But here’s the problem for me. I had really liked President Carter. I had a lot of respect for him, in fact. I was young and naive when he was in office, but certainly the work he had done AFTER leaving the White House was commendable. For instance, the work he and his entire family did for Habitat for Humanity has helped numerous people, including in my home town. I have experienced firsthand seeing the joy and pride the new homeowner as she looked at her house, and talked about what it meant to her. And the group of university students with whom I was working, all female, becoming more empowered, more sure of themselves, because they were helping to build someone a HOUSE, and the sense of pride and accomplishment that gave them.

The work Carter has done in Africa, helping to eradicate a horrible disease of worms that infiltrate too many areas there, doing horrible damage to the people they infest. Or his work in monitoring elections. Heck, even his recent decision to leave his church of many years because they will not ordain women.

My partner and I have visited the Carter Presidential Library in Atlanta, GA, a beautiful place in a calming and serene environment. I walked through that buildung filled with a sense of awe, seeing what he gave up, and subsequently his wife, when he left his commission as a Naval officer behind to go back to Georgia and help out the family. As I saw photographs marking historic moments, actual papers from events I had read about, or seen on tv. I was in awe as I saw his actual Nobel Peace Prize. And with pride, we have supported the Carter Peace Center for years now with monthly contributions…

(Photo by rachydachy)

But, things have been changed now. It began with some of his statements about Israel. Then President Carter inserted himself into the Primary Campaign, making some unkind remarks about my hero, “>Hillary Clinton. And now this. Being called a racist because I oppose the way by which Obama became President, but even more, because I oppose his policies. When someone calls me a racist, I gotta say (as we do down here in the South, “Them’s fightin’ words.” And so, I have written this letter to send to the Carter Center when my next payment is due:

Dear Carter Center,

Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy

What a sad day, for me personally, but also for this nation, when a former president makes such a grievous, and unfounded, charge against over half of the population. Because we have the audacity to judge the president by his CHARACTER, rather than the color of his skin, as Martin Luther King, Jr., charged us to do, we are called a heinous name. How sad, and how infuriating.

President Carter, as respectfully as I can muster after being called a racist, I would suggest it is time for you to go into retirement, and leave off sharing your political opinions. You are not doing yourself or your legacy any good, to be sure. Even more, you are not doing this nation any good. Rather, you are fanning flames that divide us, not unite us, all to provide cover for a man who, had he been properly vetted in the first place, and had the DNC followed its own rules, would never have gotten this far. Speaking for me only, I am judging Obama on the merits, not the color of his skin. I suggest you do likewise.

Here we are with yet another Bush-era policy Barack “Vote For Me Because I Am Not Bush” Obama:

The Obama administration will largely preserve Bush-era procedures allowing the government to search — without suspicion of wrongdoing — the contents of a traveler’s laptop computer, cellphone or other electronic device, although officials said new policies would expand oversight of such inspections.

The policy, disclosed Thursday in a pair of Department of Homeland Security directives, describes more fully than did the Bush administration the procedures by which travelers’ laptops, iPods, cameras and other digital devices can be searched and seized when they cross a U.S. border. And it sets time limits for completing searches.

But representatives of civil liberties and travelers groups say they see little substantive difference between the Bush-era policy, which prompted controversy, and this one.

“It’s a disappointing ratification of the suspicionless search policy put in place by the Bush administration,” said Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. “It provides a lot of procedural safeguards, but it doesn’t deal with the fundamental problem, which is that under the policy, government officials are free to search people’s laptops and cellphones for any reason whatsoever.”

Why, yes – it is “disappointing.” WTH with these groups who always use that word when Obama retains yet another egregious Bush program. “Disappointing.” Uh, yeah. That’s one (incredibly lame) word for it:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano yesterday framed the new policy as an enhancement of oversight. “Keeping Americans safe in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully screen materials entering the United States,” she said in a statement. “The new directives announced today strike the balance between respecting the civil liberties and privacy of all travelers while ensuring DHS can take the lawful actions necessary to secure our borders.”

For instance, searches conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers should now generally take no more than 5 days, and no more than 30 days for searches by Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agents. The directives also require for the first time that automated tools be developed to ensure the reliable tracking of statistics relating to searches, and that audits be conducted periodically to ensure the guidelines are being followed, officials said.

Did I read that right? 5 days and 30 days?? That’s supposed to be an IMPROVEMENT? Holy freakin’ smokes!!

Some people are happy with it, though:

Such measures drew praise from House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who called the new policy “a major step forward,” and from Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), who introduced legislation this year to strengthen protections for travelers whose devices are searched.

And these are our representatives. That’s just jake.

Others, those who actually care about the Constitution, for example, aren’t quite so upbeat about it:

But the civil liberties community was disappointed.

“Under the policy begun by Bush and now continued by Obama, the government can open your laptop and read your medical records, financial records, e-mails, work product and personal correspondence — all without any suspicion of illegal activity,” said Elizabeth Goitein, who leads the liberty and national security project at the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice.

Goitein, formerly a counsel to Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), said the Bush policy itself “broke sharply” with previous Customs directives, which required reasonable suspicion before agents could read the contents of documents. Feingold last year introduced legislation to restore the requirement.

Jack Riepe, spokesman for the Association of Corporate Travel Executives, said the guidelines “still have many of the inherent weaknesses” of the Bush-era policy.

Between October 2008 and Aug. 11, more than 221 million travelers passed through CBP checkpoints. About 1,000 laptop searches were performed, only 46 in-depth, the DHS said.

Once again, I am SO “disappointed” to have my civil liberties curtailed. Sheesh. Seriously, people, there are stronger terms for having our Constitution dismantled by The One over whom you ooh-ed! and ah-ed! as such a great Constitutional Scholar, and the Anti-Bush. All I can say is, perhaps you wouldn’t have experienced this “disappointment” had you bothered to actually listen to what he man said (remember the return to Bush I’s foreign policy? How about voting for the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill?) or what he did (remember that FISA vote? Yeah, you were “disappointed” then, too.). So many examples, so little time. The point is, had your eyes been open instead of closed as you swayed in rapture to the tones of The One and TOTUS, perhaps you wouldn’t be oh-so-surprised by this.

The rest of us aren’t.

Well, here is another one: Signing Statements. Yes, the bane of our existence, or at least one of them, during the Bush Years. Yep, apparently, Obama has changed his mind. Just like he did on FISA. DADT. DOMA. And I could go on. So could you, I am sure (and feel free to do so). In this NY Times article, “Obama’s Embrace of a Bush Tactic Riles Congress,” we have yet another example of how much like Bush Obama really is:

President Obama has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office, provoking mounting criticism by lawmakers from both parties.

President George W. Bush, citing expansive theories about his constitutional powers, set off a national debate in 2006 over the propriety of signing statements — instructions to executive officials about how to interpret and put in place new laws — after he used them to assert that he could authorize officials to bypass laws like a torture ban and oversight provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

In the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama called Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements an “abuse,” and said he would issue them with greater restraint. The Obama administration says the signing statements the president has signed so far, challenging portions of five bills, have been based on mainstream interpretations of the Constitution and echo reservations routinely expressed by presidents of both parties.

Still, since taking office, Mr. Obama has relaxed his criteria for what kinds of signing statements are appropriate. And last month several leading Democrats — including Representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and David R. Obey of Wisconsin — sent a letter to Mr. Obama complaining about one of his signing statements.

Wow! How shocking that Obama would do this!!!! That is so unlike him! Which, by the upside-down rules that now seem to govern journalism, and well, governance, I mean, “Of course Obama was going to do this!! Did anyone really believe otherwise?” Apparently, some people did:

“During the previous administration, all of us were critical of the president’s assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of Congressional statutes he was required to enforce,” they wrote. “We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude.”

They were reacting to a statement Mr. Obama issued after signing a bill that expanded assistance to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank while requiring the administration to pressure the organizations to adopt certain policies. Mr. Obama said he could disregard the negotiation instructions under his power to conduct foreign relations.

The administration protested that it planned to carry out the provisions anyway and that its statement merely expressed a general principle. But Congress was not mollified. On July 9, in a bipartisan rebuke, the House of Representatives voted 429 to 2 to ban officials from using federal money to disobey the restrictions. And in their July 21 letter, Mr. Frank and Mr. Obey — the chairmen of the Financial Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee — asked Mr. Obama to stop issuing such signing statements, warning that Congress might not approve more money for the banking organizations unless he agreed.

Oh, nice. And it gets worse:

In March, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, sent Mr. Obama a letter criticizing a signing statement that challenged a statute protecting government whistle-blowers who tell lawmakers privileged or “otherwise confidential” information. He accused Mr. Obama of chilling potential whistle-blowers, undermining the intent of Congress in a way that violated his campaign promises. The White House said it intended only to reaffirm similar reservations made by previous presidents. (Emphasis mine)

Yes, I am sure that was Obama’s intent – not to threaten government whistle blowers. No, of COURSE not – who would think such a thing???
That’s not all:

Other laws Mr. Obama has said he need not obey as written include format requirements for budget requests, limits on whom he may appoint to a commission, and a restriction on putting troops under United Nations command.

After Mr. Bush transformed signing statements from an obscure tool into a commonplace term, Mr. Obama’s willingness to use them has disappointed some who had hoped he would roll back the practice, not entrench it.

“We didn’t think it was an appropriate practice when President Bush was doing it, and our policy is such that we don’t think it is an appropriate practice when President Obama is doing it,” said H. Thomas Wells, who just stepped down as president of the American Bar Association.

In 2006, the association called the practice unconstitutional and said presidents should veto legislation if it had flaws, giving Congress a chance to override the pronouncements.

No freakin’ duh. And not for nothing, but OBAMA claimed that it was inappropriate, too, when Bush was doing it. But that was then, this is now.

Naturally, Obama has some folks in his corner:

But other legal experts argued that signing statements were lawful and appropriate because it was impractical to veto important bills over small problems. Among them, Walter Dellinger, who helped develop the legal framework for signing statements as a Clinton administration official, said Mr. Obama was using the mechanism appropriately, and the problem with Mr. Bush’s statements was that he cited dubious legal theories.

“The fact that a previous or subsequent president might refuse to comply with laws that are valid is not a reason for this president to decline to assert his authority with regard to laws that are invalid,” Mr. Dellinger said.

Mr. Dellinger signed a 2006 essay defending signing statements with other former Clinton officials, including David Barron and Martin Lederman, who now run the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. They work with White House lawyers Daniel Meltzer and Trevor Morrison, along with Office of Management and Budget officials, to produce Mr. Obama’s statements.

Since the 19th century, presidents have occasionally signed bills while calling a provision unconstitutional. But the practice was rare until President Ronald Reagan. He and his successors, including Bill Clinton, began issuing signing statements much more frequently and challenging far more provisions.

The practice peaked under Mr. Bush, who challenged nearly 1,200 provisions of bills over eight years — about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio professor.

Remember when Obama invoked the name of Ronald Reagan as a pivotal president, singing his praises? Well, that told SOME of us something Not enough of us were paying attention, though. Anyway, thus far, here are the numbers:

Mr. Obama has attached signing statements to 5 of the 42 bills he has signed, focusing on 19 specific provisions. He also challenged, without listing them, “numerous provisions” in a budget bill requiring officials to obtain permission from a Congressional committee before spending money. It contained dozens of such requirements.

In the presidential campaign, the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, promised never to issue a signing statement. By contrast, Mr. Obama said it was a legitimate way “to protect a president’s constitutional prerogatives” when used with greater restraint than Mr. Bush.

“Restraint,” Mr. Obama and his campaign said then, included not issuing “signing statements that undermine the legislative intent” or “nullify or undermine Congressional instructions as enacted into law.”

But in March, when he issued a presidential memorandum on signing statements, Mr. Obama defined restraint as citing only “interpretations of the Constitution that are well founded,” a subtle shift that provides greater leeway.

Still, unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama has not mentioned the Unitary Executive Theory, an expansive view of executive power that conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. His only invocation of his commander-in-chief authority was limited, taking aim at a requirement that he get permission from a military subordinate before taking an action.

“He has not pushed the envelope as far as the Bush administration in making the kind of claims that Bush made,” said Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University professor who studies signing statements. “But he is still using it in ways that were controversial before George W. Bush came to office.”

Yet. He has not mentioned the “Unitary Executive Theory” YET. Does anyone honestly think he won’t at some point? That’s what I thought.

This is what else I think: Obama = Bush = Obushma. Really, they should have seen it coming. He gave out some not-so-subtle hints, all along the way, which they chose to ignore. At our peril, of course – because we are the ones who will ultimately bear the brunt of it all. Again.

President Obama should just join the cast of “I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!” It’s not that farfetched; he’s been on everything else….(snip) …there’s a fine line between being transparent and being overexposed. Every time you turn on the TV, there’s Obama. He’s getting a puppy! He’s eating a cheeseburger with Joe Biden! …(snip) I get it: You love being on TV. I love my bong, but I take it out of my mouth every once in a while. The other day, I caught myself saying to a friend, “Don’t tell me if he’s fixed the economy yet, I’m Tivo-ing it.”
(snip)
You’re the president, not a rerun of “Law and Order.” Save some charisma for a rainy day. Taking strangers from a TV show on a tour of your house? We have that show; it’s called “Cribs.” And letting reporters ask you questions like “You like to be the one who picks out the shaving cream, don’t you?” Or as it’s called today, “journalism.” I was willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt until I saw him take Brian Williams into his bedroom, and at the end of the bed there was a teleprompter and it said, “Who’s your daddy?”

…we see your name in the paper a lot, but we’re kind of wondering when you’re actually going to do something.

Are ya’ kiddin’ me, Bill? We’ve been saying this for two years! But it took YOU two years of idol worship to finally find a halfway coherent moment? Mr. Maher, snarky as ever, states:

Remember during the campaign when John McCain attacked Obama for acting like a celebrity and we all laughed at the grumpy old shellshocked fool? Well, it turns out he was right. Sorry, senator. I’m sending a nice gift basket of high-fiber muffins your way.

Well, no, Bill. WE didn’t laugh at Senator McCain because WE didn’t find him grumpy, old or shell-shocked. YOU did. WE knew he was spot on the money. And Hillary Clinton was also spot on the money when she said:

“Senator McCain and I bring a lifetime of service, Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”

But you were so busy trashing her on your show every week, it never once occurred to you to appreciate the work she had actually done in her career standing up for those who needed help. And the list is long. As much bashing as Secretary Clinton took during the grueling eighteen month campaign, and as happy as you were to chime in, did you not for once admire her toughness in being able to handle it all with such grace, class and fortitude. She’s a fighter. Don’t you think that quality would have been nice to have, particularly in light of your next comments about President Obama:

“…[W]hen I read about how you sat on the sidelines while bailed-out banks used the money we gave them to hire lobbyists who got Congress to stop homeowners from getting renegotiated loans, or how Congress is already giving up on healthcare reform, or how scientists say it’s essential to reduce CO2 by 40% in 10 years, but your own bill calls for 4%, I say, enough with the character development, let’s get on with the plot.

And let’s stop worrying so much about doing anything that might tarnish the brand. See, this is why I don’t want my president to be a TV star: Because TV stars are too worried about being popular — and too concerned with getting renewed.
(snip)
Obama needs to start putting it on the line in fights against the banks, the energy companies and the healthcare industry. I never thought I’d say this, but he needs to be more like George W. Bush. Bush was all about, “You’re with us or against us.”
Obama’s more like, “You’re either with us, or you obviously need to see another picture of this adorable puppy!”

Bush had horrible ideas, …[t]he point is, he didn’t care if it made him unpopular with every human on the planet not named Cletus or Fred Barnes. Which it did.
And we need to marry the good ideas Obama really believes in with that Bush attitude and Bush certitude.”

I’m afraid you’re missing the point, Mr. Maher, as are most of his die hard supporters. President Obama doesn’t have moral certitude about anything but popularity polls and his TelePrompTer. How would you like the man to attack a problem with certitude? He has never exhibited any throughout his entire career. Believe me, this is not about insulting the President. Frankly I am beyond it, or worrying about it. This is about logic and common sense. So, for the one thousandth time: You can’t know what you don’t know.

Throughout President Obama’s career as a State Senator, with 130 “present” votes and six “wrong” votes, his missing over 40% of his votes in the U.S. Senate, dodging politically risky votes, or voting several times to fund Bush’s war, he has shown a proclivity NOT to lose. His career is no accident. Every move is deliberately and painstakingly plotted out to piss off as few people as possible before actually winning the office of the Presidency.

We never saw him willing to go to the mat for anything. He promised to use public financing and reneged. Moreover, there was no principle or legislation for which he was willing to “go down fighting.” He promised a filibuster on FISA and reneged. Believe me, had he staged that filibuster, it would have been the Senate session heard ‘round the world. Imagine him, sans teleprompter, fighting the good fight till he ran out of spit. You know what, Hillary would have taken over for him and helped out while he caught his wind – because she voted correctly on that bill. That’s the difference between a leader with guts and a “reader.”

If the man’s forte has always been giving speeches, without any governing and precious little legislative experience, if he had not heretofore exhibited leadership on any cause, except talking about it, what potion did you imagine he could ingest on Inauguration Day that would magically endow him with powers he had never previously exhibited? I always appreciated SoS Clinton and Senator McCain because we have the empirical evidence to indicate they had the courage to stand alone and fight. I knew they were both capable of it. Sir, from what mysterious inner reserve did you think Barack Obama would draw this strong character you are so vehemently exhorting him to show now?

You conclude with:

I’m glad that Obama is president, but the “Audacity of Hope” part is over. Right now, I’m hoping for a little more audacity.

Even in your diatribe, you pepper your article with how much you like him and how glad you are that he is in office, as if to apologize for the fact that you dare to criticize “The One.” Frankly, Mr. Maher, this is the first time in two years when you should NOT be apologizing because your criticisms are the first sensible words I’ve heard from you in regards to President Obama.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has just returned from her first trip abroad. She said she chose to visit Asia because of its rising importance to the United States. China, after all, buys U.S. Treasury bonds. President Obama would have a hard time paying the government’s bills without those purchases.

Mrs. Clinton frequently made the pitch that the bonds were safe, and that Asia needs a healthy American economy, making her, as one commentator said, the nation’s leading “merchant of debt.” But what she did not say was important, too.

She did not complain openly about China’s human rights abuses, even though the State Department issued its annual human rights assessment just after she returned from Asia. The department’s statement said, “The government of China’s human rights record remained poor and worsened in some areas.”

Mrs. Clinton must have known what was in the report before she went to Asia, but she remained mum in public, although the State Department said she raised the issue in private meetings with Chinese leaders.

As she explained to reporters on the eve of her visit to China, taking up human rights abuses like the recent jailing of Liu Xiaobo, organizer of a manifesto favoring democratic change known as Charter 08, “can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis.”

China’s Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi purred that China’s relations with the new U.S. government were “off to a good start.”

But as Sophie Richardson of Human Rights Watch wrote in the magazine Foreign Policy, a “long-standing” theme of U.S. foreign policy has been “support for the brave individuals who are working within China to improve their country’s rights environment.” She noted that the Chinese government suppressed prominent government critics to keep them silent during Mrs. Clinton’s visit. It will be a blow to the morale of democracy activists in China, she wrote, to hear “that the United States now considers them an impediment to progress on other issues.”

That is sad — and unnecessary. China will continue to finance U.S. debt as it has in the past even though the United States speaks up for human rights, so long as U.S. Treasury bonds remain good investments. And no longer.

“I’m very proud that President Obama has made a total U-turn away from the policies of the last eight years,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience at Ewha University in South Korea.

If that means keeping a closed mouth on human rights abuses, she and the president have regrettably chosen the wrong direction (emphasis mine).

Here’s the thing – Secretary Clinton serves at the pleasure of the president She has to carry out HIS policies, NOT HERS. For the Editors to not even MENTION that this was Obama’s policy until the very end, and vaguely at that, is disingenuous at best. Obama is responsible for putting human rights on the back burner, which is why a number of human rights groups were upset with him. How sad that they continue to participate in Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and are unwilling to put the blame where it should lie: squarely on Obama’s shoulders. This is HIS policy, not hers. It is far past time for the media to actually do their job, and stop their coddling of him. His policy, his responsibility. Deal with it.

Along those lines of Obama backtracking on his campaign promises, just in case anyone was under the delusion that his MAJOR flip to support FISA, and not filibuster it, was a fluke (Hahahahaha – sorry – I couldn’t help but laugh at the thought that someone could actually think that, but he – we’ve seen stranger things this past election season), check out this little story by the AP (they don’t like it when others run their stories). I’ll give you a hint Here is the first paragraph in the story:

The Obama administration has lost its argument that a potential threat to national security should stop a lawsuit challenging the government’s warrantless wiretapping program.

Oh, yeah, baby – Obama WANTED that ability, despite its being Un-Constitutional! He wanted all the same power, and more (remember Robert Byrd’s recent letter about Obama’s power-grab), that Bush had. It is time for his minions to get past their “disappointment” (as one of my family members referred to it) that he voted for it, and accept that he SUPPORTS having this ability for himself. Pull your heads out of the sand, and wrap your minds around it already. Obama is not the man you hoped he was. Deal with it.

Oh, and one more little backtrack while I am at it: Obama’s Iraq withdrawal plan. Seems it is not exactly what people thought it was going to be. Seems it will take a lot longer, and leave a lot more troops in than hoped. Heck, even some of the Democrats in Congress are upset about it, according to THIS article. No immediate withdrawal, and leaving at least 50,000 troops in country. Oh, and sending a whole bunch more folks to Afghanistan. Since people seem to have such short memories, bear in mind that the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan for NINE years – NINE. And the Soviet Union ended up having to leave, never accomplishing their objective. Why? Because Afghanistan is a DIFFICULT country in which to wage a war. There are mountains, and caves, and all kinds of little hidey holes there, with some mighty strong factions there.

Now, I will be the first to say that post 9/11, I felt that if we were going to wage war against those responsible, Afghanistan was the place to be since that was where bin Laden was. But it is foolish to gloss over RECENT history and not understand how difficult this situation was going to be. It needed more troops to be sure, and it could have done with some oversight from the Senate.

Oh, wait – the person responsible for holding those subcommittee meetings couldn’t be bothered to actually HOLD any meetings. Yes, Barack Obama was that person. For him to now claim that not enough has been done in Afghanistan would be LAUGHABLE if not so insulting. HE chose not to do his duty as a US Senator, and is now acting like this is his first opportunity EVER to actually do something about it. Pathetic.

Sheesh. It seems Obama is knocking off one campaign promise after another. I wonder which one will be next?

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

Well, I am glad someone is pointing it out. Our system of Checks and Balances have been sorely thwarted over the past 8 years. Sadly, Obama has demonstrated that he is all too willing to maintain what Bush has done (FISA, States Secrets, Extraordinary Rendition, to name a few), and as Senator Byrd points out, is expanding the power of the Executive Branch:

While it’s rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House. Byrd no longer holds the powerful Appropriations chairmanship, so his criticism does not carry as much weight these days. Byrd repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration over executive power, and it appears that he’s not limiting his criticism to Republican administrations.

Byrd also wants Obama to limit claims of executive privilege while also ensuring that these White House czars don’t have authority over Cabinet officers confirmed by the Senate.

“As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”

The West Virginia Democrat on Wednesday asked Obama to “consider the following: that assertions of executive privilege will be made only by the president, or with the president’s specific approval; that senior White House personnel will be limited from exercising authority over any person, any program, and any funding within the statutory responsibility of a Senate-confirmed department or agency head; that the President will be responsible for resolving any disagreement between a Senate-confirmed agency or department head and White House staff; and that the lines of authority and responsibility in the Administration will be transparent and open to the American public.”

Senator Byrd spoke out on this very thing in regard to Bush:

I must say, though, if Senator Bryd had been paying attention, he would have been well aware that transparency was never high on Obama’s list. This president who has provided no legislative papers, no datebooks, no college transcripts, no graduate transcripts, no authentic birth certificate. To expect any transparency now is almost laughable. If it wasn’t so disturbing…

So far, Obama has not chosen to distinguish himself from some of the more egregious decisions Bush has made, as noted above. There is still time for him to do so:

Obama faces a decision as early as next week on whether to support a claim of executive privilege made by former President Bush in refusing to allow Karl Rove, the former deputy White House chief of staff, to be deposed by the House Judiciary Committee on the White House’s role in the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

Bush claimed “absolute immunity” for top advisors in resisting such subpoenas, by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, filed a lawsuit over the issue. The case is on appeal, and the Obama administration is scheduled to file a motion next week laying out its stance on the issue.

I am glad Senator Byrd is speaking out on behalf of the Constitution. I am glad he is trying to keep Obama’s attempt to expand Executive Powers.

How I wish Senator Byrd had stood with the people of his state this summer (Senator Rockefeller, too). How I wish he had been moved to listen to the majority of people during the Primaries who made their voices clear. How I wish he had supported with his vote the person who would not have participated in these Executive power grabs. But no. Despite his relationship with Hillary Clinton (and her husband), despite two-thirds of his state going for Clinton, he picked Obama. And now he is beginning to see what we saw. Now he is beginning to see the power grabs, the lack of transparency, the move away from Checks and Balances. Now he is beginning to see. I fear it is too little, too late…

As many of you may already know, Bill Moyers worked in the Lyndon Johnson Administration, and it is that period of time with which this article deals:

One of the darker periods of modern American history was J. Edgar Hoover’s long reign over the FBI, as we have learned since he died in 1972. So it is more than a historical footnote to discover new records showing that prominent public television broadcaster Bill Moyers participated in Hoover’s exploits.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the Washington Post has obtained a few of the former FBI director’s secret files. According to a Thursday front-page story, Hoover was “consumed” with exposing a (nonexistent) relationship between a gay photographer and Jack Valenti, the late film industry lobbyist who was then an aide to Lyndon Johnson. Hoover’s M.O. was to amass incriminating personal information as political blackmail.

But as the Post reports in passing, the dossier also reveals that Mr. Moyers — then a special assistant to LBJ — requested in 1964 that Hoover’s G-men “investigate two other administration figures who were ’suspected as having homosexual tendencies.’”

Sigh. Tell me that doesn’t make you sad. It does me. I know, I know, it was a different time, but for someone who has long been considered to be above that sort of thing to have engaged in that sort of thing is just disheartening. Especially because:

This isn’t the first time Mr. Moyers’s name has come up in connection with Hoover’s abuse of office. When Laurence Silberman, now a federal appeals judge, was acting Attorney General in 1975, he was obliged to read Hoover’s secret files in their entirety in preparation for testimony before Congress — and as far as we know remains one of the only living officials to have done so. “It was the single worst experience of my long governmental service,” he wrote in these pages in 2005.

Amid “bits of dirt on figures such as Martin Luther King,” Judge Silberman found a 1964 memo from Mr. Moyers directing Hoover’s agents to investigate Barry Goldwater’s campaign staff for evidence of homosexual activity. A few weeks before, an LBJ aide named Walter Jenkins had been arrested in a men’s bathroom, and Mr. Silberman wrote that Mr. Moyers and his boss evidently wanted leverage in the event Goldwater* tried to use the liaison against them. (He didn’t, as it happened.)

When that episode became public after Mr. Silberman testified, an irate Mr. Moyers called him and, with typical delicacy, accused him of falling for forged CIA memos. Mr. Silberman offered to study the matter and, should Mr. Moyers’s allegations pan out, he would publicly exonerate him. “There was a pause on the line and then he said, ‘I was very young. How will I explain this to my children?’ And then he rang off.”

How indeed, Mr. Moyers? Or to the rest of us who have developed a deep respect and admiration for you? Or is this just old news:

Memories are short in Washington, and Mr. Moyers has gone on to promote himself as a political moralist, routinely sermonizing about what he claims are abuses of power by his ideological enemies. Since 9/11, he has been particularly intense in criticizing President Bush for his antiterror policies, such as warrantless wiretapping against al Qaeda.

Yet the historical record suggests that when Mr. Moyers was in a position of actual power, he was complicit in FBI dirt-digging against U.S. citizens solely for political purposes. As Judge Silberman put it in 2005, “I have always thought that the most heinous act in which a democratic government can engage is to use its law enforcement machinery for political ends.”

Mr. Moyers told us through a spokeswoman that he “never heard of the Valenti matter until this story and had nothing to add to it.” He also pointed to a 1975 Newsweek article in which he wrote that he learned of the LBJ-Hoover relationship in “the quickly fading days of my innocence.” In the Nixon days, this was called a nondenial denial.

Well, my memory isn’t short. And the “nondenial denial” just doesn’t help matters much. I expected more, and better, from Mr. Moyers.

Oh – and just in case some folks have forgotten, J. Edgar Hoover was mighty good friends with Joseph McCarthy. As in the one from whom we have the term, “McCarthyism.” I might add, that J. Edgar Hoover was notorious for spying on American citizens. So, bear that in mind as you consider the above, and all of the ramifications of this article. (There are tons of books available on the subject of McCarthyism, McCarthy, and J. Edgar Hoover, if you wish to learn more. A simple search will reveal a number of them, especially at Amazon.com.)

And I wonder what Mr. Moyers thinks of Obama’s maintaining of some of Bush’s more egregious policies, given how outspoken he was when Bush began them (FISA, anti-terror policies like extraordinary rendition, State Secrets, etc., etc.). Despite the disappointment of what this article reveals, I hope Mr. Moyers will continue to hold the powers-that-be feet to the fire. That he will hold Obama accountable for continuing so many of the more despicable policies of Bush II that he decried when Bush did them.

Still, the disappointment lingers.

* By the way, you may recall that it was on the issue of GLBT people in the military, Hillary Clinton always quoted Barry Goldwater who said, “You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight.” So, it doesn’t surprise me that HE did not use the issue of homosexuality for political reasons. That the Democrats had no problems doing that, though, does…

Dear ACLU Supporter,

Yesterday, ACLU lawyers encountered a recurring — and troubling — obstacle in our lawsuit seeking justice for torture victims caught up in the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program. But this time, the objections were not coming from the Bush administration.

To our surprise and disappointment, the new Justice Department urged a federal appeals court to dismiss our lawsuit charging a Boeing subsidiary with providing critical support for the CIA’s rendition program based on the same “state secrets” claim that the Bush administration had repeatedly invoked to avoid any judicial scrutiny of its actions. During the course of the argument, one judge asked twice if the change in administration had any bearing on the Justice Department’s position. The attorney for the government said that its position remained the same.

This isn’t the kind of change we need if we want an America we can be proud of again.

If the judges rule in the government’s favor, our clients — who were tortured as part of the government’s rendition program — will never get their day in court.

We’re still hoping the court will rule in our favor and allow our case to move forward. But, in the meantime, we must do everything we can to end the abuse of the “state secrets” doctrine both in the courts and on Capitol Hill.

Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Specter and Representative Nadler introduced legislation in 2008 to narrow the scope of the state secrets privilege — and open the courthouse doors to people who have suffered real and legitimate harm by the government. Clearly, this legislation is needed now more than ever.

Send a message to these members of Congress to let them know you support the State Secrets Protection Act.

This crucial civil liberties bill recognizes the need to take precautions when it comes to national security. But, it also acknowledges that courts have been competently managing the balance between the security of classified information and the right to a fair trial in criminal cases for years. And, most important of all, it makes it much more difficult for the government to abuse the state secrets doctrine to escape accountability for illegal behavior.

We can’t allow any administration to invoke state secrets to hide a reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations.

Send a message to support the State Secrets Protection Act.

Yesterday, the Obama administration had an opportunity to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition. But, instead, the Justice Department opted to stay the course.

Now, we must hope that the court will assert its independence, reject the government’s false claims of state secrets, and allow victims of torture and rendition their day in court.

Thanks for standing with us as we work to pursue justice on this critical civil liberties issue.

Sincerely,

Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
ACLU

P.S. The ACLU has been working on this case for years. To learn more about rendition and the people impacted, watch our short video:

Yes – “disappointment” – that is exactly the word I would have chosen to convey my outrage that, once again, Obama reneged on a MAJOR campaign promise. Just like the “disappointment” people in my family felt when Obama voted for FISA, after promising to filibuster it and ensure it did NOT pass. No reason for him to have voted for it – Clinton sure didn’t. Heck, even McCain didn’t. But Obama? Oh, yeah – he threw that campaign promise away like yesterday’s garbage. I can only assume it was because he wanted to make sure he got to have ALL the same abilities to spy on us and sneak people away in the dead of night that Bush had. How else to explain his readiness to do a 180 on something so important? Oh, besides his being a liar, that is. Ahem.

And the NY Times finally weighed in on this, too (you know this happened earlier in the week. You may not have known because the MSM is continuing its pathetic journalism when it comes to Obama – protect and divert.), in an Editorial entitled, “Continuity of the Wrong Kind.” Ya know, I have been saying for months and months and months that Obama was another Bush. Nice of him to prove me right, isn’t it? Though, for the sake of the COUNTRY, I would have been happier to be proved wrong…

Apparently, the Editors at the Times feel similarly:

The Obama administration failed — miserably — the first test of its commitment to ditching the extravagant legal claims used by the Bush administration to try to impose blanket secrecy on anti-terrorism policies and avoid accountability for serial abuses of the law.

On Monday, a Justice Department lawyer dispatched by the new attorney general, Eric Holder, appeared before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. The case before them involves serious allegations of torture by five victims of President Bush’s extraordinary rendition program. The five were seized and transported to American facilities abroad or to countries known for torturing prisoners.

Incredibly, the federal lawyer advanced the same expansive state-secrets argument that was pressed by Mr. Bush’s lawyers to get a trial court to dismiss the case without any evidence being presented. It was as if last month’s inauguration had never occurred.

Voters have good reason to feel betrayed if they took Mr. Obama seriously on the campaign trail when he criticized the Bush administration’s tactic of stretching the state-secrets privilege to get lawsuits tossed out of court. Even judges on the panel seemed surprised by the administration’s decision to go forward instead of requesting a delay to reconsider the government’s position and, perhaps, file new briefs.

And not to harp, but honestly – if the people who voted for Obama really, really believed he was a man of his word, it is their own fault. He made it abundantly clear, time and time again, that he would say or do whatever needed to be said or done, to get what he wanted. They just refused to believe their own eyes and ears.

Back to the editorial:

The argument is that the very subject matter of the suit is a state secret so sensitive that it cannot be discussed in court, and it is no more persuasive now than it was when the Bush team pioneered it. For one thing, there is ample public information available about the C.I.A.’s rendition, detention and coercive interrogation programs. The fact that some of the evidence might be legitimately excluded on national security grounds need not preclude the case from being tried, and allowing the judge to make that determination. More fundamentally, the Obama administration should not be invoking state secrets to cover up charges of rendition and torture.

President Obama has taken some important steps to repair Mr. Bush’s damaging legacy — issuing executive orders to prohibit torture, shut secret prisons overseas and direct closure of the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. It would have been good if he and Mr. Holder had shown the same determination in that federal court, rather than defending the indefensible.

Um – do they realize Obama hasn’t actually CLOSED Gitmo?? I’m just asking, because they seem to think it is a done deal. And given their frustration over Obama’s actions in this very piece, WHY would they think that? It just defies logic! Sheesh!

And I do have a question – if the CIA can still carry out rendition, how is it that the secret prisons are shut down? I mean, isn’t that just mincing words? Seriously, that seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.

How many times, and in how many ways, does Obama have to repudiate his campaign promises before the MSM and his followers stop carrying water for him? After three weeks, it is just laughable. Or it WOULD be if this wasn’t such a serious issue. One widely decried when Bush did it. So where the hell are all the folks who screamed about it then? Sure would love to know. Maybe they have changed their minds now that Obama wants to do it, because obviously, if The One wants it, it has to be A-okay, right? Right?

Wrong. It just makes them hypocrites.

Some of us have been warning that it was not healthy for the U.S. media to have deified rather than questioned Obama, especially given that they tore apart Bush, ridiculed Palin, and caricatured Hillary. And now we can see the results of their two years of advocacy rather than scrutiny.

We are quite literally after two weeks teetering on an Obama implosion—and with no Dick Morris to bail him out—brought on by messianic delusions of grandeur, hubris, and a strange naivete that soaring rhetoric and a multiracial profile can add requisite cover to good old-fashioned Chicago politicking.

Well, I sure cannot disagree with him there. It is really astonishing to me the lengths to which people have gone to convince themselves that Obama was not a part of Chicago-style politics, all evidence to the contrary. I know, I know – that was one of just many things about which they turned a blind eye and deaf ear, but it is a big jumping off point.

Hanson continues with his review of Obama in the White House:

First, there were the sermons on ethics, belied by the appointments of tax dodgers, crass lobbyists, and wheeler-dealers like Richardson—with the relish of the Blago tapes still to come. (And why does Richardson/Daschle go, but not Geithner?).

Second, was the “stimulus” (the euphemism for “borrow/print money”) that was simply a way to go into debt for a generation to shower Democratic constituencies with cash.

Then third, there were the inflated lectures on historic foreign policy to be made by the clumsy political novice who trashed his own country and his predecessor in the most ungracious manner overseas to a censored Saudi-run press organ (e.g., Bush is dictatorial, the Saudi king is courageous; Obama can mend bridges that America broke to aggrieved Muslims—apparently Tehran hostages, Rushdie, serial attacks in the 1990s, 9/11, Madrid, London never apparently occurred; and neither did feeding Somalis, saving Kuwait, protesting Chechnya, Bosnia/Kosovo, billions to Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinians, help in two Afghan wars, and on and on).

Fourth, there was the campaign rhetoric of Bush shredding the Constitution—FISA, Guantánamo, the Patriot Act, Iraq, renditions, etc.—followed by “all that for now stays the same” inasmuch as we haven’t ben (sic) hit in over seven years and can’t risk another attack.

Remember when Obama reneged on his campaign promise to filibuster the FISA bill? Assuring his minions there was NO way he would ever vote for something so clearly un-Constitutional?? Oh, I do. He broke that promise with nary a “by your leave,” just a “yep, I did it! You’ll still vote for me, though, won’t you?!” Or something along those lines. One of my siblings, a big Obot, shrugged his shoulders and said he was “disappointed” by Obama voting for FISA. Uh, yeah, I get “disappointed” too when my country’s Constitution is being ripped to shreds by someone who got people to buy that he is a Constitutional “scholar.” Sure, Obama.

I digress:

Fifth, Gibbs as press secretary is a Scott McClellan nightmare that won’t go away, given his long McClellan-like relationship with Obama (McClellan should have been fired on day hour one on the job). Blaming Fox News for Obama’s calamities is McClellan to the core and doesn’t work. He already reminds me of Reverend Wright’s undoing at the National Press Club—and he will get worse.

Six, Biden is being Biden. Already, he’s ridiculed the chief justice, trashed the former VP, bragged on himself ad nauseam in Bidenesque weird ways, and it’s only been two weeks.

And the result of all this?

At home, Obama is becoming laughable and laying the groundwork for the greatest conservative populist reaction since the Reagan Revolution.

His claims of “CATASTROPHE!!!” if the Senate doesn’t give him all of our money for generations to come is pretty good evidence of that.
His lack of preparedness, experience, and knowledge of policy come into play, too:

Abroad, some really creepy people are lining up to test Obama’s world view of “Bush did it/but I am the world”: The North Koreans are readying their missiles; the Iranians are calling us passive, bragging on nukes and satellites; Russia is declaring missile defense is over and the Euros in real need of iffy Russian gas; Pakistanis say no more drone attacks (and then our friends the Indians say “shut up” about Kashmir and the Euros order no more “buy American”).

This is quite serious. I can’t recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton’s initial slips). Obama immediately must lower the hope-and-change rhetoric, ignore Reid/Pelosi, drop the therapy, and accept the tragic view that the world abroad is not misunderstood but quite dangerous. And he must listen on foreign policy to his National Security Advisor, Billary, and the Secretary of Defense. If he doesn’t quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame.

Nice of Hanson to get a little slam of Hillary in there, too. Sheesh.

Anyway, yes, this whole messianic thing is just a bit of a problem. But what kind of Messiah is in constant need of ego-strokes and propping up? I speak, of course, of the “Great job, Barry!” campaign sponsored by Senators Durbin and Boxer to tell Obama that he is just doing a bang-up, job, he’s the best president ever, and this is the best two weeks any president has ever had – YAY!!! I am not kidding you. Ani, has all of the info on this “campaign in her outstanding piece, “Maureen Dowd Berates Obama While Senators Durbin and Boxer Want Us to Kiss-y the Prez and Make-y Better.”

Just think about that. People voted for a man whose ego is so incredibly delicate that he has to CONSTANTLY be on the receiving end of praise and accolades, even when he doesn’t deserve it. Otherwise, I guess he will just go sulk in the corner, or throw a hissy fit. Like I have said all along, Obama’s petulance and requirement for non-stop adulation makes George Bush look like, well, an adult.

Can you just imagine, just IMAGINE, if this had been done by two Republican Senators back in 2001 the ridicule from all of us who opposed Bush? Jon Stewart would get mileage out of that for at least a week. Maybe a month. All of the late night hosts would be making fun of the Stewart Smalley-esque needs of the president (h/t to American Girl for reminding me of the, “I’m smart enough, I’m good enough, and dog-gone it, people LIKE me!”). But Obama? I have heard not ONE word about this campaign by two long-term US Senators. I guess not enough of these jokers have gotten their heads out of their…Obama-love.

I can say this will the fullest confidence – Hillary Clinton would never, in a gazillion years, require that kind of over-the-top praise and adoration that Obama seems to need. He needs to grow the hell up already and start worrying about his job. The one for which he CLEARLY was not ready on Day One to have. She was, which she has demonstrated with her hard work already at the State Department. Obama? Well, he’s been busy trying out all the new “toys” (read: Air Force 1, etc.) of his office (really? AF 1 to fly to VA???), going before House Democrats and acting all tough with his teleprompter on those horrible Republicans who were standing in the way of his repaying ACORN with our money. Oh, yeah.

This is the guy the DNC hand-selected. The one for whom it sold its soul. Now, go get your crayons and paper, and send the poor little president a note telling him what a bang-up job he has done in the past two-plus weeks, with the massive stimulus package he wants, the tax evader he put in charge of the IRS, as well as the other tax evaders with whom he wanted to surround himself, putting off getting the troops out of Iraq, but not wasting any time expanding Bush’s Faith Based Initiatives (more on that soon), already getting it up and running, and so much more. Let him know that you know he is the quintessential Chicago-style politician despite his “words, just words.” Remember, your job is to prop him up, not hurt his little feelings, so you should make sure you draw some little rainbows, unicorns, and smiley faces on it. That should do it.

Sure did it for me. Excuse me while I go get ill.

Oh, yes:

In his first television interview since the election, Mr Obama told CBS he would pull troops out of Iraq, shore up Afghanistan, and close Guantanamo Bay.

“I’m going to make sure that we don’t torture,” he said of the prison camp.

Well, good. No one should torture. That concept has been fully established, so that isn’t exactly groundbreaking. McCain would have done the same thing with Gitmo, by the way. But to spy on your own citizenry through FISA is A-Okay, even though it violates the US Constitution. Clearly, he has no problems with THAT since he VOTED for it.

Anywho, I’m no authority on morality – oh, wait a minute – yes I am! Yep, majoring in Ethics (Philosophy) as well as five years of graduate work in Ethics and theology, an internship, a residency to become a minister, and actual work as a minister as well as an honest-to-goodness moral upbringing really comes in handy sometimes! This would be just such a time, I think.

So, for Obama to make this claim to restore our “moral stature” is just laughable. I mean, really – to claim one wants to “rebuild the country’s moral stature” implies one has a MORAL base from which to do that work. I have seen blessed little evidence of that from Obama in the past two years. Heck, even longer than that, if you include how he got into the IL Senate – by screwing over the very woman (Alice Palmer) who got him into politics in the FIRST place. Well, that just goes to prove the point – he has had a “morality” problem for a while, it would seem.

There is no way I can touch on everything he has done during this entire election season, but one has to begin somewhere:

Tainting President Bill and Senator Hillary Clinton as racists. I am pretty sure that’s a violation of one of the BIG TEN: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” And that is just the beginning of the the lies Obama spread against Hillary Clinton over the past two years, though that is not just career damaging, but psychologically damaging. No matter HOW much one might know a smear is false, something of that magnitude has an effect, especially when one has spent one’s entire adult life fighting against that very cause? Yes, it is laughable, but it also tarnished them both tremendously. Yeah, what a stand-up guy. That is just ONE of the areas in which he went far beyond standard election campaigning. This false, yet lingering, attack on both of their CHARACTERS, using such a profound issue in this country, was so, so far beyond the pale of decency. Yet, not only did he use it, but he used it time and time again, then extending it to ALL Americans who did not support him. That is not the least bit “moral.”

Nor is it MORAL to demean and belittle women. To treat them as less than, as less worthy, as not on the same level, is not exactly reflective of good character. And to diminish a woman’s accomplishments all the while stealing her work and claiming it for one’s own is not ethical in any way, shape, or form.

Then there is the vast amount of caucus fraud perpetrated by Obama’s minions from Washington State to Texas. Texas alone with its 2,000+ documented complaints of caucus fraud – from intimidation, bullying, and threats, to physically being blocked out of the process. There is absolutely no way that the level of caucus fraud seen this year was a fluke, that it was not organized by the Obama campaign itself (does the term, “Obama Youth Camp” mean anything to you?). The caucus fraud that occurred was the ONLY reason Obama was even close to Hillary Clinton, who won all of the big states besides Obama’s own.

Which leads me to this the whole delegate issue. Even with Obama’s cheating at the caucuses, he and Clinton would have been only four votes apart except for one thing: taking lawfully cast, certified votes from Clinton and giving them to Obama, which he seemed to think was “fair.”

Now, I realize knowing the law does not a lawful, ethical, or moral person make. But honestly, wouldn’t one HOPE that the president-elect had any ONE of those characteristics? Is that really too much to ask? Evidently…

Ahem. And then there is ACORN. Oh, holy cow – where to even START on ACORN? Their voter registration fraud was OFF THE CHARTS this year. It couldn’t POSSIBLY have had anything to do with Obama paying them over $800,000, could it? Or that Obama actually WORKED for ACORN? Suffice it to say, ACORN was a boon to Obama, especially if voter fraud didn’t cross his moral barometer. Clearly, since he did not speak out against them, it did not seem to prick his conscience at all. Not even ACORN being investigated in sixteen states stirred him to say something against his unofficial election arm.

And how about Obama’s lack of oversight on Afghanistan? Ho can anyone claim a moral high ground when he has held NOT ONE MEETING of the Committee that oversees Afghanistan, Europe, and NATO? Do you know that Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the entire world? That families in Afghanistan are selling their CHILDREN, both boys and girls (though the girls are often “sold” as BRIDES to pay off a debt) to be able to survive?? Where has Obama been? How he can he make ANY claims to “moral stature” when he has lifted NOT ONE FINGER for Afghanistan? Not one. In fact, he USED Afghanistan as a campaign issue, which makes his inaction even worse in terms of his own character. He used them, and did absolutely nothing FOR them. Not one damn thing.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Threatening, bullying, cheating, and lying have been the hallmarks of Obama’s campaign this year, and HE is going to be the one to restore our moral stature in the world? Uh, yeah, no. He does not have the moral fortitude himself to pull that off. Not even close. Looks like four more years of Bush after all (like I’ve been sayin’…).

Riffing off of the Newsweek editors’ quesiness over the cult of personality surrounding Barack, let me just add that I too think the worshipful descriptions of Barack as a new kind of Messiah is creepy. Guys feeling a tingle up their leg when he talks, swooning women, and fawning reporters is not a healthy situation in a democracy. I was watching the BBC earlier today with the sound off. They played a clip of the former Korean dictator, Kim Il Sung, walking among his people, who cheered and wept at his very appearance. Now, I’m not saying Barack is a Korean dictator, but the mindless praise is eerily similar.

I am amused by the innocent, naive belief by many “Progressives” that their messiah has come and the new era of progressive politics is upon us. One of my Progressive friends sent me the following analysis from Think Progress claiming it is a myth that America is Center-Right:

My friend, who lives in California, was earnest and sincere in sending this along. I sent back a respons–”You have got to be shitting me?” Why? The first piece of evidence is Proposition 8. California, the so-called land of moderate progressives, passed Proposition 8 last Tuesday banning homosexual marriage. Now if that happens in California, what do you think would happen in Kentucky, Kansas or Iowa? At least on the matter of personal sexual conduct when it comes to homosexuality America is very, very conservative.

Personally, I don’t understand why conservatives want to have government regulating conduct between consenting adults. I guess I am a libertarian conservative. I believe that sexual relations between consenting adults is not the business of any government. Worrying about erecting barriers to prevent homosexual men and women from getting married is a silly distraction in a world where we have real problems before us. I am betting that Barack Obama and his team are not going to get out in front of this issue. They will follow the popular will. Rather than try to use the bully pulpit of the White House to make the case that homosexual adults are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual adults, I am betting team Obama will be silent. I think there is some more disillusion coming for the Gay/Lesbian community on this issue.

Looking for a quick withdrawal from Iraq? I don’t think that is going to happen either. In fact, look for team Obama to start making the case that the situation has changed on the ground and that the Iraqi government wants us as a partner to help rebuild their society and infrastructure. Truth is the actual substance of U.S. policy in Iraq is not likely to change. At the same time look for the boost in U.S. combat forces going to Afghanistan and continued covert cross-border raids into Pakistan.

As I noted in an earlier piece, Rahm Emanuel is no pacifist. To the contrary. He was an uber-hawk on Iraq. We are witnesses to a fascinating split in the American Jewish community. The Jewish community is no different than the Christian community. It really is not a community and represents diametrically opposed points of view. Barack Obama and Emanuel have both been backed financially by very wealthy Chicago jewish families–the Crowns and the Pritzkers. They are not in sync with the more conservative neo-cons embodied by the likes of William Kristol. They are pro-Israel but anti-likud. Prospects of war with Iran are probably reduced with this crowd.

Last year I participated in a war game looking at the future of the Middle East. The assembled experts agreed at the end of the game that the one policy move that could put Iran on the defensive would be an agreement between Syria and Israel over the Golan Heights. Up to now the Bush Administration has opposed such a move. If the Obama team goes in that direction they might get a breakthrough in the Middle East that has seemed so elusive. That would be good news and might help Obama calm the fears of his Palestinian supporters who see him stacking his Administration with prominent Jewish Americans who carry pro-Israel credentials.

What about ignoring FISA (i.e., the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)? Now that this power is in the hands of Democrats will they relinquish it? I don’t think so. I would like to see a full restoration of FISA and a requirement that no serveillance is undertaken without having judicial review. Someone other than the Executive Branch needs to have a say in this matter.

Finally, there will be the economic policy front. Will Barack and company embark on a massive public employment program or seek to invest in the private sector and promote jobs thru some form of capitalism? If it is the former the Progressive will rejoice. But, if it is the later, Progressives will chalk up another example of a politician promising them one thing but delivering the opposite. It does look that Barack and his team recognize America is Center Right and are going to play to the element. For a guy who hung with Tony Rezko and dissed Hillary (bonehead moves in my book) Barack could establish himself as a very smart pol. We’ll see.

But as I reviewed the history of the primary and the current issues facing us, it seemed increasingly like the only ethical, pragmatic and appropriate choice.

Consider the caucus fraud, stripping of Clinton’s votes and denial of a fair and open roll call. The relentless sexism from the media and the silence from Democratic Party. Obama’s refusal to have town halls with her and then McCain. Obama’s waffling on important issues like FISA and campaign finance reform. The obscene amounts of money that Obama’s campaign has spent when people are losing their homes. Over 680 million dollars of which we know. Probably more. His lack of judgment in choosing close associates and friends. Like Jeremiah Wright. Tony Rezko. William Ayers. Khalidi.

It is clear that the Democratic Party as we knew it, the Democratic Party of my parents, no longer exists. Its leadership does not support the most basic principle of one person, one vote. And they do not support women, the majority of its membership.

Clearly, it is time to look somewhere else.

And then the economy tanked and the choice became very clear. I have never voted Republican in my life. As I began to study the issues more closely, I grew to really appreciate what John McCain has to say. He understands that you cannot tax small businesses at a high rate, as Obama is proposing. Small businesses are what drive the economy. We need and must create opportunities for Joe (and Josie!) the Plumber. What can Obama be thinking? And how does he possibly plan to pay for all of the programs he is proposing? More taxes in a struggling economy?

Nobody gets this more than the Cuban community in Miami.

Traveling much of the time in Miami with Dr. Lynette Long, the leading expert on the caucus fraud perpetuated against Hillary Clinton by Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee, we did a lot of canvassing and shaking of hands, otherwise known as retail politics. Almost everyone we met were proudly, even vehemently pro McCain. Even the seniors who didn’t speak English would shake their heads and wag their fingers when we asked them about Obama. They are suspicious of charisma and empty promises. Families who had made the treacherous journey to come to America, often leaving behind everything they knew or had owned compared Obama to Castro. “Fidel said change, too,” one young woman said whose family’s property had been seized and whose father had been imprisoned in Cuba for six years. “I don’t want socialism. I know how bad it can be. Our families want to work hard. We want opportunities, not hand outs. We love John Mccain. We trust him.” America is the land of immigrants and opportunities. In honor of these wonderful Cuban Americans who are the soul of Miami and part of the extended heart of this great country, let’s get out the vote.

Aren’t you glad I mentioned that song? Now you can have it stuck in your head all day long like I have! Ahem. Of course, I am talking about the ever-changing figure from Obama and his spokespeople on where he draws the line on being rich. First it was $250,000 (though the WSJ said it was really more like $164,500, though Obama never acknowledged that), then it was $200,000, then $150,000 (via Biden), and then yesterday Bill Richardson said $120,000 was rich. Huh – I wonder what it will really end up being should he steal the election? (And you know damn well with ACORN and Project Vote, there will be shenanigans going on because THERE ALREADY ARE!)

Here is Obama in 2003 claiming those who earn more than $70,000 are rich. The cap of the middle class just goes lower and lower. You cannot make this up. But Obama does as he goes along:

Now, I realize that to some people, $70,000 sounds like a lot of money. But if you live in a place like Boston, or NYC, or Chicago, or LA (or anywhere in CA, for that matter), it is not a lot of money. It’s all about context. And, in my neck of the woods, ALL of the businesses are small businesses, many family – owned ones. But hey – don’t take my word for it. Here’s a video for you:

Sigh – if only the DNC had not stolen the nomination from Hillary. But I digress…

It is impossible to give 95% of Americans a tax break when 40% of Americans do not pay taxes. There goes that Obama Logic again…

Here’s Joe Biden – i she once again making a gaffe by actually speaking the truth?

But get this – Obama is now claiming that people who do NOT want to be taxed more are selfish. No, I am not kidding:

Okay – it is selfish to not want more than half of your income to go to taxes. Now, let me just say right up front that I am not someone who is anti-tax. I know that we NEED taxes to pave our roads, employ our firefighters and police officers, educate our children, and care for those in need. BUT – I do not think that it one group of people should disproportionately carry another group of people. And it is absurd to even TALK about raising ANYONE’S taxes in the midst of economic difficulties. That is not new thinking – that has been accepted wisdom for decades now. How about actually collecting taxes from people and businesses who owe it? Or close loopholes for the freakin’ OIL companies?? If Exxon was having record breaking profits every single quarter for years, why should they have gotten an breaks? They sure weren’t giving US any! The point is – obviously we need tax revenue, but to burden an already burdened group of people is not the solution. There are other options available, including growing jobs, which also grows tax revenue, if you think about it.

Bottom line is that I know Obama got used to the line moving all of the time when he was running against Clinton. The media made damn sure of that. But he needs to stop moving the line, or having his surrogates do it for him. Even better, let’s make sure we don’t have to DEAL with Obama’s ever-changing tax ideas by not electing him president.

Or by allowing Obama and his minions to take the election through voter fraud. Once again, if you see any kind of fraudulent or suspicious behavior at your poling place, people wearing political buttons into the polling place, or machines flipping votes, or whatever, the McCain/Palin Team has set up a HOTLINE for suspicious voting activity. Here is the number: 866-976-VOTE. Take your cell phone with you, if you have one. Take photos if you can. Again, 866-976-VOTE. Because we don’t want to find out how low he will go with who is in the middle class (in terms of taxes – we already know how low Obama will go with sexism, promises made FISA, and broken, GLBT rights, etc., etc.)…

Car displaying McCain sticker vandalized

Saturday, October 18, 2008

CLEARWATER (Bay News 9) — A Clearwater man’s vehicle that displayed a bumper sticker supporting John McCain has been defaced in what appears to be a hate crime, authorities say.

According to authorities, 41-year-old Frank Armstrong’s 2006 Lexus LS 430 was parked on the 1400 block of Gulf Boulevard when someone or a group of people scratched the letters “KKK” into the paint and burned a U.S. Flag on the vehicle.

Authorities say those involved also used cigarettes to burn several areas of the car and apparently urinated on the car. …

Armstrong’s vehicle displayed a bumper sticker supporting the McCain campaign and another that was anti-Barack Obama leading investigators to believe the crime was racially or politically motivated.

No witnesses or surveillance video have been found.

Does everyone remember the outrage by Obama supporters, when Obama pulled a massive flip flop and voted for the FISA bill?

Well, he missed the first vote:

“Obama (conveniently?) missed the February vote on that FISA bill as he campaigned in the “Potomac Primaries,” but issued a statement that day declaring “I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty.”

And then he promised to filibuster, but he didn’t:

“He broke faith,” said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and blogger at OpenLeft.com. “Obama pledged to filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn’t. It will spur us to challenge him.”

Many Obama supporters, those who weren’t pissed at him, suddenly jumped on the FISA bandwagon:
“What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good. … it’s our duty to refrain from voicing any criticism of him, because the Only Thing That Matters is that Barack Obama be put in the Oval Office, and we must do anything and everything — including remain silent when he embraces a full-scale assault on the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law — because every goal is now subordinate to electing Barack Obama our new Leader.

snip

The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.

snip

Sen. Russ Feingold condemned the bill on the ground that it “fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home…”

snip

Obama’s statement warns us that we face what he calls “grave threats,” and that therefore, we must accept that our Leader needs more unlimited power, and the best we can do is trust that he will use it for our Good.”

Commenter Hume’s Ghost wrote:

What really rubbed me the wrong way was how Obama in his statement says essentially trust me with these powers, I’ll use them responsibly. Nope.

So, what does this have to do with Joe the plumber and FISA?

Amendment IV
(Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
     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.

Digging dirt on Joe is a bad idea, Lee Cary:

This afternoon ABC’s Charlie Gibson reported on his hourly radio news report the results of his network diggin’ dirt on Joe the Plumber. Gibson reported that Joe has a “lien” for failing to “pay his property tax.” The lead-in, stated by a co-reporter, was “Oh, by the way, Joe…”

This is just a taste of the “Thugocracy” that Michael Barone wrote about. Criticize Obama and the old big media will work hard to ruin you. This is extremely dangerous for this democracy.

Operation Destroy Joe the Plumber- Michelle Malkin:

My syndicated column today reports on Team Obama and the Obamedia’s mission to tear down Joe the Plumber. Yes, we are in the midst of a new contagion: Joe The Plumber Derangement Syndrome. JTPDS.

Now, pay close attention to how the MSM rushes to uncover every last bit of gossip and dirt about Joe Wurzelbacher’s life. Some of it is relevant to the public policy questions he posed to Obama. Much of it is not. More here.

L.A. Times: Joe the Plumber Has Liens!!!!

The Los Angeles Times reports:

So, you know. Critical in that sense.

Democratic Underground launches a full on assault, exposing all of his personal information, rummaging through his divorce papers, and financial records, and more.

Now, I am sure you are wondering how I can blame Obama and Biden for the actions of their supporters? Well, for starters, the same way the Obama camp can blame McCain and Palin for their supporters yelling out *kill him* wrt Obama, at their rallies, even when it never even happened.

And also because Biden and Obama have gone on TV and repeatedly mocked, and insulted, and misconstrued what Joe said.

Joe: “I’m looking at buying a business” So, he doesn’t own a business now, he doesn’t make $250K now, and he won’t make $250K if he buys it, his business will earn $250K.

And here, Obama MOCKS the plumber, and then he MOCKS that McCain is *fighting for the plumber*. And then he scoffs that a plumber doesn’t make $250K a year. So, is Obama mocking the fact that McCain is fighting for the small business owner, who make less then $250K a year? Or is he mocking plumbers, in general, and that it is impossible that a plumber can make $250K a year, because they didn’t go to Harvard? I am confused on what point Obama is making…

So, back to my point. Obama has *enflamed the hatred* on Joe the Plumber. He has mocked him, humiliated him, and not spoken out to stop the insanity that has been launched by his supporters on Joe the Plumber.

Which, now thinking about how Obama voted to support FISA, a bill that “fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home…” it doesn’t surprise me.

Obama has allowed, and enflamed a full on violation and assault onto a private citizen, who just happened to be in his own home, when Obama ascended on his neighborhood. Joe the Plumber dared to ask a question of *The One*.

Barack Obama Mocks Joe The Plumber and Joe Loses His Job!

And Obama has failed to protect, or speak out for, the privacy of a law abiding American at home, by mocking him, and not speaking out.

Watch out… you know what’s next.

Amendment I
(Privacy of Beliefs)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.