It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at NoQuarter and many other blogsites to do the research on Barack Obama that the media, the democratic national committee, and our Congress should have done.   Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to make a difference in this election,  for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda, and the startling depth of his secrecy. 

Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth,  explosiveness, nor unpredictability of this phenomenon we have all witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama!   We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water or running away to avoid the explosion….

While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosion change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America.  We can use the  2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.

The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.

FOUR QUESTIONS 

I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country.  By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.

These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and existing judgments)before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond to them by December 1, 2008.  

While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter granted the writ of certiorari.  Even if, as some have said, Souter’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution and will determine if the Supreme Court decides to hear the case.

In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg and the questions raised in the case should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”.   The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.

The questions presented for review are:

1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candiate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibiity of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?

 The “questions presented for review” in the the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate,  but to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.  

Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed argue that (1)a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified.  It is also possible Obama would argue that the 14th Amendment permits “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” to be known as “American citizens” and thereby satisfies the requirements of Article II.

I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not release his COLB, citizenship records, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.”  He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond to that? 

If Obama responds in any other way, he will be forced to disclose and or describe why, how, and what steps citizens can take to assure the POTUS’s  eligibility, and perhaps then he may be forced prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II. Alternatively he could be forced to concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS.  Would the Supreme Court order him then to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?

One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure eligibility.  One would assume procedurally that “checks and balances” could mean legislative processes, acts, bills, or resolutions that would act as those “checks and balances”.  Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution passed by Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies.  This resolution could be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS.  In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill).

Justice Souter will then hear Berg’s response to Obama’s legal argument before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will take the issue up.  Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter granted the writ of certioriari.

How does the Supreme Court react?  Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the FEC, electors, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures?  Will they say that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?

And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama?  Is it up to your empoyer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation?  Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America?

Implications for the Future

The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more, and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s intentions in the next four years.

Just my suspician, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework.  I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures”.

As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions.  The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility.  I doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the constitution.

It appears that up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications.  We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution.  Looks like our age of innocence is over.

It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.  If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, wherein 75% of the states have to ratify.

The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong.  Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy or provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates.  Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud,  the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”.  I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”.  We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.

What is next for our country?  Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, we’d better start creating an alternative vision.  A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:

“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…”

*Photo Credits: (1)”Predictor”, EENR, Yellowstone National Park 2003. (2)British Columbia photo stock

It’s clear to many Democrats that a radical clique has taken control of the Party. Democratic ideals once held to be sacrosanct, including freedom of speech, one person one vote, and an intolerance of sexism have been violently pushed aside for the benefit of Obama. The media drumbeat for Obama is incessant; the media has even stopped pretending to be neutral. We’re seeing the country through Alice’s Looking Glass now and everything is upside-down and backwards. In an effort to save our Party and country, many Democrats are actively working to defeat Obama.

In 1980, the last Japanese soldier of World War Two, Captain Fumio Nakahira, was discovered on Mt. Halcon, Mindoro Island, Philippines. During the previous 35 years, Captain Nakahira had survived alone, serving his Emperor and believing that the War had not yet ended. (This was 15 years after the Gilligan’s Island episode).

Captain Nakahira comes to mind when I think about the thousands of disaffected and disillusioned Democrats across the country who will not be voting for Obama. If Obama is elected despite our efforts to defeat him, it will codify for a generation the Chicago corruption, race-baiting, and misogyny practiced by Obama and his minions; tactics which caused many of to leave the Party. And Obama’s race-baiting, misogynistic thugs will say: Good riddance!

Camping out on our own private Mt. Halcons, many thousands of men and women will remain committed to the causes which brought us to the Democratic Party in the first place. We won’t stop being concerned about sexism, race relations, economic opportunity, and national security.

It’s now dawning on Republicans and independents that a creeping totalitarianism is sweeping the country. Obama’s Truth Squads use the power of the state to stifle free expression, McCain supporters are jeered in public, and Obama’s shock troops — in a form of hate speech so ugly that it can only be described as a pogrom against women — wear clothing which declares that the Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, is a “cunt.” Sexual terrorism is the new form of Left-wing Kristallnacht.

Where did this come from?

The ecstatic mania of Obama’s supporters comes from many places, and I don’t pretend to understand all of the sources. Many who support Obama are low-information liberals, do-good progressives, proud African Americans, and fed-up independents. I can’t blame these groups; the Bush Administration has been a disaster. There is, however, a core group of Obama supporters who believe that the Senator from Illinois will bring revolutionary change. And their desire for the revolution is all-consuming and any tactic is considered fair game: caucus fraud, sexism, race-baiting, voter intimidation, online smear campaigns, sexual terrorism, and voter fraud. Anything to win.

I hold Obama accountable for the tone of this campaign and the actions of his supporters. From “hoodwink and bamboozled” to his “lipstick on a pig,” Obama’s sexist double-speak and race-baiting innuendos have unleashed something very ugly into the ether. Obama has given his supporters the tacit encouragement to cross lines of acceptable discourse in order to destroy his political opponents. In the Obama world, Bill Clinton is a racist, Hillary is a bitch, Sarah Palin is a cunt, and John McCain is erratic and senile. I fully expect that an Obama Administration, like all recent Administrations, will continue in campaign mode and I expect these tactics to continue. This was the reason, to borrow a phrase, that we sought to fumigate our Party.

Like many of you, I won’t have anything to do with Obama or his party. Obama’s tactics go against the reason I was a Democrat and no pleas and no threats will force me to give up my principles. Above my computer I have postcards with the images of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy; my Hillary poster is in the corner and remains unframed.

Sarah Palin has become my new hero. While I don’t agree with some of her political positions, I love that she is unapologetically herself. And she is a REAL feminist, representing many of us who don’t toe the line of some definition of what that is. The so-called “progressives,” men and women alike, don’t approve of anyone diverging from their definitions. Like me, Palin could care less what they think. From her interview with Curic:

I’m a feminist who believes in equal rights and I believe that women certainly today have every opportunity that a man has to succeed and to try to do it all anyways…[A feminist is] someone who would not stand for oppression against women.

I like that definition. I like it because I am a lifetime radical feminist who believes that real feminism is not about receiving the approval from a misogynist like Andrew Sullivan, but rather about women living full and free and authentic lives. I may disagree with Palin on some matters of policy, but I agree with her that feminism is about the existential choices women make for themselves. It’s all about freedom: women can stay home or work, get married or have a partner, take their husband’s name or keep their own, have children or not, run for office or run corporations, be a Democrat or a Republican. Feminism is freedom and it dovetails perfectly with American freedom.

I love listening to Palin calling out the Poster Boy of Male Privilege, Obama, for his lies and omissions, and she does it with relish. WaPo quotes Palin:

Okay, so, Florida, you know that you’re going to have to hang on to your hats, because from now until Election Day, it may get kind of rough.

And while the Democrats and the main stream media attack her for everything from her mothering to her idiomatic, “Joe six pack” speech, The Barracuda flexes her muscles and says:

“For me, the heels are on, the gloves are off”

Sharpening her attacks against Obama’s lack of support for our troops, she has the audacity to speak the truth:

Obama doesn’t like American soldiers. He said that our troops in Afghanistan are just, quote, ‘air-raiding villages and killing civilians’

Palin continues to hammer home Obama’s close association with unrepentant domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers:

Obama held one of the first meetings of his political career in Bill Ayers’s living room, and they’ve worked together on various projects in Chicago. These are the same guys who think that patriotism is paying higher taxes — remember that’s what Joe Biden had said. “And I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America, as the greatest force for good in the world. I’m afraid this is someone who sees America as ‘imperfect enough’ to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country.

You can see this speech in a post by SusanUnPc, which also includes Paul Villareal’s videos.

I love Sarah because she’s one of us. As Truthteller documented, like us, she’s been accused of racism for daring to criticize Dear Leader. She’s been accused of being a hick, a barbie, a pig with lipstick, and in Ani’s post about the misogyny that has welcomed her onto the national stage, Palin has even been called “disabled.” The insults range from the horrendous to the ridiculous, as in NewHampster’s post about the extreme closeup designed to expose Palin’s wrinkles. The list goes on and on.

In a brilliant post, feminist writer Dr. Violet Socks suggests that the attacks on Palin from women are sycophantic acts to gain favor with the “liberal,” male power structure:

Whenever women in a patriarchal society buck male opinion, there’s hell to pay and they know it. Women in America really went out on a limb this year by backing Hillary in the face of withering derision from men (and from young women attempting to curry favor with men, consciously or not). Now they’re making amends by piling on Palin.

Ridiculing Sarah Palin as a moron — which she clearly is not — is de rigueur for everybody now in the Obama camp. It’s their preferred sport. It’s true that Palin is verbally awkward in interviews, but then, Obama himself is a man whose unscripted remarks are so confused they defy belief. A teleprompter-deprived Obama thinks there are 57 states in the Union, believes Oregon is in the Great Lakes region, doesn’t know which states border his own state of Illinois, and has no idea which Senate committees he’s on.

But still: people always make fun of their political opponents, and they’re rarely fair about it. What interests me about the Palin attacks is their vigor. To a large extent, it’s a continuation of the misogyny that is such an integral part of the Obama movement: from the campaign itself, from the media collaborators, from the male supporters, from the self-loathing young female supporters.

Typical of liberal sexism, PBS’s program NOW has a poll asking if Palin is qualified to serve as vice president, although Palin has more executive experience than any of the three male candidates, their names are conspicuously absent. Why the question is not asked of Obama, a man who was in the senate for 143 days prior to running for president (and before that a part-time state senator) just shows the incredible bias against women who seek power. Vote in the poll here.

The sexists attacks on Palin are the same sexists attacks on Hillary, and from the same sordid cast of characters: Obama, Sullivan, MoDo, Josh Marshall, Chris Matthews, et al. An Obama victory will codify sexism in the media and Democratic Party for a generation. That’s why I can disagree with Palin and oppose Obama.

When asked in an interview what attacks on her REALLY get to her–which ones wake her up at night–Palin just laughed and said something like, none, that it comes with the territory. But then she paused and looking deadly serious for an instant and said that the attacks against her children got to her and brought out her “mama bear.”

Pit Bulls can do serious damage, but if you get between a mama bear and her cubs, you’re lunch.

(You can watch the two-part interview at the Patriot Room linked here.)

As Americans, we expect certain liberties and rights that were granted us by our forefathers, who wrote documents like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. “We the people” expect that these fundamental rights will always be protected. However, in the current Democratic Presidential Primary, this has not been the case. We believe that the The Democratic National Committee (DNC) made a grave error by depriving American voters of their choice of Hillary Clinton as Democratic nominee. Senator Clinton, by all accounts, except caucuses, won the Primary Election and, therefore, should be the 2008 Democratic Nominee. That didn’t happen, due largely to illegitimate and illegal acts. We have interviews of many accounts from caucus states recounting threats, intimidation, lies, stolen documents, falsified documents, busing in voters in exchange for paying for “dinners,” etc. There are at least 2000 complaints, in Texas alone, of irregularities directed towards the Obama Campaign, that have lead to a very fractured and broken Democratic Party.

The preview, all 33 minutes of it, is compelling. In essence, it is a visual companion to the work of Dr. Lynette Long at Caucus Fraud and Peniel Cronin on Primaries and Caucuses (which will appear at NQ shortly). In short, it is disturbing not just how this happened, but THAT it happened in our country.

I invite you to watch the preview to this documentary, about which the authors said this:

This documentary is about the disenfranchising of American citizens by the Democratic Party and the Obama Campaign. We the People have made this film. Democrats have sent in their stories from all parts of America. We want to be heard and let the country know how our party has sanctioned the actions of what we feel are Obama campaign “Chicago Machine” dirty politics. We believe this infamous campaign of “change” from Chicago encouraged and created an army to steal caucus packets, falsify documents, change results, allow unregistered people to vote, scare and intimidate Hillary supporters, stalk them, threaten them, lock them out of their polling places, silence their voices and stop their right to vote, which is, of course, all documented in “We Will Not Be Silenced.”

This documentary contains powerful, important information. I urge you to spread the word however you are able. Now is the time.

To view, CLICK HERE.

My deepest thanks to all of those at “We Will Not Be Silenced” for your commitment to democracy, to the rights of Americans, all Americans, to vote. Thank you for your courage and integrity in getting this critical information out. And thank you for bringing the voices of these Americans out for us all to witness

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”–Barrack Obama/June 2008

Yup, the Democratic National Committee has outdone themselves with their preparations for their upcoming National Convention in a few weeks. They thought of everything… balloons, barbed wire cages, confetti, stun guns, and those funny hats we all love to see! The Convention will also have lot of speeches extolling the lofty visions of civil rights and personal liberties the Democratic party is so fond of protecting, you know, liberties like free speech, the right to protest, that kind warm and fuzzy democracy stuff. My heart just swells with pride when I read this stuff on their blog:
& lt;h3>The Democratic Vision
The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.

Civil Rights

On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.

The Party Platform

The Democratic Party has a long and proud history of representing and protecting the interests of working Americans and guaranteeing personal liberties for all. One of the places we articulate our beliefs is in the Party’s National Platform, adopted every four years by the Delegates at the National Convention.

Wait…did someone say something about stun guns and cages? No, that can’t be…not the party of freedom and liberty!

The problem is, old Howie didn’t think this through…he didn’t think that rounding up hundreds or thousands of protesters and throwing them in a barbed wire cage in a warehouse on the outskirts of town might not be the message they want to send to those wanting to donate to their party . Not to mention, it goes against all those so-called principals and “visions” of theirs. He also didn’t think his dirty little secret about these cages would be made public.

Damned reporters! Damned free speech!

Not to worry, Howard Dean has this all figured out, he’ll let the Denver Police handle this. They will be passing out flyer’s to all the protesters so they can be told of their rights. So, there ya go! The pretty little piece of paper says we DO have rights to protest! Ain’t America great?

YOUR RIGHTS TO DEMONSTRATE AND PROTEST

Can my free speech rights be restricted
because of what I want to say – even if it’s
controversial ?

No. The First Amendment prohibits
restrictions based on the content of speech.
Police and government officials are allowed
to place non-discriminatory and narrowly
drawn “time, place and manner” restrictions
on the exercise of First Amendment rights.

Where can I engage in free speech activity?

Generally, all types of expression are
constitutionally protected in traditional
“public forums” such as public sidewalks
and parks. Public streets can be used for
marches subject to compliance with the
City’s permitting process.

Where can you engage in free speech activity? Anywhere you want as long as you freely state that you are going to vote for Obama, otherwise…get in the cage until you’re ready to act like an American, dammit!

Let’s see what other rights the demonstrators will have….

What other types of free speech activity are
constitutionally protected?

The First Amendment can, under certain
circumstances, protect communication such
as theater, music, film and dance. Symbolic
acts and civil disobedience that involve
illegal conduct may be outside the realm of
constitutional protection and may lead to
0Acitation and/or arrest. This may include, but
is not limited to, blocking streets, sidewalks
or parades or disrupting public assemblies.

Hmmm…so it sounds like a large group of people protesting could not be on the streets or the sidewalks or they can given a citation/and or arrest. So, they have two choices. They can either levitate so they’re not on the streets or sidewalks, or come wearing costumes and tell the cops they’re doing street theater.

Can I be cited or arrested during a

demonstration?

Yes, if you engage in unlawful behavior
including, but not limited to, such as
blocking streets, sidewalks or parades,
disrupting public assemblies or ignoring
lawful orders to disperse.

Okey-Dokey, so unlawful behavior is defined as blocking streets…check, sidewalks or parades…check, disrupting public assemblies…check, or ignoring lawful order to disperse…check. I’ve got it now. Let’s not forget the vague text that arrest is not limited to just that, they can also arrest you if you look like you aren’t “unified” with the DNC. In other words, you have no civil liberties in the eyes of the Denver Police or in the eyes of Howard Dean, Barrack Obama, Donna Brazille, or Nancy Pelosi. Check and double check.

The American Civil Liberties Union seemed to be a bit dismayed. They want to know where the bathrooms are, will the “prisoners” have something to eat or drink (they were not told how long they will hold the protesters in these barbed wire cages), will they have access to their lawyers, and will they have telephones? Details….details, who needs details when you have flyer’s, police in riot gear, and barbed wire cages?

“They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That’s* the *Chicago* way!”-The Untouchables/1987

NOTES ABOUT THE DNC: It seems that after Obama took over the DNC and got his hands on their mailing list, he sent out an e-mail telling Democrats to give to his campaign and not the DNC. Well, since he decided that he didn’t want their public funding, they are now virtually broke. The money they have will barely cover the payroll and a few field advisor’s. There will not be enough cash to be able to fund thousands of field offices, like they have in the past. Ooops! Larry Johnson has a post that tells you all about it.

More bad news for the DNC….

Sen. John McCain has so much spare cash on hand — he collected a record $27 million in July — that the Republican candidate plans to run campaign ads during the networks’ coverage of the Democratic National Convention later this month.

Because Mr. McCain has agreed to accept $84 million in public financing for the general election, the presumptive presidential nominee has only until Sept. 4, when he accepts his party’s nomination, to spend the more than $21 million he has on hand.

“We continue to have record months of fundraising. This is now the fifth month in a row that we have exceeded the month before,” said McCain campaign manager Rick Davis. The candidate’s advertising budget for August is expected to exceed $20 million, he said, and, by the Republican convention, Mr. McCain is on track to spend some $60 million on TV advertising during the whole primary campaign.

Hat tip to Pat Racimora of No Quarter for the info on the Denver Police flyer.

Another hat tip to Uppity Woman who also wrote about Gitmo on the Platte, her blog is always chock full of up to the moment news about this election.

(NOTE: I’m sorry, but due to a family emergency, I will not be here to respond to your comments, please forgive my absence and thank you for reading my post!)

Mr. Hedges emphasizes a critical component I mentioned in a previous piece, but from the perspective of a world-class journalist. He writes:

If the sweeping surveillance law signed by President Bush on Thursday — giving the U.S. government nearly unchecked authority to eavesdrop on the phone calls and e-mails of innocent Americans — is allowed to stand, we will have eroded one of the most important bulwarks to a free press and an open society.

In order for a free press to operate effectively, it has to be able to assure its sources that their identities will be protected. Otherwise, why would they risk their livelihoods, their homes, their families, possibly their very lives, to share information? And no, I am not over-stating the case here. Mr. Hedges, for 20 years, worked for the New York Times as a foreign correspondent, doing much of his work in the Middle East, and knows exactly the potential ramifications of which he writes. One important aspect that I had not even considered was this:

The law, passed under the guise of national security, ostensibly targets people outside the country. There is no question, however, that it will ensnare many communications between Americans and those overseas. Those communications can be stored indefinitely and disseminated, not just to the U.S. government but to other governments.

This law will cripple the work of those of us who as reporters communicate regularly with people overseas, especially those in the Middle East. It will intimidate dissidents, human rights activists and courageous officials who seek to expose the lies of our government or governments allied with ours. It will hang like the sword of Damocles over all who dare to defy the official versions of events. It leaves open the possibility of retribution and invites the potential for abuse by those whose concern is not with national security but with the consolidation of their own power.

(Emphasis Mine) I admit - it had not even occurred to me that the US government might be concerned about information about ITS actions, not just the actions of others. That adds a whole other layer to this unconstitutional law - that the US Government can use it to make sure we do not find out what the government is doing in our name.

With the passage of this new law, we are facing a dangerously slippery slope. What other rights will be taken from us? When they are taken, what is our recourse? Mr. Hedges writes:

I have joined an ACLU lawsuit challenging the new law along with other journalists, human rights organizations and defense attorneys who also rely on confidentiality to do their work. I have joined not only because this law takes aim at my work but because I believe it signals a serious erosion of safeguards that make possible our democratic state. Laws and their just application are the only protection we have as citizens. Once the law is changed to permit the impermissible, we have no recourse with which to fight back.

Exactly. We will have no recourse for actions taken against us by our own government if our rights have been systematically stripped from us.

Now, I am just sitting here in the comfort of my own home, and when I write, I refer to articles written by people like Mr. Hedges, a journalist who has gone to where the stories are. In fact, I rely upon these journalists for accurate information, with verified sources. Again, I had not considered some of the more insidious ways in which this new law affects ALL of us:

The reach of such surveillance has already hampered my work. I was once told about a showdown between a U.S. warship and the Iranian navy that had the potential to escalate into a military conflict. I contacted someone who was on the ship at the time of the alleged incident and who reportedly had photos. His first question was whether my phone and e-mails were being monitored.

What could I say? How could I know? I offered to travel to see him but, frightened of retribution, he refused. I do not know if the man’s story is true. I only know that the fear of surveillance made it impossible for me to determine its veracity. Under this law, all those who hold information that could embarrass and expose the lies of those in power will have similar fears. Confidentiality, and the understanding that as a reporter I will honor this confidentiality, permits a free press to function. Take it away and a free press withers and dies.

And that’s just it - if reporters cannot do their jobs, if they cannot dig for the information we need to have in order to make well informed decisions, in order to maintain checks and balances with our government, in order to protect ourselves, in order to determine who is best to represent us, in order to expose human rights violations, in order to expose wrong doing by our government or another - we need a free press, a press that can assure its sources that their confidentiality is protected. And now, we can no longer do that.

In the recent post I wrote on FISA, I included a juxtaposition by Andrew Sullivan on why he supports the new law on FISA, yet objects to torture. I, personally, thought it was a false distinction. Chris Hedges agrees with me:

I know the cost of terrorism and the consequences of war. I have investigated Al Qaeda’s operation in Europe and have covered numerous conflicts. The monitoring of suspected terrorists, with proper oversight, is a crucial part of our national security. But this law is not about keeping us safe, which can — and should — be done in a constitutional manner and with judicial oversight. It is about using terrorism as a pretext to permit wholesale spying and to silence voices that will allow us to maintain an open society.

Exactly. It highlights the attempts by people like Andrew Sullivan (who was just shilling for Obama to give him an excuse for throwing any semblance of integrity, or respect for the Bill of Rights, aside) to justify this erosion of our rights as a necessary evil for National Security as the baseless argument it is. Chris Hedges knows better. He’s been in the trenches, and he knows first hand the negative effects of silencing informants. He knows that when our right to privacy is taken away, when our phone calls and emails can be monitored without our knowledge, that we will no longer get the full story, that people will not take the risks necessary to expose our government, or other governments, when they engage in illegal activities. Mr. Hedges knows that eroding our civil liberties by monitoring our speech will mean less speech, less oversight, less accountability, and more repression. And that is simply unacceptable, simply UNCONSTITUTIONAL, for the United States of America.

I’ve been touched by the “bluesman from Chicago.” I’ve been inspired by the “new synthetic mythology for a new kind of knowledge culture” which, the author writes, “may be the most powerful remobilization of historical and contemporary perspectives since the Popular Front movement of the 1930’s.”

Deeds and accomplishments — like hard work — are so yesterday. It is time to believe. Because, these great minds tell us, that is all we NEED TO DO!

You see, before tonight, I did not know this:

In many ways, [Obama's] language recalls that of Walt Whitman whose Leaves of Grass sought to develop a synthetic construction of what America was like as a nation, linking together a range of individual experiences, memories, perspectives, sense impressions, to create a vision of the nation as one big organism. . .

A GIANT ORGANISM! That’s what I’ve really been yearning for! And that was written by an M.I.T. professor (and that’s his photo, and he looks very intellectual!), so it must be true.

Today, I discovered all of this:

… followers willing to wait for hours on end to hear him speak have been crowding out huge concert halls and sports arenas to get a glimpse of their new progressive avatar and drive long distances to obtain the Obama darshan or to simply be in his presence. One can just imagine what the peace and flower-power concerts in the 60’s might have been like. Many even see in Obama a messiah-like figure, a great soul, and some affectionately call him Mahatma Obama. Clearly, people are hungry for a change and want an inspirational leader who can serve up some hearty ‘chicken soup for the soul’. …

Like the Mahatma [Gandhi], Obama is becoming a global symbol of the ‘hopes and dreams’ of millions around the world. Those who look up to the American ideals, consume American media, and dream American dreams are tuned into this historic election. While Gandhi marked the end of the colonial era, Obama with his multicultural background and upbringing represents the age of globalization. Obama is in an unprecedented historical position to not only be the first African American president, but the first ‘global president’ of America. Obama’s images on T-shirts, magazine covers, and TV screens around the world may be a harbinger of the next American century, if the American people are willing and able to lead it.

Obama’s Satyagraha: Or, Did Obama Swallow the Mahatma?. June 27, 2008. (Dinesh Sharma is a marketing science consultant with a PhD in Psychology from Harvard).

::::::::

There was much more that I discovered on the night of February 21st, preserved in the original, “The Choice (But I’ve Been Touched),” including more from MIT professor Jenkins’ “Obama and the ‘We’ Generation.”

Cynics might say the youthful hordes are actually part of the “‘Me’ Generation.”

Then I quoted writer and jazz expert Stanley Crouch:

“Out of One, Many Rise to Believe Again”

Opponents want to dismiss that optimism as “false hope” because they think - or pretend to think - that Barack Obama represents no more than a charismatic political slogan that has even less value than one of the worthless products brilliantly hawked around the clock throughout our media.

Barack Obama is actually a bluesman from Chicago whose big stage is not in a nightclub or a concert hall but the huge national podium on which politics are argued. Obama knows that the blues always present the unvarnished problem and provide a solution through the rhythms and tones of engagement. It is, as the writer Albert Murray has observed, a music of confrontation, and it is presented in what amounts to a purification ritual.

Stanley Crouch, NY Daily News February 18, 2008

Obama is a bluesman! He’s creating a “music of confrontation.” And that’s a “purification ritual.”

I get it now!

Don’t you???

Eric Hoffer’s book The True Believer, which was on the summer reading list sent out by my university before my freshman year, and which we discussed in seminars during our first week at the university, had a powerful influence on me and left me wary the rest of my life of any mass movement.

I believe that, if Hoffer were alive today, he would be alarmed by the “authoritarian leftists” described so brilliantly by Steve Diamond, the Santa Clara law professor who writes for No Quarter. Professor Diamond has identified several “authoritarian leftists” who have been longtime associates of Barack Obama and have influenced his politics.

Beyond Professor Diamond’s examples of Bill Ayers and Mike Klonsky as “authoritarian leftists” are many of Obama’s followers — whose cult-like, thuggish behavior was witnessed by thousands at caucuses and rallies — and on the Internet at blogs such as Daily Kos. Amusingly, both the Obama followers and the “Kossacks” fancy themselves as protectors of free speech and civil liberties, and decry the conservatives and Republicans as “authoritarian.” Yet it is they who march in lockstep just as rigidly as any rightwinger ever has.

And it is these “authoritarian leftists” who approved of the most undemocratic behavior: swarming caucuses and overwhelming Democratic party staffers who were unable to or simply didn’t bother to verify that the Obama followers were registered voters in the precinct caucuses in which they were voting.

Beneath the rapturous adulation and self-righteousness of Barack Obama’s typical follower is an insecure human being who seeks rigid adherence to a group. The Wikipedia entry on Eric Hoffer’s views offers this interesting summary:

A core principle in the book is Hoffer’s insight that mass movements are interchangeable; he notes fanatical Nazis later becoming fanatical Communists, fanatical Communists later becoming fanatical anti-Communists, and Saul, persecutor of Christians, becoming Paul, a fanatical Christian himself. For the true believer the substance of the mass movement isn’t so important as that he or she is part of that movement.

This description helps to explain why so many Kossacks attacked the blog founder Markos (”Kos”) Moulitsas when he announced he was withholding his $2,300 donation to Obama’s presidential campaign because of his dismay with Obama’s backpedaling on FISA, public financing, and more. Kos titled his essay, “Rewarding good behavior.”

it is an oddity that a somewhat independently-minded person has attracted an audience that is drawn to cult-like adoration of certain politicians such as Barack Obama.

But, as any supporter of Hillary Clinton who dared write at Daily Kos can tell you, one was met with the most vicious attacks for questioning support for “The One.”

It is criminal — to my mind — that professors at MIT and others educated at elite educational institutions are promoting this mindless adulation with rhapsodic prose that, frankly, leaves me in a fit of giggles because it’s so over the top and nonsensical.

Thankfully, most Americans are not so easily enraptured by any politician, at least for long.

Let us hope that, before the end of August, enough Democratic party delegates to the national convention come to their senses and realize that the Obama mania is on the wane, and that a truly qualified and experienced candidate is required in order to defeat John McCain in November.

On July 3, Barack Obama revealed once and for all that he has run a fraudulent campaign in his attempt to secure the Democratic nomination for President. The foundation of Obama’s campaign had been his claim that he was the anti-war alternative in his opposition to Bush’s war in Iraq.
 
Now, in a North Dakota campaign event, Obama has declared that he will consult with the generals and “refine his position” on the Iraq war. The Washington Post headlined: “Obama May Consider Slowing Iraq Withdrawal.” But the real message is clear: Obama is moving rapidly away from his earlier 11-month or 16-month timetables for withdrawal and towards full support for endless war, conflict, violence, and bankruptcy in Iraq.
 
Samantha Power had confessed Obama’s doubletalk on Iraq months ago. The handwriting is now on the wall: Obama will soon go to Iraq, meet with General Petraeus, and then announce his Baghdad road conversion to a policy of open-ended military occupation, oblivious to the immense human costs.
 
Soon there will be no difference at all between Obama and McCain on the Iraq war, and the Democratic Party will have missed yet another historic opportunity to help the American people end Bush’s and Cheney’s failed Neo-Conservative policies. McCain is exploiting Obama’s radical shifts in position as examples that Obama has no principles, but only opportunism and expediency, and that his much-touted soaring words mean absolutely nothing.

We Democrats now have our last chance to reflect: do we really want to give our nomination to this little-known newcomer who solicited support as a peace advocate, but has now unmasked himself as being a candidate with positions closer to McCain on Iraq?

OBAMA BETRAYS DEMOCRATS ON FISA, NAFTA, CAMPAIGN FINANCE, THE DEATH PENALTY, AND MUCH MORE

From the instant that he felt that the Democratic nomination was in his hands, Obama has moved relentlessly to the right in a breathtaking, stunning exhibition of cynicism, duplicity, and fraudulent campaigning. Everything he stood for has been thrown overboard, and Obama has broken his verbal contract with his own core voters and donors.
 
Obama promised to stop Bush’s assault on the Constitution and civil liberties, and end illegal wiretapping. Now, Obama will vote for the Republican leaning compromise on the FISA bill, including immunity for the telecoms – something only yesterday he promised the Democrats who supported him he would filibuster.
 
Obama raised money from grassroots Democrats on the premise that their small donations would allow him to be free of the corrupting influence of big money, big business, and special interests, but he has now broken his promise by opting out of public financing for his fall campaign, junking the cause of political reform he claimed to champion.
 
In Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama posed as a critic of free trade sellouts like NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO, specifically telling voters that voting for Hillary Clinton would be voting to support NAFTA. Now Obama has told Fortune magazine that he is a great friend of free trade and the “market.”
 
Obama now openly supports the death penalty, more of Bush’s faith-based theocratic subsidies, and the “merit pay” assault on teachers. He wants to cut the corporate income tax, and he now opposes attempts to curb hand gun violence.
 
In a most glaring betrayal to his contract with the Democratic base, Obama’s current team of economic advisers suggests that he will soon come out for the partial privatization of Social Security, camouflaged as “entitlement reform.”
 
In short, Obama intends to betray not just his own basic commitments, but the historical foundations of the Democratic Party going back to Franklin D. Roosevelt. The modern Democratic Party was built on the New Deal Democrats, a party of shared responsibility, and a contract to be the voice and champion of working class Americans.
 
Obama’s “new coalition” dismantles the REAL Democratic Party and replaces it with an elite party of Neo-Liberals, stealing the mantle of FDR.

SENATOR CLINTON MUST BE OUR NOMINEE

DEMOCRATS DID NOT VOTE FOR THE OBAMA WHO HAS BEEN

RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AFTER JUNE 3RD

If Obama imitates McCain on so many issues, the November election will come down to a choice between two individuals, and a fraudulent Obama will not fare well against war hero McCain, who is seen by voters as a straight shooter.
 
McCain will point out that voters cannot trust the disingenuous Obama, and on that, McCain will be correct. Fortunately, Obama has tipped his hand by dropping his mask too soon: there is no Democratic nominee until the Roll Call of the States on August 27, 2008 in Denver.
 
We are not calling for some futile and self-defeating gesture – we are pointing to the path that leads to victory.
 
With Senator Clinton, we have a superior, battle-tested, and winning candidate who is waiting in the wings, ready, and willing to take over. Clinton would be a reliable leader on the issues that have built the Democratic Party.  She has stood firm on her positions — past and present — even when it is not politically expedient. 

The lesson is clear: the Democratic Party cannot win back the White House without the support of the New Deal Democratic base and their ideals.
 
The Democratic Convention in Denver must put forth a candidate that represents the values of the Party of FDR and that will win the hearts, minds, and votes of Democrats in November.
 
The Barack Obama running after June 3rd is not that candidate.
 
We must have an open convention in Denver — not a thoughtless coronation — so that we can seriously deliberate the far-reaching choices the party must make in this time of war and economic depression.

175 PATRIOTS CAN SAVE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
BY NOMINATING THE TRUER DEMOCRAT

The fate of the United States — and the future of the Democratic Party – now rests with a minimum of 175 Democratic delegates who must now exercise their mature political judgment in the service of their country, and turn away from Obama to support Senator Clinton.
 
As of now, Obama has about 2229.5 delegate votes, with 1766.5 pledged delegates and 463 super delegates.
 
Clinton has 1896.5 delegate votes, with 1639.5 pledged and 257 super delegates.
 
Shift just 175 delegates from Obama to Clinton, and Obama’s power grab comes to a halt.
 
There must be no nomination of Obama on the first ballot. Once Obama has failed to secure the nomination on the first ballot, the party will be able to reflect on who the nominee ought to be, based on the experiences of June, July, and August.
 
Senator Clinton is pledged to an orderly, sane, and secure pullout. Clinton wants mandatory universal health care and a freeze on foreclosures.  She wants to shift the federal gasoline tax away from motorists, truckers, and farmers and towards the Oil Industry.

Obama is on the wrong side of all of these issues.
 
Hillary Clinton is and has always been on the side of traditional Democratic Party values.

We want a president from the Democratic Party, not from a small group of elite, libertarian Neo-Liberals. Lexington and Concord were started by a few dozen farmers.
 
Does the Democratic Party still have 175 patriots with the courage to take a stand?

PUMAS URGE YOU TO BRING TO AND END WHAT HAS BEEN A MOST FRAUDULENT CAMPAIGN

We are PUMAs — Democrats who reject an automatic proxy vote.
 
Instead, we are fighting for real Democratic Party values and the future of the party we love and still claim as our own.
 
We call on the delegates to the Denver convention to search their consciences, their experiences in past elections, and their own common sense. 

Our party has had enough of defeat and retreat. We must not allow the DNC to impose on us yet another losing General Election candidate.
 
Obama’s anemic poll numbers already foreshadow defeat in November, and his continuing sellout on the issues is only making matters worse.
 
We urge you to reconsider your vote for Obama, and to instead vote for Senator Clinton — the strongest candidate, the people’s choice in the popular vote, and the candidate who has and will continue steadfastly to represent the core pillars of the Democratic Party. 

Vote to seat Michigan and Florida at full strength as elected in the January primary. Organize your fellow delegates to block Obama.
 
Vote for Clinton, for victory in November, and for an end to the long nightmare of the Iraq war. 

Will Bower (in cooperation with other PUMAs)
PUMA / Just Say NO DEAL
PUMA08.com

by Medusa and Bud White

Two-faced? Hypocritical? Or showing his true colors? Last week Barack Obama made 180 degree turns on three previous positions he had taken in order to seduce liberal Democrats. In an article entitled “For Obama, winning is everything“, Michael Tomasky writes of these changes, claiming that:

It’s acceptable - and necessary - for Barack Obama to compromise his liberal principles in order to get elected

Taking Fat-Cat Money

In November 2007, the Midwest Democracy Network, a non-partisan alliance of 20 civic and public interests groups, released the unedited responses to a questionnaire on federal political and government reform issues. The questionnaire was sent to both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Question 1-B asks:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

Barack Obama answered the question in detail: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D- WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system.

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election.My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.

My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election.The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r- AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

However, on June 19, in an about-face so abrupt as to cause whiplash in his beholden followers, Obama said he would forego public finances in his presidential race against John McCain.Previously decrying special interests money, which made him the darling to liberal Democrats, Obama has rejected the 84 million dollars in public funds available to him. This allows him to accept money from special interest groups, making clear that against all his claims, he is a Washington insider. Anthony Corrado writes:

Obama “is likely to outspend McCain and the Republican national committee combined by perhaps two to one. Between now and election day, we very well may see Senator Obama spend $400m or more

Obama is clearly two-faced, as we are seeing more and more. But he’s not simply repeating old and familiar patterns, according to Richard Briffault, a campaign finance expert at Columbia University:

Obama is the first candidate since the public financing system was established by congress in 1974 to opt out of the system.

Denying Civil Liberties

The second liberal principal Obama sacrificed in the space of one week is his decision to support a bill that gives the telecoms retroactive immunity. Only last year Obama promised to filibuster the bill but instead, in a stomach-lurching turn to the right, he gave his support to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and climbed in bed with George Bush and company. No doubt Obama is attempting to show some strength regarding national security to those of us who know he has none, but he’s sacrificing the very liberals who fell for his dippy promises of hope and change:

Asked specifically why he’s supporting the current FISA bill when he’d promised months ago to support a filibuster of an earlier version of the bill, Obama suggested flat out that “national security” overrides the question of telecom immunity.

The Death Penalty

As Michael Tomasky writes, most liberals are opposed to the death penalty, so when Obama joined in with the most conservative minority of the supreme court justices to support the death penalty in the case of the rape of a child, he turned more right than many from the right wing, causing many of his supporters to doubt their support. David Sirota suggests that “When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don’t pay a lot of attention look at one thing: ‘Does the guy believe in something?’ They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow.” The Huffington Post has noticed Obama’s lurch to the right:

Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of “flip-flopping” from conservatives.

Hillary supporters have long known that Obama wears whatever mask will gain him political advantage in the moment. The big blogs are now beginning to catch on to Obama’s tricks. Anglachel notices this trend:

Overall, the trend I am seeing is that, with Hillary out of contention, the Blogger Boyz have abruptly noticed The Precious is not what they have claimed him to be or, rather, they are finally having to acknowledge that we HRC supporters were right about the mendacious little bastard all along.

Indeed, there is an emerging narrative — not just in the blogosphere — that Obama is two-faced. Unlike the charge that Kerry was a flip-flopper, this narrative is born out of Obama’s own actions; no windsurfing imagery is necessary, even the big blogs are beginning to see that Obama has no core values and that he suddenly shifts positions and rhetoric to suit his needs. Politico reports:

“[A] lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed,” Hamsher said. “You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”

Obama recently told women that they need to “get over” that Hillary lost. But what Obama doesn’t understand or have the maturity to see is that in this extended job interview, in which women are the majority of voters, his tactics, reversals, arrogance, and bullying do not easily fade from memory. Even at this date, Obama is largely unknown to the public, but what we do know is that he will say one thing and do another. Where we come from that’s called lying, and it’s something we’d expect from a con.