Progress Now Action

Support Dennis Kucinich's resolution! From DailyKos.com's front page:

The House will have to dispense with Rep. Dennis Kucinich's latest move to impeach President Bush, which he gave notice of his intention to raise as a question of the privileges of the House on Thursday. Under clause 2 of Rule IX, when a Member other than the Majority or Minority Leader raises a question of the privileges of the House from the floor, the chair may designate a time for its consideration within two legislative days. The expectation is that the resolution will be referred to the Judiciary committee as were Kucinich's previous three impeachment resolutions (two for Cheney, one for Bush). Those resolutions have received no consideration in the committee, so Kucinich vowed to continue bringing such resolutions every 30 days until there was some action.

Perhaps because the rules permit Kucinich to continue to bring impeachment resolutions and receive privilege for them each time (no matter how often he brings them, as I've mentioned from time to time), the Judiciary committee is expected for the first time to try to find a way to accommodate some sort of action on the question.

I would like to point out that there are people who believe that George W. Bush deserves criminal investigation into whether or not his actions as President are criminal.  There has been a book, which has been uttterly ignored by corporate media, by the former prosecuter of Charles Manson, Vincent Bugliosi "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder".  Andy Ostroy, The Ostroy Report, writes:

Bugliosi, most famous for prosecuting Charles Manson for the 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders, appeared Friday morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe program with host Joe Scarborough, NBC's Andrea Mitchell and the Boston Globe's Mike Barnicle. Citing reams of documentary evidence to support his contention that Bush should be tried for murder, Bugliosi bases his case not on Bush's false claims of WMD, but rather that the president lied that the WMD posed a grave and imminent threat to the security of the United States, which in turn became the justification for the war.

There is not a question of "if" but "when" for the prosecution of crimes by Mr. Bush and his cohort.   

Action Item One:

With the capitulation to Mr. Bush's demand for unlimited spying on Americans by Pelosi and Reid it is time for we, the grassroots, to support the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Freedom Foundation in their lawsuits against  the passage of the FISA amendments act (HR 6304).  Glenn Greenwald interviews Jameel Jaffer, the Director of the ACLU's National Security Project on the reasons why the ACLU is filing two actions.  

You can help the ACLU now. 

The constitutionality of this new law will be challenged by the EFF which needs your financial help now.

Action Item Two:

I have been following the Don Siegelman story on Bradblog.com for the last year or so.  Briefly the former Alabama governor was a political prisoner in America based solely on his being a Democratic Party elected official.  Now that he has been released from jail he is demanding that justice be done.

Guest blogger Steve Heller, Bradblog.com, writes: 

Siegelman wants you to let Congress know that Rove must face the consequences of his actions. So do we.

Rove has been subpoenaed to testify before Congress tomorrow, July 10th, regarding the politicization of the Justice Department. The House Judiciary Committee wants to question Rove about his knowledge of the persecution prosecution of former Alabama Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman and the U.S. Attorney firing scandal.

Call House Judiciary Committee at 202-225-3951 and call House Rep. at 202-224-3121 to let them know that Don Siegelman deserves a fair hearing about what happened to him at the hands of a politicized Department of Justice under the Bush administration.

Did the people of America forget about the Anthrax Killer which targeted only Democrats in Congress?

Blogger Emptywheel, Firedoglake.com, writes:

Call me crazy. But after viewing this very creepy exchange between Patrick Leahy and Michael Mukasey regarding the anthrax killer, I got the feeling that both of them know exactly who sent those anthrax-laden letters almost seven years ago.

Leahy uses the recent settlement between Hatfill and DOJ to raise the issue. As he raises it, he notes that he is privy to classified information about the anthrax killer, and because of that he has refrained from even discussing the case.

Leahy: We won't go any further. As I say, I feel somewhat reluctant because I was one of the targets. But I gotta say, what families of the people who died went through, what families of the people who were crippled went throug, even what my family went through. A lot of people are concerned and I won't say more because we are in open session but I think you and I probably should have a private talk about this sometime.

Mukasey: That's fine...

Leahy: You're the one person, the one person, who has the final say the laws are going to apply to everybody in this nation.

But I can't help but wonder whether Leahy suspects the government doesn't think the laws against terrorism ought to apply to "guy who committed" the anthrax attacks.

I would read some of the comments, too.  Especially this one, by Emptywheel:

Here’s what I suspect Leahy is pointing to–the reasons he might think DOJ would be reluctant to pursue charges should be obvious:

In December 2001, Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a noted bioweapons expert, delivered a paper contending that the perpetrator of the anthrax crimes was an American microbiologist whose training and possession of Ames-strain powder pointed to a government insider with experience in a U.S. military lab. In March 2002, she told the BBC that the anthrax deaths may have resulted from a secret project to examine the practicability of sending real anthrax through the mail — an experiment that misfired despite such precautions as taped envelope seals. That surprising hypothesis made Rosenberg a target for knee-jerk criticism, but competent sources within the biowarfare establishment thought she might well be right.

[snip]

Her patience exhausted, Dr. Rosenberg met with the Senate Judiciary Committee staff on June 18, 2002, and laid out the evidence, such as it was, hers and mine. Van Harp, head of the Amerithrax Task Force, sat in on the briefing. The senators were attentive. So, too, evidently, was Harp: exactly one week after Rosenberg’s meeting with the Judiciary Committee staff, the F.B.I. searched Hatfill’s residence.

So, from what Mukasey said at the committee hearing was that there is an ongoing investigation.  What both men said seems to point to the fact that there is a huge amount of information that is being withheld from the public due to...what?  

Your guess is as good as mine as to why the biological terrorist has never been caught...because I think that it has to do with a person who had access to USAMRID weaponized anthrax spores, which leaves a pretty small number of people to investigate.

Democratic Party where is the spine?  Or will?  Or brain to understand our Constitution and Bill of Rights?  If the Democratic Party is paying for high dollar "consultants and pollsters" then it is our contributions that they are wasting or else why would Congressional approval ratings be this low?  This is from the Rasmussen Report released on July 8, 2008:

The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

After capitulating to Mr. Bush's demands for unlimited power to spy on Americans merely on his word.  I have read that Democrats on the Hill are ready to "negotiate" on opening up the coastal waters of America to oil and gas drilling.

This is not the "third way" or "triangulation" but out right betrayal of the Democratic party base.

My partner is fed up with Obama and his FISA capitulation and his "nuanced" position on abortion (his words give no comfort for the reproductive health of women).

As far as I can tell there is no Democratic Party leadership on the key issues that face this country.

Passage of another 160 billion dollar fake "emergency" spending bill for the illegal wars in Iraq/Afghanistan without any fight to put in place a "timetable" for withdrawl.

Passage of HR 6304- The FISA Amendments- which allows for a president to spy on Americans with the active and complete legal protections from citizens who feel that their fourth amendment right has been violated due to the drift net method of electronic surveillence that the CIA, FBI and NSA prefer.  (Over 21,000 MyOb members strongly urged him not to capitulate.)

And now...talking about negotiating with the Republicans on opening up our coastal areas for oil and gas drilling?

It is enough to make one move to a country that is progressive and has national health care like...Germany or Switzerland! 

Isn't the 4th of July about fireworks, BBQ, and relaxing with family and friends in celebration of...something like the flag?  I mean that is what I did when I went back to Lincoln, Nebraska to visit relatives.  We didn't talk much politics because my nephew is going to Iraq.  He spent the last year training as an Air Cavalry helicopter pilot.

However I wish that I had read this column by Chris Satullo (h/t to Digby):

...

Our silence is complicit. In our name, innocents were jailed, humans tortured, our Constitution mangled. And we said so little.

We can't claim not to have known. The best among us raised the alarm. Heroes in uniform, judges in robes, they opposed the perverse logic of an administration drenched in fear, drunk on power.

But did we heed them? Hardly. Barely . . .

We were so busy. Soccer practice at 6. A credit card balance to fret. The final vote on Idol.

We left it to those in power to keep our precious selves from harm. Whatever it took.

We took the coward's way.

The world sees this, even if we are too dim to grasp it. We've lost respect. We've shamed the memory of Jefferson, Adams and Franklin.

And all for a scam. The waterboarding, the snarling dogs, the theft of sleep - all the diabolical tricks haven't made us safer. They may have averted this plot or that. But they've spawned new enemies by the thousands, made the jihadist rants ring true to so many ears.

So put out no flags.

Sing no patriotic hymns.

We deserve no Fourth this year.

Let us atone, in quiet and humility. Let us spend the day truly studying the example of our Founders. May we earn a new birth of courage before our nation's birthday next rolls around.

The 4th of July is dishonored by our silence on the great downfall that we, as a people, towards the shield against dictators and tyrants- the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  People laughed at Mr. Bush's casual references to address himself as yearning to be a dictator.  However what is there to laugh at when he has done all the actions of a dictator without the American people rising up in righteous anger to dispose of this petty tyrant?  A tyrant that grasps at any argument to state that he, alone, will decide the fate of any citizen.  A tyrant that can declare, just on his word, that you will no longer be a citizen.

We have utterly failed.

To this I hang my head in shame. 

I just got back from visiting relatives in Nebraska.  So, what do I find out on the FISA front?  The lying by Democrats is astonishing with regard to HR6304.  I cannot disagree with anything that Glenn Greenwald says on this issue and the lack of understanding with HR 6304 will impact on the Constitution and in particular the Fourth Amendement, how will it impact the understanding of Mr. Bush's view of Article II powers, and how will judicial and legislative branches be affected by the passage of such a  bill.

There is no majority support from polls conducted that show people want an executive branch to have such power to spy on citizens just on the word of the President.

This is why it is craven and dictatorial in nature that Democratic leaders have folded on this crucial issue.

This is the reality as Glenn Greenwald sees it:

What all of this is really about -- the reason why political elites like Nancy Soderberg are so eager to defend it -- is because they really do believe that lawbreaking isn't wrong, that it doesn't deserve punishment, when engaged in by them rather than by commoners. People who defend telecom immunity or who say that it's not a big deal are, by logical necessity, adopting this view: "Our highest political officials and largest corporations shouldn't face consequences when they break our laws as long as they claim it was for our own good." That's the destructive premise that lies at the heart of this deeply corrupt measure, the reason it matters so much. Just like the pardon of Nixon, the protection of Iran-contra criminals, and the commutation of Lewis Libby's sentence, this bill is yet another step in cementing a two-tiered system of justice in America where our highest political officials and connected elite can break our laws with impunity.

Obama has caved on an issue that damages him.  What "change" if he, himself, cannot divorce himself from "advisors" who want to direct him to engage in acts and words that are contrary to what he said just a few short months ago. Again I defer to Glenn Greenwald as he tears up Obama's deceit:

This is the most misleading part of Obama's statement. The "certain surveillance orders [which] will begin to expire later this summer" -- that Obama claims we must maintain -- are warrantless eavesdropping orders that were authorized by the PAA, which Obama voted against last August. As I asked the other day:

Had Obama had his way, there never would have been any PAA in the first place, and therefore, there never would have been any PAA orders possible. Having voted against the PAA last August, how can Obama now claim that he considers it important that the PAA orders not expire? How can he be eager to avoid the expiration of surveillance orders which he opposed authorizing in the first place?

Moreover, the Government already has "the ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States" under the current FISA law. Citing the need for such monitoring in order to justify this new FISA bill is just pure fear-mongering ("you better let us eliminate FISA protections if you want us to keep you safe from the Terrorists"). Obama has always said in the past that "the FISA court works." When did he change his mind and why?

I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as president -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

This expression of Obama's "intention" has so many equivocations and vague claims as to be worthless. In a society that lives under the rule of law, government officials and corporations which break our laws are held accountable by courts of law, not by vague promises from politicians of some future "review" and "recommendation" process grounded in claims that we can trust the Leader to do the right thing, whatever he decides in his sole discretion and infinite wisdom that might be. That is no consolation for blocking courts from adjudicating whether laws were broken here, which is what the bill that Obama supports will do.

This I read, via Kargo X of DailyKos.com, about Mark Udall's attempt to bamboozle with people who are asking him about HR6304 and his stand on retroactive telecom immunity:

This bill is designed to update FISA while putting an end to abusive domestic spying, and I voted for it in order to prevent a future program of warrantless surveillance by the executive branch. The bill is explicit that complying with FISA is the only way for the government to conduct surveillance. At the same time, it updates FISA, which was originally passed in 1978, to give us important capabilities to discover and stop terrorist activities. I fully understand why there is confusion and even anger that the legislation does not do more to require some telecommunications companies to respond to lawsuits for alleged privacy abuses in their actions to implement the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance after 9-11. But it does require a comprehensive review of that surveillance program by the Inspectors General of the Justice Department, the Directorate of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Department, including a report to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of Congress. This will mean that past abuses by the Bush Administration will not go uninvestigated. Also, the bill does not provide absolute or criminal immunity for these companies, and no government official will receive civil or criminal immunity for past abuses.

So Udall's statement is the same as Obama's.  But we are watching and have been acting, especially with regard to MyBo networking site.

It is time for Senator Salazar and candidate Udall to hear from the people that we are fed up with illegal spying upon ourselves. 

The fight to halt H.R. 6304 and Obama's change of heart are an important test of whether or not netroots has real political power on issues.  This issue of revising FISA to comply with the wishes of Mr. Bush and the long struggle to force a Democratic Congress to halt such legislative bills that would grant blanket retroactive immunity to telecom companies, toss out the Fourth Amendment, and the rule of law will be replaced by the rule of men which the internet powered grassroots outcry forced the hand of the Democrats.

As we now know that Speaker Pelosi's realpolitik which forced through a humilating defeat to all Americans and to the Constitution was based on the political calculus of elections.  In Pelosi and other House Democratic leaders own sentiments:

Stonewalling the Administration and letting the surveillance powers expire could have cost the Democrats swing seats they won in 2006 as well as new ones they have a chance to steal from Republicans this November. "For any Republican-leaning district this would have been a huge issue," says a top Pelosi aide, who estimates that as many as 10 competitive races could have been affected by it. . . .

Pelosi's centrist compromise doesn't just help House Democrats in the fall. It also gives the party's presumptive nominee for President, Barack Obama, a chance to move to the center on national security. "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay," Obama said in a statement Friday. "So I support the compromise."

Glenn Greenwald states succinctly:

The only objective of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer is to have a 50-seat majority rather than a 35-seat majority, and if enabling the Bush administration's lawbreaking and demolishing core constitutional protections can assist somewhat with that goal, then that it what they will do. That's what they are saying all but explicitly here.

Now is the time to take action when your Representatives and Senators are home.  John Amato, Crooksandliars.com, writes:

You spoke and we listened. You donated intensely and we are taking action. We’ve run ads and now we’re hitting the phones. Blue America has just launched an interactive tool that will allow you to call your Senator and demand accountability on FISA.

Blue America Whip Count Call Tool.

Christy Hardin Smith, Firedoglake.com, writes: 

This first tool allows you to directly contact Senators to tell them to stand up for the rule of law and vote in favor of the Dodd-Feingold-Leahy amendment.  (That's S.A.5064 to H.R. 6304 which will come up for a vote on July 8th, 2008.)  Not only will this tool help you phone your Senators -- including connecting your call -- but it also gives us the ability to track positions on FISA given your input on what you ascertain during your conversations.

We do not have the luxury of time.  The vote will come up on July 8th. 

Now I've written about Obama's run to the center on HR6304.  As many netizens know that Obama's reasoning is deeply flawed on why he would support such a bill that was, in part, written by the telecom companies themselves. 

What is heartening is that the Obama group, "Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity – Get FISA Right," is now the largest Obama network group with over 10,000 members.

mcjoan, Dailykos.com, writes:

This effort shows two things: the always-expanding power of the Internet for organizing. We knew at the outset what a powerful tool the tubes were going to present, but the new iterations that people create on a daily basis is fantastic (and another reason for the Net Neutrality fight to be rejoined full force when we have our new president and Congress).

It also shows that you can fully support Barack Obama and still disagree with him on issues. That being a supporter, particularly a netroots supporter, doesn't mean setting aside your own beliefs and principles. We're not supposed to just shut up when we disagree--if we do, we're setting a very bad precedent for our role in a potential Obama presidency. I keep going back to the Louis Brandeis quote:

The most important political office is that of private citizen.
-Louis D. Brandeis

You can support a candidate and fulfill your political office of a private citizen at the same time. A huge number of Barack Obama's supporters on his site are doing just that.

The wiki-hub for more action items.

On the local front there will be an action at Obama's Denver HQ early next week.  Check back for further information.  If you want to join send me an email (therebis@yahoo.com).

For Second Amendment advocates there are no limits to where you can carry a concealed weapon.  Thus, you have these organizations and individuals who are scared to death of "the terrorist threat" yet argue that Mr. Bush has the right to take away their Fourth Amendment right but simultaneously argue that they have their Second Amendment right to carry a gun anywhere they want to.  To wit, from AP (via MSNBC.com):

ATLANTA - The nation's busiest airport dueled with gun rights advocates Tuesday over whether a new Georgia state law allows visitors to carry firearms at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

This is legal absurdity:

John Monroe, an attorney for the gun rights backers who filed the lawsuit, argued the Atlanta airport qualifies as public transportation. There are also restaurants in the terminal, which Monroe said should be accessible to gun-toting visitors under the new law.

I would say that with the recent Supreme Court ruling to overturn the D.C. law that requires trigger locks on guns to have a subtle effect on subsequent rulings.  These kinds of safe guards on hand guns that will not be allowed because it infringes on the Second Amendment could be extended to the lawsuit filed by hand gun rights advocates in the Atlanta case just filed.

When will this fatal fetish with guns and America?  This delusion with guns, freedom, and feeling that you are "independent" of government interference is deadly and laughable since the most vociferous advocates are firmly embedded in the conservative movement.  So there is a suspension of disbelief with respect to how much government can intrude on your privacy (meaning that they support the Bush administration's "War on Terror"'s surveillence programs on Americans) and on having a hand gun to "protect" yourself.

What will it be...freedom to carry hand guns or letting big government into your private life in the name of "fighting terror"?

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.

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.