There are two action items to help Senator Obama remember his ringing words

We are not a nation that wiretaps without warrants.

If you are a member of Barackobama.com then join this group.

If you don't want to become a member of Barackobama.com then sign this petition.

Let me say that I'm not shocked that Senator Obama advisors would tell him that once the nomination is "sewn up" then it is time to shift to "the center".  However, I question that strategy because what exactly is "the center" of the political spectrum? 

Polling by Pew has shown a consistent shift of people who self identify with a political party to skew towards the Democratic Party label.  PEW published this on March 20, 2008:

In 5,566 interviews with registered voters conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press during the first two months of 2008, 36% identify themselves as Democrats, and just 27% as Republicans.

Rasmussen Reports show that Democrats are more trusted on all ten issues that are polled.  From their report, June 21, 2008:

This month, voters trust Democrats more than Republicans on all ten key issues tracked by Rasmussen Reports. The two parties are almost even on two issues, taxes and national security.

Robert Reich wrote in 2001 about "the center": 

The political "center" is imaginary, and its recent elevation as a desirable place for politicians to inhabit is dangerously misleading. What's more, the politician who seeks to move there is abdicating any semblance of political leadership...

One cannot lead from the center because most voters are already there, and it is no great accomplishment to lead people to where they already are. That's much more like pandering. In this sense, moving to the center implies a politics responsive to the immediate and unreflective desires of constituents, especially those most likely to vote. That's familiar politics to the legions of Washington strategists and pollsters who make their livings charting and responding to such desires. But it's hardly how politics should be practiced in a deliberative democracy.

If the Wall Street Journal is applauding the move to "the political center" then is are the most recent choices that Senator Obama is making the one which will empower people who believe that change for the liberal and progressive movement which America stands: his support for HR 6304 (to amend FISA and allow unlimited spying on Americans just on the word of a man) and his condemnation of the recent Supreme Court ruling to deny extending the death penalty to adults who rape children.

I will point to a Buzzflash.com editorial from January 29, 2006 which points out that change means just that change.  It is not "running to the center" but:

America is always a country that has prided itself on evolving, growing, changing. How could there be a permanent center anyway?

That's the purpose of democracy. Through great public debate we develop governmental policy for the common good of the nation -- and it morphs over time.

To abandon that principle to a myth is a cowardly thing to do.

I have read the statement by Senator Obama on the FISA which is patent nonsense.  It is a capitulation to the Bush/Cheney/Pelosi/Hoyer view that the Constitution is a throw away document in the face of "national security".

Now is the time for his millions of followers to show that it is them who must lead Senator Obama.  He, in this moment, is not a leader but a follower of a mindset that refuses to believe in the Constitution in the face of danger.

Too many times have we come up short in meeting the strict standards of the Constitution in the our nation's history with regard to national crisis.  However, I will point out that this nation has been able to overcome the temporary set backs because we knew that a crisis was short lived.  What is different now is that Mr. Bush and his active enablers in the Democratic Party leadership is to fundamentally alter what the laws are and how the "rule of law" is now dependent on who is in charge of the executive branch.  

This kind of mindset is regal in heritage and certainly anti-Constitutional in it's very nature to place the individual above the law.

As Glenn Greenwald has written many times HR 6304 is rotten to it's core on the fact that it discards the Fourth Amendment while providing blanket  retroactive immunity to telecom companies that spied on you at the behest of Mr. Bush's word (and for profit).

As I wrote last week it is time to tell Senator Obama that his view from August 1st of '07 is the legitimate view:  The FISA court works.  There is no need for warrantless wiretapping.

I support Obama but this is the first major test of his willingness stand in opposition or to support the conventional Democratic leadership view per Pelosi/Hoyer/Reid of-

In other words, Democrats achieved a "significant victory" because -- by giving Republicans everything they demanded -- Republicans are no longer able to criticize Democrats on this issue. What a shrewd strategy: "if we comply with all their demands, then they can't criticize us for anything." That's the Democratic Party's plan for winning, according to Hoyer.

We, the people, who have given money and time for his campaign now need to teach the Senator from Illinois that his words to spark a movement of "change" means that he cannot become an impediment to change.  Because this kind of "change" meaning H.R. 6304 and his vouching for the bill is not in the interest of building a movement to change this nation from the disasterous conservative policies of the last twenty years.

When he incorporates Republican talking points on H.R.6304 (e.g., external threats trump criminal acts) then we should know that he is on the wrong track and needs a forceful reminder that a movement of change from the grassroots means that he is not indespensable to the long term goals of a new progressive movement in this country as he knows full well. 

Obama- 

Then:

We are not a nation that wiretaps without warrants.

Now:

So I support the compromise . . . .

Clear, first-hand whistleblower documentary evidence [states]…that for year on end every e-mail, every text message, and every phone call carried over the massive fiber-optic links of sixteen separate companies routed through AT&T’s Internet hub in San Francisco—hundreds of millions of private, domestic communications—have been…copied in their entirety by AT&T and knowingly diverted wholesale by means of multiple “splitters” into a secret room controlled exclusively by the NSA.

This is what the truth of "warrantless wiretaps" means.  Not just a handful of messages but every phone, text, and email sent from you to another person period.

So, Senator Obama it is time for you to take a stand.  We, the people, who you motivated into this movement for "change" will roll over you if you don't listen because whoever you are listening to now on H.R. 6304 is wrong.

Your colleague, Senator Chris Dodd, is correct.  You need to study his speech carefully (h/t to Christy Hardin Smith):

...And if I have needed any reminder of that fact, simply look to all those who have joined this fight – my colleagues and the many, many Americans who have given me strength for this fight. Strength that comes from the passion and eloquence of citizens who don’t have to be involved, but choose to be nonetheless.

They see what I see in this debate – that by short-circuiting the judicial process we are sending a dangerous signal to future generations. They see us establishing a precedent that Congress can—and will—provide immunity to potential law breakers, if they are “important” enough....

Mr. President, unwarranted domestic spying didn’t happen in a panic or short-term emergency, not for a week, or a month, or even a year. If it had, I might not be here today.

But that isn’t the case. What we now know is that spying by this Administration went on, relentlessly, for more than five years....

But that isn’t the case either, Mr. President. Indeed, I am here today because with offense after another after another, I believe it is long past time to say: “enough.”

I am here today because of a pattern—a pattern of abuse against civil liberties and the rule of law. Against the Constitution—of which we are custodians, temporary though that status may be....

So, why are we here? Because, Mr. President – it is alleged that giant telecom corporations worked with our government to compile Americans’ private, domestic communications records into a database of enormous scale and scope.

Secretly and without a warrant, those corporations are alleged to have spied on their own customers – American customers.

Perhaps, Senator Obama, you should study this carefully and reconsider your rash rush to support H.R.6304, by your colleague Senator Feingold states:

But Mr. President, this immunity provision doesn’t just allow telephone companies off the hook for breaking the law. It also will make it that much harder to get to the core issue that I’ve been raising since December 2005, which is that the President ran an illegal program and should be held accountable. When these lawsuits are dismissed, we will be that much further away from an independent judicial review of this program...

On top of all this, we are considering granting immunity when more than 70 members of the Senate still – still – have not been briefed on the President’s wiretapping program. The majority of this body still does not even know what we are being asked to grant immunity for.

ACT NOW to persuade Senator Obama:

Call 866-675-2008 option 6 to speak to someone.

866-675-2008 option 6

If you want to defend the Constitution and give a good kick to the Democratic Party leadership then I would check out Christy Hardin Smith's Firedoglake's post: FISA: Anyone Up for a Bit of Action? 

The one consistent thing I've noticed about the FISA issue is this: people are disgusted by insincerity. More than anything, they want a way to channel that frustration into an action that could make a difference.

For some reason, elected folks inside the Beltway don't seem to understand this. They have miscalculated on how many people in America are paying attention to civil liberties concerns these days. And it is our job to make certain that they learn just how badly they have misjudged this....

I could not agree more with Duncan Black's statement from his Eschaton blog:

As I've written before, Democrats will regret embracing the expansion of executive power because a President Obama will find his administration undone by an "abuse of power" scandal. All of those powers which were necessary to prevent the instant destruction of the country will instantly become impeachable offenses. If you can't imagine how such a pivot can take place then you haven't been paying attention.

There is nothing that has changed with the right wing leaning judiciary when Mr. Bush leaves office.  Those right wing judges on the federal bench will be then willing to hamstring and actively pursue lawsuits against President Obama and his administration.

Remember that the oldest Supreme Court judges are liberal.  If he has to replace judges then President Obama will merely be replacing the liberal wing of the Supreme Court.

With the tools of facism still on the table, due in part to the active complicity of the Democratic Congressional leadership, there will be the temptation to use those powers.  Need I state those tools?  Unitary Executive theory.  Commander-in-Chief powers, the use of "executive privilege", executive "signing statements", USA PATRIOT Act, Protect America Act, AUMF, MCA, etc.

Remember that Gandolf when offered the Ring of Power by Frodo said "No! The ring would be too great a temptation.  The temptation to use it would be through Gandalf's good intentions which would lead to corruption.   (It would take a George Washington strength of character to resist such temptation.)

Is it any wonder that people are tuning out the corporate media?

From Associated Press writer Liz Sidoti opines:

Overall, the race between Obama and McCain amounts to an authenticity contest...

McCain, however, had indicated he would go along with the proposal and, since clinching the GOP nomination, has been trying to hold Obama to his commitment. Obama "said he would stick to his word. He didn't," McCain complained Thursday, and then told reporters in Minnesota, "We will take public financing."...

The move could be the death-knell for the post-Watergate federal financing system designed to lessen the large donors' influence and reduce corruption....

The opinion piece concludes with:

"You've fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford," Obama said in an appeal seeking donations from $25 to $2,300 and beyond.

As far as I can tell that this is an out right lie by the AP writer to impunge on Barack Obama's campaign to tell people to break FEC law by donating more than the legal limit.

So people who read this so-called analysis is in reality reading RNC talking points about Obama.  There is no analysis of McCain's statements.  What we read is partisan and biased to the extreme masquerading as "analysis".

The deal-maker was offering some retroactive immunity to the telecom companies who have already participated in the program.

Read it here. 

Sellout!

No reason to go along with Dictator Bush and his illegal spying programs on innocent Americans via the telecom companies.

No reason to sell out the freedoms that our forefathers fought and died for.

A slap in the face of every American living and dead.

Pelosi, Hoyer, and the rest of the Democratic Party House leadership, including DeGette, are active enablers of domestic spying.  

If this bill passes then the public will never know the extent to which Dictator Bush and his gang have spied on us.  The retroactive immunity in this bill will hide forever the crimes that Mr. Bush and the telecom community have commited against us.  

The craven and despicable method, including back room secret dealing and no public debate, makes this a complete abdication of leadership by Pelosi, Hoyer, Emmanuel, Conyers, et.al. on the question of where they stand on the right to privacy and of the fact that government has to show probable cause to search you and your property.

The United States has not fallen apart.  We still live and work and pay taxes.  The only fear we have is the fear mongering, demagogery by Mr. Bush and an active complict media that looks to the bottom line rather than take their constitutional duties seriously.

There was no reason at all for the House Democratic leadership to say that our privacy doesn't matter for government to willfully violate without any reason whatsoever- goodbye Fourth Amendment.

Betrayal.

A stab in the back to the Constitution.  

Complete and utter failure to understand their duty is to the Constitution and Bill of Rights up which this nation was founded.

Thank you for nothing, Pelosi, Hoyer, and company (including DeGette) leadership!  Pah!  I spit on you for your actions as eager accomplices to rape the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Call Obama's office NOW:

Call 866-675-2008 option 6 to speak to someone.

866-675-2008 option 6

This is unenforceable and boneheaded on the part of Associated Press.  Kos states:

Media experts are swarming over the AP's takedown notice against two bloggers, claiming that no one is allowed to excerpt from AP stories anymore. Remember the AP's idiotic assertion:

“Cutting and pasting a lot of content into a blog is not what we want to see,” he said. “It is more consistent with the spirit of the Internet to link to content so people can read the whole thing in context.”

The dinosaurs at the AP think they know what the "spirit of the internet" is, and they claim it has nothing to do with copying pieces of information from other sources for purposes of criticism, education, or parody.

David Ardia at PBS' MediaShift Idea Lab examines the AP's claims and finds them legally lacking. They are. Without a doubt. Which is why I feel comfortable taunting them at the top of this page.

Duncan Black, Eschaton blog, writes:

The AP started this off with legal threats and lawyerly nastygrams. While not "destructive hyperbole," it was, you know, "destructive." As in, we're going to sue you and take your bank account. That's a bit more nasty than, you know, calling them goatblowers. People who lack legal teams are responding the way they can, by ratcheting up the rhetoric.

More to the point, as Glaser realizes in an update, the AP is full of shit here and there's nothing to talk about. If they want to take this to court, they can, but there are no guidelines to be negotiated here. They don't write copyright law or get to determine its precise boundaries. It isn't for them to determine what is legal fair use and what isn't.

Will AP try to enforce this ridiculous rule?  What about teachers and students? 

I met Dee at the Washington Park Rec Center weight room a number of years ago.  He was a gregarious man of imposing height.  We soon knew that we had a common interests in lifting and in politics.  He was passionate about liberal and progressive causes that would lift the poorest and most in need in society up to where most people would live at. 

Inbetween sets at the gym we would talk about local politicians and national politics.  I remember us talking about the '04 Democratic Convention and joking that we should make a run for delegates to the next Convention.  When '06 rolled around and the Colorado Democratic Party was making a serious bid to be host for the '08 Convention we still talked about it.  Sadly Dee won't make it to the '08 Democratic National Convention.

Bill Vandenberg, former CEO of Colorado Progressive Coalition, had the honor of speaking at Dee's funeral.  Dee worked and volunteered for Bill and CPC the last twelve years of his life.  Bill gave a moving speech about Dee's fierce committment to the dispossed and minority communities.  He spoke of Dee's passion for basketball and his work life as a miner and union leader.  Bill was honored to be Dee's pallbearer.

Dee will be remembered by all who are committed to social justice and community activism for liberal and progressive ideals in Denver, just as he will be honored by those at the Washington Park Rec Center, and by his family and church community.

Memorial contributions may be made to a Memorial Fund established in his honor in care of Central Christian Church or to Colorado Progressive Coalition. 

There should be a top down investigation into how drug companies are bending, if not breaking, ethical rules on human studies testing of new drugs.  If drug company officials are liable then they should be criminally prosecuted for their use of dangerous drugs that harm their unknowing human subjects.  Withholding information on such side effects is outside the boundaries of human subject testing.  Congress should begin investigations immediately especially with the use of our veterans for such studies is simply wrong.

Brian Ross and Vic Walter, ABC News journalists, write:

Mentally distressed veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are being recruited for government tests on pharmaceutical drugs linked to suicide and other violent side effects, an investigation by ABC News and "The Washington Times" has found...

"This didn't justify an emergency warning at that level," said Dr. Miles McFall, co-administrator of the VA study...

Dr. McFall says the VA decided to continue the Chantix study because "it would be depriving our veterans of an effective method of treatment to help them stop smoking."

Caplan, one of the country's leading medical ethicists, said he was stunned by the VA's decision to continue the Chantix experiment.

In order to make a profit the drug companies are willing to place veterans in harm's way.  This is immoral and the study using our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans should be halted immediately.  The people who run the Veterans Administration should safe guard our veterans and not place them in danger for the bottom line of drug companies.  Our men and women who have served our country should not be our drug companies frontline human experiments. 

Progressnowaction readers know what to do in order to monkey wrench this insane action to allow communications a "get out of jail" card for spying on us without probably cause as mandated by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.  If Senate and House Democratic leaders, Reid and Pelosi, get this before the 4th of July then it is with supreme irony that our independence has been diminished and by this cravenly act by Congress will close the door on investigation by Congress and the Courts into what and how many types of illegal surveillance programs Mr. Bush and his gang have set up and been running against the population of the United States. 

This is not what I want to see our Democratic Congress doing, which is the headline from June 16 NYT:

Congress Nears Deal on Surveillance Bill 

Nor do I want to read this misleading reporting by New York Times writer Carl Hulse:

House and Senate leaders of both parties said negotiators were near a deal on extending the authority to track terror suspects overseas while protecting the civil liberties of Americans as spy agencies sift through cell phone calls and other electronic communications that did not exist when the surveillance law first came into being.

Further down in the reporting:

“They’re very close to working out a fix,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said late last week.

What part of the Constitution and FISA does not Senator Reid not understand?  The fact is that communications companies allowed their switching centers to be accessed by government agencies for wholesale recording of our private conversations amongst one another.  That is the defination of a "fishing expedition" and is against the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution:

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.

Under the scrutiny of the Constitution the electronic surveillance by Mr. Bush does not pass at all.  But what about the brouhaha over FISA?  This is from the Electronic Freedom Foundation analysis of FISA: 

What kind of surveillance can be authorized under FISA?

Originally, FISA was limited to electronic eavesdropping and wiretapping. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(f). In 1994 it was expanded to permit covert physical entries in connection with "security" investigations. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1821-1829. In 1998, it was amended to permit pen/trap orders, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1841-1846. FISA can also be used to obtain certain business records. §§ 1861-62.

How is surveillance authority different under FISA?

Although orders issued under FISA are sometimes called FISA "warrants," this is misleading because it suggests that the FISA order is like an ordinary search warrant or Title III intercept order -- and it isn't. Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be based on probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. This is not the general rule under FISA.

What is the basic "trigger" for permitting FISA surveillance?

Under FISA, surveillance is generally permitted based on a finding of probable cause that the surveillance target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power -- not whether criminality is in any way involved. §1801(b)(1).

But...but what about the fact that Director of National Intelligence General Michael McConnell was beating the fear drum by saying:

More than likely we would miss the very information we need to prevent some horrendous act from taking place in the United States.

As was Mr. Bush, on failure to extend the Protect America Act, which allowed for illegal surveillance programs to continue:

At this moment, somewhere in the world terrorists are planning new attacks on our country.  Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make Sept. 11 pale by comparison.

But...but we are still alive!  [Still having to face $4/gallon gas prices, filet mignon steak at $20/lb, and having upside down home loans (your house is worth less than what your mortage is) is this the American Dream or Nightmare? ]

While Congressional leadership has this to say: 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wants the matter settled before Congress breaks for Independence Day at the end of next week, suggesting she is ready to bring the issue to a head.

“We want to pass a bill that will be signed by the president,” she said. “And that will happen before we leave for the Fourth of July. So the timing is sometime between now and then. I feel confident that that will happen.”

Is this why we are disgruntled?  Mad as hell.  We won't take it anymore because Democratic Congressional leadership is anything but leadership when it comes to the real issues that affect us and future generations with regard on what our government can and cannot do under the Constitution and Bill of Rights!

Fight for the Future.

We only have our chains to lose because life in a safe cage is  a life not worth living.

UPDATE - Monday, 11 August 2008 

Thanks to JJ for pointing out a new report on the mis-administration's latest action victimizing and disenfranchizing veterans from their Constitutional right to vote.  Now we have to account and protesting language of the Connecticut Secretary of State (see the extended text).

This is a true case of "support the troops" and how the Bushies don't!  It is past time to tell the Congressional incumbents (especially the Senators) and the Democratic challengers in the race to the replace terrible trio (Musgrave, Lamborn and Tancredo - all of his potential successors are same, same anyway) that this cannot stand.  There is enough time to repair the damage, but only if VA Secretary Peake is immediately forced to revoke his rule.

Original Post: 

Well, here we go again...time for another Secretary of Veterans Affairs to resign. This time we find that another arm of the George Bush mis-administration has made a dubious legal interpretation, trampled on the rights and benefits of veterans and is denying any wrong-doing.

You have to read the entire New York Times story to believe the depths of this tragic scenario.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/washington/13vote.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1213380801-cdMfMk8+agmsFLoE3VAdHw

This is a bizarre and deplorable action on the part of the mis-administration of the current occupant of the White House.  Refusing to facilitate voter registriation is definately not prohibited by the Hatch Act.  It's really disappointing that former Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) remains silent on this controversy.

Heads-up Colorado Springs and Northern Colorado. Beyond the fact that I've been working pretty hard for months to get this off the ground, it's just gonna be great!  This issue has been ignored (or at least danced around the edges) for too long.

 A Conversation with Rand Beers Tuesday, June 17th, 2008

Keeping Our Promises: Veterans, Soldiers and their Families 

Rand Beers, President and Founder of the National Security Network, former senior White House national security staffer and Vietnam-era Marine, will be the featured speaker at two town hall forums on issues facing the military community:  repeat deployments for members of the active-duty Armed Forces, Guard and Reserves, the needs of a growing new population of disabled veterans, and the burdens on military families.  Beers combines front-line experience (Rifle Company Commander in Vietnam and 10 years in the White House) with years of briefing our nation’s political leaders and, with the National Security Network, trains and advises candidates and advocates on how to address these issues in today’s political environment. A question and answer session will follow.

1:00 – 3:00pm

UCCS: The Upper Lodge

1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80918 

6:30 – 8:30pm

Bill Reed Middle School

370 West 4th Street

Loveland, Colorado 80537 

RSVP: rkeenan@nsnetwork.org

Nick Juliano, Rawstory.com, writes:

The impeachment resolution’s sponsor, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, requested a recorded vote on the motion around 3 p.m. Wednesday, and 24 Republicans joined nearly all Democrats in voting to send the impeachment measure to the committee.

What caught my attention is the fact that 24 Republicans voted for an impeachment inquiry to begin.  This is, in fact, a resolution that has bipartisan support.  However the major media does not state that it has Republicans supporting this resolution to begin an investigation into whether the facts justify impeachment charges to be sent to the Senate for trial.  For example, Thomas Ferraro, Reuters.com, writes:

On a 251-166 vote, the House sent 35 articles of impeachment introduced by Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio to the panel where they are expected to die.

No a single mention that 24 Republicans have voted for the Constitution and not their party.

AP had not a single story on the June 10th vote on Yahoo.com but there was a story written by Laurie Kellman, which was picked up by the San Diego Union Tribute: 

Republicans, seeing a chance to force Democrats into an embarrassing debate, voted to bring up the resolution. Democrats countered by pushing through a motion to scuttle the bill from the floor.

But wait that graf was about Rep. Kucinich's resolution of impeachment of Dick Cheney not Mr. Bush.

Nothing on the front page from TheHill.com except a derisive note from their Capitolhillblue section about Rep. Kucinich:

Although Bush certainly deserves impeachment for all his high crimes against the Constitution, it will take someone with more clout and credibility than Kuchinich to make that happen. The Ohio Congressman that couldn't is a Capitol Hill joke and a laughing stock to other members on the Hill.

The Denverpost.com has the AP story.

The fact of the matter is that 24 Republicans joined the resolution.  Even insurgent Republican candidate Ron Paul voted for it:

Ron Paul Votes for Bush Impeachment and the resolution Passes 266 to 155!.
Hmm lets see what the Senate will do. Any wagers they will kill it?

The corporate media does not want the people to know that Rep. Kucinich's resolution had bipartisan support.  Nor do these journalists and pundits seriously consider the grave consequences of subsequent presidents who will have Mr. Bush as the precedent to act with divine right and not subject to the will of the other two co-equal branches of government. 

Write and call your Congressional Representative and tell them that it is time for Chairman of the Judiciary Committee John Conyers to immediately convene a special committee of inquiry into the charges brought by Rep. Kucinich's resolution. 

Thank DeGette, Udall, Salazar, and Perlmutter for voting for the Constitution.

Tell Senator Salazar to urge his House collegues to begin a formal investigation.

Tell Rep. John Conyers to have the courage of his convictions and not roll over to Speaker Pelosi and Majority leader Hoyer again.  He wrote the book on Mr. Bush's impeachable offenses and now it is time to act on the resolution of 35 charges against Mr. Bush.

The people, meaning us, know that the truth can only be brought to light through a thorough investigation into how Mr. Bush and his cohort used the government for purposes that are directly counter to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and "rule of law". 

Finally the word must get out through writing local and national newspapers, calling into political talk shows (call Rush and our local "Gunny" Bob and tell them Ron Paul voted for impeachment), and blog far and wide.

Now is the time...support Rep. Kucinich and remember Rep. Wexler fully supports this resolution.  Let candidates know that Mr. Bush must be held accountable to our laws and for justice to those who have lost life and limb. 

Rep. Kucinich introduces 35 Articles of Impeachment on the House.  Leadership stunned!

Brad Friedman reports:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is currently reading all 35 Articles of Impeachment, against George W. Bush, on the floor of the House of Representatives.

I'm on the radio for the moment, so see RAW STORY for details. I may have more soon.

UPDATE: Now back home, and watching Kucinich myself on C-SPAN. He's been reading for hours, and may have hours ahead still. As mentioned on the air, I was consulted for these Articles of Impeachment and submitted a number of suggestions and material concerning impeachable offenses related to election tampering by George W. Bush and his agents. Don't know whether those articles are still in the final version. We shall see. But I wanted to be sure to disclose that.

The evidence is out in the open but never given the media coverage.  Scott McCellan just kicked those embers into a roaring fire with his book What Happened because he was part of the inner circle.  Now Rep. Conyers has invited Scott to testify on the Plame revelation in the book (h/t to Emptywheel at Firedoglake.com). 

Will the house of cards fall before November?  I believe that this summer will be a Texas asphalt melter. 

From the DenverPost.com:

Despite a recent spike in the nation's unemployment rate, the danger that the economy has fallen into a "substantial downturn" appears to have waned, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Monday.

Addressing a Fed conference in Chatham, Mass., on Monday night, Bernanke said a government report last week showing the unemployment rate rising from 5 percent in April to 5.5 percent in May—the biggest one-month jump in two decades—was "unwelcome." However, the Fed chief said other forces should "provide some offset to the headwinds that still face the economy."

The Fed's powerful doses of interest rate cuts, the government's $168 billion stimulus package, further progress in the repair of problems in financial and credit markets, a gradual ebbing of the drag from the deep housing slump and still solid demand from abroad for U.S. exports should help the economy over the remainder of this year, he said. 

What is he smoking? The intervention by the Fed to save Bear Stearns has set a dangerous precedent by signaling that your tax dollars will be used to save bankers who have recklessly used money on all sorts of financial gimmicks called siv's to gamble away the bank's money. But when it is time to pay the piper they come squealing for your money to save their behinds. If Bush really believed in the "free market" then Bear Stearns would have gone into bankruptcy. Isn't it time to tell Wall Street bankers that they will get no help from the government and let the "free market" cull out the "few bad apples"?

Topic of Jay Rockefeller is that what the Bush administration told him was so hush hush that he had to write himself a letter and store it in a safe deposit box to make sure that Dick Cheney would understand the import of the letter sent as I read about the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee about how the White House used the intelligence given to them from the intelligence agencies.  This kind of idiocy is what I would expect from a Marx Brothers film or Mel Brooks; to wit, Walter Pincus, WashingtonPost.com, writes:

It says that the panel did not review "less formal communications between intelligence agencies and other parts of the Executive Branch."

More important, there was no effort to obtain White House records or interview President Bush, Vice President Cheney or other administration officials whose speeches were analyzed because, the report says, such steps were considered beyond the scope of the report.

Excuse me, Senator Rockefeller.  But you are the chairman of the permanent committee and as such you could have opened up the investigation into the different organs that the White House and the Office of the Vice President used to "sell" the war with Iraq, including the White House Iraq Group.  But no, you didn't do that, because it is to our shame that you didn't and to the fact that you have no sense of justice to the dead men and women in uniform of our armed forces because of Mr. Bush's illegal and unjust war of aggression.   Perhaps, Senator Rockefeller it is time for you to hand the chairmanship to a Senator who has a sense of justice like Senator Webb.

Is this a step in the right direction for "clean elections" with a "free market" twist of having millions of people making small donations; i.e., small "d"emocracy for candidates are supported not through federal money but through the power of the purse by millions of citizens who contribute to their campaigns because they are motivated by the candidate's ideas and actions?

What can be more American then voting with your "purse"?

There are two major developments that I believe harken to better election campaigns by candidates:

1). The maturation of the internet to allow for people to bypass the traditional fundraising network.  This maturation of technologies allows for people to have control over where their money goes.  When you have a charismatic and articulate candidate like Barack Obama then what Howard Dean initiated this is the result from 2004-  A huge wave of small donors for one candidate (1.5 million donors out of his 3 million email list).  Kenneth Vogel, Politico.com, reports:

A milestone of sorts was reached earlier this year, when Obama, the Illinois senator whose revolutionary online fundraising has overwhelmed Clinton, filed an electronic fundraising report so large it could not be processed by popular basic spreadsheet applications like Microsoft Excel 2003 and Lotus 1-2-3.

AP reporter Nancy Benac writes:

Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute, said even the smallest contribution helps voters feel they have a stake in the campaign. Obama, he said, has taken to heart a lesson taught by Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing, who often spoke about the importance of getting people to contribute even as little as 50 cents to get them invested in a cause...

They also have given Obama the luxury of spending more time talking to the public and less attending fundraisers, and have created a host of supporters working to elect him...

Says Aaron Alpern, a 46-year-old actor from Chicago: Donors like him "don't have the pull of a gigantic corporation, but we have sort of the reverse - we give him freedom."

While the funding through technology is important the most critical aspect is that Obama's campaign has enfranchised people to become invested.

2).  The Democratic Party will be changed by this electronic funding and getting people invested in the political candidates of their choice.   With Obama's winning the nomination there are changes afoot.  Huffingtonpost.com headlines this:

Obama's In Control: No More Lobbyist Contributions to Democratic Party

In concert with the DNC press release:

Our presumptive nominee has pledged not to take donations from Washington lobbyists and from today going forward the DNC makes that pledge as well," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "Senator Obama has promised to change the way things are done in Washington and this step is a sure sign of his commitment. The American people's priorities will set the agenda in an Obama Administration, not the special interests."

This ties in neatly with Howard Dean's "50 State" strategy.  Sam Stein, Huffingtonpost.com, writes:

The potential beneficiaries of the Obama-Dean alliance could be numerous. Down-ticket Democrats are not only banking on an influx of resources into their races, but are hoping that a synthesized effort between the presidential candidate and campaign committees provides a political boost even in traditionally hostile locales. The environment is certainly ripe. Already Democrats have ripped three congressional seats away from the GOP in special elections. The Cook Political Report list 27 seats GOP House seats that will be in play, in addition to seven in the Senate.

Because we have witnessed that even in heavily Republican districts (LA-6, MS-1, and IL-14) Democratic candidates can win this election year because it is now that all 50 states are in play both at the presidential level and "downstream" election races.

So, with technology being used to invest voters with their candidates and having candidates recognize the importance of grassroots communications and challenging their supporters to do more than just give money are keys to changing the way elections are being done now and in the future.

It is well within Pelosi's power to block legislation. She did it with Colombia free trade, she can do it with the Protect AT&T Act.

Update: Call Pelosi (202-225-4965, Fax: 202-225-8259) and Hoyer (202-225-4131, Fax: 202-225-4300) and tell them the Bond bill is unacceptable. Tell them that, if any action is necessary, it would be better to vote to extend the PAA for a year than to give up everything they gained in the bill they passed in February.

This is why I'm mad at the capitulation of a Democratic Party leader:

House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes says he's "fine" with the Republicans' FISA "compromise"...The House Intelligence Committee's top Democrat disclosed late Tuesday that he is ready to accept a Republican-brokered deal to rewrite the nation's electronic surveillance laws, signaling that a long-running congressional impasse could soon be coming to an end. . . . "It's about finding middle ground and we have middle ground," Reyes said of the compromise offered by Republicans. "It's not going to please everyone but let's get on with it."

Chairman Reyes does not understand the "rule of law" that it is a blatant breaking of the laws of this nation that the telecom amnesty bill will allow such law breaking to continue under the guise of presidential edict.

Speaker Pelosi must kill this bill immediately and it is for us to flood both the Speaker's phone with calls.  It should go without saying that Chairman Reyes phone should be flooded with calls of condemnation of his view that the Constitution is nothing in the eyes of this administration.

NO AMNESTY FOR TELECOMS!  Defeat the Bonds Bill immediately. 

A nation divided between the uneducated and the educated.  The opportunities for education for the disadvantaged are being shut due to the high cost of education even for community colleges.  This opportunity for people from the poor who want to be able to become part of the American Dream is now being denied because the private banks are now refusing to lend money to community college students.

New York Times reporter Johnaton Glater writes:

Some loan companies have exited the student loan business entirely, viewing it as unprofitable in the current environment. By splitting out community colleges and less-selective four-year institutions, some remaining lenders seem to be breaking the marketplace into tiers. Students attending elite, expensive, public and private four-year universities can expect loans to remain plentiful.

The culprit is the "for profit" motive of banks on the backs of those who want to become educated in order to live their dreams of having a better life for themselves and their families.

Community colleges cost less so banks, who are maximizing their profit margins, see that small loans for shorter periods produce less profit for themselves.  The nonsense the banks give as reasons:

The banks that are pulling out say their decisions are based on an analysis of which colleges have higher default rates, low numbers of borrowers and small loan amounts that make the business less profitable. (The average amount borrowed by community college students is about $3,200 a year, according to the College Board.) Still, the cherry-picking strikes some as peculiar; after all, the government is guaranteeing 95 percent of the value of these loans.

This to me is unethical and antithetical to the principal goal of education- to have a citizenry being able to understand and participate in our democratic republic.  Education should not be profit driven, period.  Programs that supplement the educational experience can be but the core mission of education should never be under the auspices of corporations whose primary goal is to reap financial benefits for the few.

But if the educational goal in America is to create a divided class based system through the denial of "higher" education in order to create a vast under educated class whose purpose is to do work just to sustain themselves without hope of betterment for themselves and their children.  Mr. Bush said it aptly:

President Bush in Omaha, Neb., reassuring voter Mary Mornin about government programs:

Mornin: That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like a contribute.

Bush: You work three jobs?

Mornin: Three jobs, yes.

Bush: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. Get any sleep?

At some point in the near future if the future for all Americans do not become brighter then I suggest that we face a Metropolis type of society for the American Experiment.