able to count on all the Right-wingers and the media pundits to argue loudly and vigorously against Obama holding the Bush administration accountable. You can bet your ass they'll call any investigations "vindictive" or "re-fighting the fights of the past." But I believe that it will be very neccessary for Brack Obama to state clearly that he intends to pursue the matters until we have the truth about what happened and why. I want to know that I am voting for a man who is not only thoughtful, but courageous.

I DO NOT approve of any "Nixon" pardon for the breaking of so many of our Constitutional laws!

George W. Bush wastes no Time!

ldasteelworker — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:00:06 EDT

George W. Bush wastes no Time!

I believe that it's very telling that President Bush wasted absolutely no time in signing H.R. 6304 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008...

H.R. 6304 was signed by George W. Bush at: 1:22 p.m. EST on July 10, 2008. The legislation was signed into law less than 24 hours after the United States Senate passed the legislation at: 2:47 p.m. EST on July 9, 2008.

Photograph: [ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/images/20080710-2_d-0098-5-515h.jpg ]

“I thank all the other members of the House and Senate who have joined us. I appreciate your very good work.” - George W. Bush, President of the United States of America

I might add:

1. Work that joins President Bush in violating your Oath of Office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” by ignoring the requirements thereof and legislatively gutting portions of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment;

2. Work that joins President Bush in violating the Separation of Powers between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of our government as set up under our Constitution; and,

3. Work that joins President Bush in the cover-up and disappearance of crimes, illegal and/or criminal acts, against our Constitution and citizens of the United States which has already been ruled on by Federal Judges as a clear violation of federal law and unconstitutional…

The Audacity of Listening

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:59:00 EDT

Some of us are questioning Barack's recent political moves; but should we first question our own motives?

FISA: Sen. Obama Responds & ACLU Takes Action

Gordon Broom — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:12:57 EDT

Below is the response I received from Senator Obama regarding his FISA vote. Following that is the ACLU's wonderful action.

Gordon

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting us and sharing your strong feelings about this important issue. Please find a statement from Senator Obama below.

We appreciate hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Obama for America,

---
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.

It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I voted in the Senate three times to remove this provision so that we could seek full accountability for past offenses. Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.

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

FROM THE ACLU (which I'm a card carrying member of)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union filed a landmark lawsuit today to stop the government from conducting surveillance under a new wiretapping law that gives the Bush administration virtually unchecked power to intercept Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work - which relies on confidential communications - will be greatly compromised by the new law.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by Congress on Wednesday and signed by President Bush today, not only legalizes the secret warrantless surveillance program the president approved in late 2001, it gives the government new spying powers, including the power to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans' international communications.

"Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power - and that's exactly what this law allows. The ACLU will not sit by and let this evisceration of the Fourth Amendment go unchallenged," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Electronic surveillance must be conducted in a constitutional manner that affords the greatest possible protection for individual privacy and free speech rights. The new wiretapping law fails to provide fundamental safeguards that the Constitution unambiguously requires."

In today's legal challenge, the ACLU argues that the new spying law violates Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. The new law permits the government to conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to spy on, what phone lines and email addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, why it's conducting the surveillance or whether it suspects any party to the communication of wrongdoing.

Plaintiffs in today's case are:

The Nation and its contributing journalists Naomi Klein and Chris Hedges
Amnesty International USA, Global Rights, Global Fund for Women, Human Rights Watch, PEN American Center, Service Employees International Union, Washington Office on Latin America, and the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association
Defense attorneys Dan Arshack, David Nevin, Scott McKay and Sylvia Royce

"As a journalist, my job requires communication with people in all parts of the world - from Iraq to Argentina. If the U.S. government is given unchecked surveillance power to monitor reporters' confidential sources, my ability to do this work will be seriously compromised," said Naomi Klein, an award-winning columnist and best-selling author who is a plaintiff in today's lawsuit. "I cannot in good conscience accept that my conversations with people who live outside the U.S. will put them in harm's way as a result of overzealous government spying. Privacy in my communications is not simply an expectation, it's a right."

The ACLU's legal challenge, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York today, seeks a court order declaring that the new law is unconstitutional and ordering its immediate and permanent halt.

In a separate filing, the ACLU asked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to ensure that any proceedings relating to the scope, meaning or constitutionality of the new law be open to the public to the extent possible. The ACLU also asked the secret court to allow it to file a brief and participate in oral arguments, to order the government to file a public version of its briefs addressing the law's constitutionality, and to publish any judicial decision that is ultimately issued.

"The new law allows the mass acquisition of Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "The administration has argued that the law is necessary to address the threat of terrorism, but the truth is that the law sweeps much more broadly and implicates all kinds of communications that have nothing to do with terrorism or criminal activity of any kind."

In 2006, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) to stop its illegal, warrantless spying program. A federal district court sided with the ACLU, ruling that warrantless wiretapping by the NSA violated Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, ran counter to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and violated the principle of separation of powers. The Bush administration appealed the ruling, and an appeals court panel dismissed the case. However, the court did not uphold the legality of the government's warrantless surveillance activity and the only judge to discuss the merits of the case clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless spying was unlawful. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case earlier this year.

"A democratic system depends on the rule of law, and not even the president or Congress can authorize a law that violates core constitutional principles," said Christopher Dunn, Associate Legal Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "The only thing compromised in this so-called 'compromise' law is the Constitution."

Attorneys on the lawsuit Amnesty v. McConnell are Jaffer, Melissa Goodman and L. Danielle Tully of the ACLU National Security Project and Dunn and Arthur Eisenberg of the NYCLU. Attorneys on the motion filed with the FISC are Jaffer, Goodman, Tully, as well as Arthur Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.

More information, including today's complaint, a video discussing the ACLU's legal challenge, plaintiff statements in support of the lawsuit and the FISC motion, is available at: www .aclu.org/faa

Sold out AGAIN by our LAME CONGRESS AND BARACK!!!

Kalla B — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:13:11 EDT

THE FISA BILL!!!!

I am hugely disappointed in Obama for voting for this appalling piece of legislation that is ANOTHER blow to our civil liberties, an affront to democracy, an insult to the Constitution and EXTREMELY dangerous to EVERY American citizen. Why? Because Obama has been VERY vocal about PROTECTING our civil liberties and upholding the constitution, then with this vote he sold us down the river to appear not to be weak on national security?!?!?!

Where's the CHANGE in that?

Our weakling Congress has been doing that with this administration from the very beginning, including the Democrats! People have been telling me that it's just politics. Well, POLITICS SUCK! Politics just protected the ILLEGAL/UNCONSTITUTIONAL practice of widespread eves dropping by our government on any of and all of us. In fact it just EXPANDED the level at which our government can do it. We just made another giant leap in our steady march towards Fascism in America. Obama is a party to it, and I'm pissed.

I'm not voting for Obama so that he can turn his back on PROTECTING us from legislation such as this, to protect us from egregious power grabs by a presidency turned dictatorship, to protect our freaking civil liberties. I'm supporting him, campaigning for him, and voting for him so he can step up to the plate and DO THE RIGHT THING!!!!

So DO THE RIGHT THING, Barack!

Fight for us!
Fight for our civil liberties!
Fight to uphold the Constitution!
Fight for the average American whose vote you need so badly!

EARN my vote, my respect, my time, my energy!

Don't roll over and play dead when we need you the most! No, your dissenting vote would not have made a difference in this Bill's passage, but it would have lent credence to your claim to be an agent of CHANGE! Hell, even Hillary got it right on this one, whereas McCain didn't even show up to vote.

I will be voting for you Barack, because McCain is not an option, but you'd better step up to the plate and do right by the American people, BY ME, or I will not be campaigning for you, and from the looks of it, I'm not the only one.

OBAMA HAS MY SUPPORT

Eric from Covina, CA — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:43:27 EDT

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

OBAMA HAS MY SUPPORT
AS LONG AS HE REMEMBERS WHO’S THE BOSS

I’m both a progressive and Obama supporter, so it goes without saying that I’m deeply disappointed with his reversal on the FISA issue. But the mere fact that Sen. Obama felt it both safe, and necessary, to moonwalk this issue after stating unequivocally that "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty", says just as much about what we’ve allowed our political process to become, as it does about Sen. Obama’s inability to stand firm on the convictions that he said he was so proud to embrace.

No Mo' Money to Appeasers

Matthew from Brooklyn, NY — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:06:16 EDT

Any money I have left for the year goes to the real defenders of the Constitution...

http://www.russfeingold.org/
http://www.aclu.org/

No more to Barack or anything that will fund the cowards Nancy Pelosi (DCCC) and Harry Reid (DSCC). He'll get my vote in Novemeber and that is all.

JUST SAY NO TO APPEASEMENT!

Matt

The quote at the top of the site mocks me every time I come here.

Nick from Cross Plains, WI — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:49:19 EDT

This is what I wrote in the comment section for the response letter to Obama that I signed.

Senator Obama,
You have let our country down. You have betrayed not only us, your supporters, but also your own convictions; unless, those too were a lie. How do you sleep at night? How do you go on day after day knowing you are contributing to the degradation of our "free" society. There will be no "spinning" on this issue. There were no calculations or moves to the center. There was only a line in the sand that said if you stand here, on this side, you stand with the American people and for the protection of their rights as insured by the Constitution of the United States of America and if you stand over there, then all of our faith has been misplaced, all our hope - misguided, for there will be no change, no new day for America, only further spiral into oppression.

Congratulations! You will get my vote Sen. Obama as the lesser of two evils. Is that really what you wanted to be?

The Audacity of Listening

Twoberry — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:37:35 EDT

My thoughts are echoed in the Gail Collins op-ed column published Thursday in the New York Times. You can read it in my blog at www.xanga.com/blip32962

Barack is the real deal, and if you care at all about affordable health insurance, global warming, Darfur, ending the war in Iraq, responsible appointments to federal judgeships, stem-cell research, and an all-out commitment to a sensible energy policy, please give us your attention.

Thank you.

Bob Lipton
www.xanga.com/twoberry
www.xanga.com/blip32962

WHY FISA IS HURTING Obama

Jay360 — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:36:51 EDT

I know a lot of people are angry with MR. Obama for flip flopping on FISA but the reality is that he did not flip flop. He has stated in the past that he would work with republicans to get things done in this country the fact is when two parties work together on any matter it is called compromise and compromise by definition means both groups get some of what they want. He wanted judicial review and oversight the republicans wanted telecom immunity and abracadabra you have the new FISA bill how can this be seen as a flip flop? My Liberal and civil liberties friends need to relax!!!! And read the bill it does not give them immunity from CRIMINAL PROSICUTION!!! Which sets up my next point MR. OBAMA PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT YOU MUST COME OUT AND STATE THAT FACT, IF YOU DO NOT AND SOON!!!! THIS VOTE WILL SEVERLY WEAKEN YOUR SUPPORT ON TWO FRONTS THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT I HAPPEN TO BE A REPUBLICAN WHO IS SUPPORTING YOU FOR PRESIDENT AND I MUST SAY MANY OF MY FRIENDS WHOM I HAVE BEGAN TO WIN OVER TO YOUR SIDE ARE OUTRAGED AT YOUR VOTE ON FISA. MR. OBAMA YOU HAVE AN OPORTUNITY TO WIN THIS ELECTION BY A LANDSLIDE MANY REPUBLICANS WANT TO VOTE FOR YOU BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE YOU WILL BRING CHANGE AND PROTECT THE AVERAGE JOE FROM OUT OF CONTROLL GOVERNMENT, YOU MUST MAKE IT CLEAR THAT YOU WILL NOT TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE ASSAULT ON OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE CRIMES COMMITED BY THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION DO THIS AND YOU WILL WIN 60%+ FAIL TO DO SO AND YOU MAY LOSE!

How To Fix The FISA Controversy in Your Eyes

TarekP4Obama — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:29:28 EDT

For the past few weeks, we have seen many of our groups voice their displeasure in the FISA vote. It is interesting to think that many of us who looked at Senator Obama's "aye" vote as a fundamental let down in our support. As I have discussed to many of my friends, some who are McCain and former Clinton supporters, we have to be fully aware of how we deal with our own political Alamo. I want to make it very clear. There are several areas of the FISA Amendment of 2008 that are challenges. These challenges will have to be reviewed as FISA has been 3 times over the past seven years under the current Bush Administration. Specifically, the telecommunications loophole, as well as our American families being eavesdrop on when they travel overseas. This was a very burdening decision. Any leader will know that we have to make decisions that are not likeable in order to get the country moving in the right direction. This was a HARD decision that most pundants doubted Senator Obama's could make based on his experience.

Here's the rub. He now has made a decision which can look towards his national diplomacy being tough on terrorism. Senator Obama realizes that we need to have an inclusive American strategy to not only win the election, but to truly put America back on the track of prosperity. Can FISA be reviewed? Absolutely. So the question now becomes this. When did we challenge the other 68 members of the Senate that voted yes on FISA? How about the majority in the House Of Representatives? Life's lesson number 1. We have to look at ourselves in our contact with our elected officials and make sure we have told them that we did not approve of this act signed into law. Get on the phones, and takes some action.

I know that Senator Obama will get his fair share on this issue. However, this was not his Alamo. In order to be in the position to change policy, we must first win the White House. Trust your efforts to getting your elected officials to vote with their constituency. Place a letter in the mail. Send an email. Write a blog. But focus your effort on the task. Senator McCain has been noted by even Senator Feingold as a person who would not revisit FISA. So what's the controversy? Us being able to work to fix things or more of the same? Keep your eyes on the prize today my friends.

FISA was disappointing, but it's time to move on

Disillusioned former member — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:27:35 EDT

I was one of the early joiners of the huge group, Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right.

I'm writing this mainly to my fellow members in that group.

I was disappointed at Obama's shift on this legislation, and I am disappointed in his vote. But that vote has happened.We didn't win on this issue, and there are other issues we won't win on in the future. Probably more than I would like. Despite that, Obama is a decent choice, and a far better choice than any of the alternatives. It's time to get back to working for him.

One of the steady drumbeats on the FISA list is that we should stop donating to the campaign, switch support to McCain or Nader or <anyone but Obama> or stay home. Another steady drumbeat is that Obama has been flip-flopping on lots of issues. So we can't trust him. We should stop donating to the campaign, switch support to McCain or Nader or <anyone but Obama> or stay home. And a third drumbeat is that we should be shocked--SHOCKED--that Obama is operating this way, and therefore we should stop donating to the campaign, switch support to McCain or Nader or <anyone but Obama> or stay home.

That drumbeat is coming from some honestly disappointed people who were honestly Obama supporters. And from other people who were never Obama supporters, who are gleefully here to stir up dissent, whose goal was and continues to be to weaken the Obama campaign. Those people are here to play the rest of us for sucker. We should think carefully about their message before embracing it.

The fact is, Obama wasn't my first choice for Democratic nominee. Gore was. Obama wasn't my second choice. Richardson was, because of his support for a UN Peacekeeping force to relieve our troops in Iraq. Obama wasn't my third choice. Edwards was. Obama wasn't even my fourth choice. Kucinich was.

So, Obama's not my ideal candidate. On the other hand, he is one heckuva fifth choice.

Obama has made it clear, time and time again that he will reach across to find common ground with people he disagrees with. In my experience as a negotiator (I've had a lot of that type of experience), working this way requires you to be willing to shift position. It requires you to make surprising agreements. It requires you to give in on some things, some times, to build relationships that pay off over time. I'm disappointed that Obama shifted position on this issue, and I vocally encouraged him to reconsider that shift, but I can't say that I am shocked that he did it or that he persisted in it.

In an era marked by positional, adversarial negotiation--my way or the highway negotiation--what do you think a "new way" means? More of the same kind of inflexibility?

It's going to be difficult to find ways to work with Republicans--more generally, with a dismayingly large part of our population who want to trade away their (and our) rights, who are willing to tolerate or even cheerlead war crimes, in return for the illusion of slightly more security. It's going to take a lot of flexibility to build trust with those folks and gradually wean them from this sad point of view. I'm not going to enjoy the erratic path that this type of trustbuilding is going to lead us to. I would rather tell those people to [expletives deleted] and more quickly and more completely change course. But it's not clear that my preference would work, given the House and Senate. And it's even clearer that the primary voters rejected the several candidates who promised a leftier position than Obama.

For anyone who is (and all of the folks pretending to be) SHOCKED that Obama is not going to lock himself into inflexible positions, get over it. It's not who he is, not who he has been, and not who he has promised to be.

I've read time and again about Obama's willingness to embrace incremental improvements. Reasonable people can differ about whether the revised FISA was an improvement. I did not see it that way, but I can easily believe that Obama honestly considered it one. I expect that he will endorse plenty of other incremental improvements in the future that don't go as far as I would like and that don't reach his publicized negotiating position. Over the long term, this adds up to a lot of improvement. Over the short term, it is often frustrating. But it should not shock us. And it should not distract us from the direction--improvement. And it should not make us easy prey for the crowd who want more war crimes, less health care, an oil-company dominated energy plan, ongoing incompetence in critical government services, minimal expenditure on infrastructure, an even more active assault on our constitutional rights and an even further-right Supreme Court.

The big drumbeat from the McCain crowd these days is the story that Obama has flipflopflipflopflipflopped on a whole pile of issues. I agree that he changed position on FISA. But as far as I can tell, he has not changed position on anything else. The faith-based initiative is a great example. Republicans are taking a lot of credit for this one, and the press has been giving them a lot of support in that misrepresentation, but the actual proposal being made by Obama doesn't look anything like Bush's program and it is very consistent with Obama's history.

Especially coming from the McCain camp, whose candidate has blatantly shifted position, in big ways, time after time, these attempts to brand Obama a flipflopper should be laughable. To the extent that our people are falling for this stuff, this propaganda is very, very sad.

- Cem Kaner

Obama FISA Vote

John from Princeton, IN — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:40:55 EDT

Maybe some of you think that a candicate that votes tto spy on US Sovereigns is a worthy candidate for President of the United States. I encourage you to think again.

If we don't demand our candidate respect us on the important issues how will we get respect one the candidate is elected and set for life with a lifetime of health care and yet another book deal as a former President.

Wake Up, Wise Up, Word Up

Trust,...a vanishing commodity!

Stephen Kastner — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:23:28 EDT

"If I can’t trust a self-described constitutional scholar to defend basic constitutional principles, even with a vote on the losing side of a constitutional issue, how can I trust him with (for example) future Supreme Court nominations? After today, I can’t," says Richard Blair. Here's more:

I know that Obama’s FISA vote won’t mean a thing to his hard core supporters. They’ll make excuses the same way that George W. Bush’s sycophants make excuses for him. “Oh, he had to vote this way, or the GOP would paint him as soft on national security.”
The bottom line is that there is political reality, and then there is principle. Barack Obama has billed himself as a new breed of politician who will stand up on principle. It should be clear today that he’s reneged on that promise. He’s been revealed as an old school politico, who sticks his finger in the wind to see which way it’s blowing.
The character assassination of John Kerry as a “flip flopper” in 2004 was largely a product of the GOP noise machine. The abandonment of principle in 2008 by Barack Obama, in the middle of an election fight, is the true embodiment of the charge.

Anger over Obama's support for FISA

Carlos from Long Beach, CA — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:12:33 EDT

SHAME ON YOU!

I can't believe that Sen. Obama has willfully violated the protections enshrined in the Constitution by voting for the FISA bill. Sen Obama earlier had promised to work against this bill.

Actions speak louder than words.

Whence Redress of Grievances?

Robert from San Francisco, CA — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:11:41 EDT

Let me start by quoting the most promising presidential candidate I have seen run in my lifetime:

[The FISA Bill] grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses.

You need go no further than that. "... removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses." Allow me to rephrase that: "... removes an important tool for the American people to petition the government for a redress of grievances." We The People have a right to petition. This legislation infringes that right. Everyone who voted in favor has broken their oath of office.

Everyone who voted in favor violated their oath of office to defend The Constitution, and to preserve the right of We The People to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Sixty-nine Senators, in a single vote, violated their oath of office to defend our right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I have spent the last three hours trying to write this post. I still don't know what to say next. Help me understand. How could sixty-nine patriotic, educated, well-intentioned, men and women do this to our nation? How did we come to this? How do we set it right? How are we supposed to react?

A few thoughts on the FISA vote

Jen G. In St. Louis — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:37:27 EDT

I've read several blogs on this site talking about how Senator Obama has lost supporters because of his recent vote on the FISA legislation. I respect those who care passionately -- as I do -- about the grave violations of the basic rights upon which our country was founded. I understand their reaction to the recent vote of "yes" on anything that extends the warrantless invasions of Americans' privacy while also granting immunity to the telecom companies that colluded with the Bush Administration. And I am saddened by the decision by some not to support Sen. Obama any further because of this vote.

I think that Sen. Obama's statement to his supporters who disagree with him is important, and though I disagree with the Senator on this legislation, I believe in the America he has envisioned, in which intelligent, compassionate people can come together to discuss important issues and respectfully disagree. I believe that a vote for Sen. Obama is a vote for a new kind of politics, in which dialogue not just tolerated, but expected, nurtured, and valued. Our need for a return to civil, intelligent dialogue about the pressing issues of our day trumps any particular vote in my book -- because it opens the door to multiple voices, and creates potential for real change to occur in American policy.

Are we being heard? The echo is deafening.

David Rothmiller — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:34:41 EDT

OK - so we made our statements about FISA. Are we foot soldiers of Hope - or are we camp followers?

I believe that with an issue as galvanizing as the FISA vote - we deserve a forum that is acknowledged. Sen. Obama, can you hear us?

Sen. Obama asks of us "...to believe."

We are asking you, Sen. Obama, to answer.

We will listen.